Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

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

topic index
Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

Michael Jackson[edit]

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

This was already discussed, even more than once, I think. Please check archives. — Yerpo Eh? 09:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think he is safely more notable than Louis Armstrong. 201.27.100.86 15:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
He’s listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles. I think they had some really good arguments for his inclusion. As he’s known all over the world, he certainly merits a place here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎93.160.84.113 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the addition, and I propose swapping out Elvis Presley (like it was done in the English language Wikipedia's vital articles, even when Elvis is more US/Europe-focused). Michael Jackson was far more innovator/creator and global than Elvis.--Awvazquez (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Support I think it's time for Michael Jackson to be added to this list. I also support the Elvis Presley-Michael Jackson swap. --Salvabl (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mark this page for translation.[edit]

Many Wikipedia already have a translated version of this list, why don't we just take advantage of the translation builtin to meta, instead of relying on volunteers to manually update each wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viztor (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Even better, translated items can be taken from Wikidata. Commons has a sophisticated system of Wikidata-derived multilingual content, e.g. in c:Module:Creator. Something similar would be nice. whym (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Going to make some changes[edit]

Explanation: The goal of this list is to ensure small Wikipedias have a good mix of important content to start off with. Bolded items should best reflect the category of article they are in and not primarily be known for other reasons. It also should not be too West-centric.

Unless someone pings me with an objection in the next few days, I am going to make the following changes to this list:

Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Edited: 06:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose About the changes, Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the most important president in the history of US. Shaka is an important king in Africa but it is not more important than others African kings of the period (Usman dan Fodio, Omar Saidou Tall...). Regarding Ayn Rand, she's an infuential essayist in the US but her theory (laissez-faire, importance of individual rights...) was better described by others philosophers or economists. And Sartre developped original theories (existentialism...) was a key figure of the philosophy of the 20th century. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
About bolding/unbolding changes, I think some propositions are very strange. For exemple, Guereva is an important figure but it's hard to considere him more important than Lenin. And it's the same with Money/Currency, Toy/Chess, Hinduism/Spanish, Christopher Columbus/Akira Kurosawa... Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I oppose the unargumented additions and removals. — Yerpo Eh? 10:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Disagree on most of the bolds/unbolds. Strongly disagree on the removal of Roosevelt/Sartre. Shaka would be a good add, and despite the suggestion that Fodio and Tall are equal in prominence (they're not, he's clearly the most prominent pre-modern age African leader, with only Musa I of Mali coming close). Either way we should have atleast one of the pre-modern age African leaders listed, he is arguably more important than Guevara who doesn't stack up to Fidel Castro and i'd even list Toussaint Louverture over both Guevera or Castro as his impact had more of a revolutionary impact on the world than small island Cuba. Guevara and Castro have to compete with Ho Chi Minh too in 20th century revolutionary prominence, so Guevara would be the weakest entry point for a pre-modern age African figure like Shaka. But we don't list African cultural figures like Fela Kuti or Chinua Achebe, and we don't cover ANY ancient pharaoh like Ramesses II, which would be a better add than Shaka anyway, but both would fit. (yes i know, Naguib Mahfouz is listed but considering we list Abu Nuwas, i'd prefer a swap of Mahfouz with Achebe).
Now Ayn Rand would only be vital as a writer, her philosophical achievements would be below many other social scientists. But we don't have ANY women writers, which is a BIG miss, Sappho, Murasaki Shikibu, Jane Austen, Mary Wollstonecraft, Agatha Christie, Virginia Woolf, Selma Lagerlöf, Emily Dickinson, George Eliot or Mary Shelley would all come before Rand and atleast one should be listed.
Here are my other suggestions that could be good additions in my opinion, to add to the spirit of this thread
1. Marlene Dietrich could be swapped for Anna Pavlova, since we already list two other actresses and Pavlova covers a more underrepresented field (dance) and Ballet has a longer European art history than German film (two American actresses would be too much, so i assume she's listed for her German work). Maria Callas would be the other choice for a older European artform like artistic singing/opera to be covered among popular singers, while increasing women. Or even adding Coco Chanel, for another undercovered area.
2. Wright brothers, Cai Lun, Nicéphore Niépce, Alexander Graham Bell, Auguste and Louis Lumière, Alessandro Volta all could have a place and also Hippocrates or Andreas Vesalius, since medicine is a vital field and we could do with another other than Pasteur. Fibonacci, Ptolemy and Francis Bacon would be good too.
3. Japan's a vital enough country to list a political leader like Hirohito (especially if we have De Gaulle) , Emperor Meiji or Oda Nobunaga
4. William the Conqueror should be listed
5. Henrik Ibsen/Brothers Grimm could be another add - Ibsen is more important than Hans Christian Andersen
6. one of the Beatles/Louis Armstrong/Elvis/Édith Piaf should be bold instead of Stravinsky, so atleast one non classical composer is bolded. One person from directors/screenwriters/actors should be bolded too, probably Chaplin or Kurosawa or Hitchcock.
7. Bruce Lee and Pelé represent culture figures that are non European/American and would be a good counter. Someone like Bruce Lee holds as much weight in Asia itself as Marilyn Monroe does America. Pele is alive and i get that we probably shouldn't list alive people, but he'd be our one South American culture figure and arguably soccer has just as much of a impact around the world as major form of arts like American film, of which we list 7 representatives.
8. Peter Paul Rubens should be swapped for Claude Monet, who had much more of a impact on modern art than Rubens, if we had to list a Flemish artist i'd prefer Jan van Eyck over Rubens for time period diversity.
9. I don't see why we should have Al-Ghazali over Ali and i don't see why we need too Buddhists and i would remove Nagarjuna for Maimonides.
10. Amelia Earhart could be a good add to add women to explorers and to cover aviators. Florence Nightingale would be a another good add. Emmeline Pankhurst wouldn't be out of place with MLK listed.
Anyway just thought i'd offer my thoughts as a outside observer, i disagree with most of these proposed edits and offered up some of my own people who could be decent picks on the list, thanks. GuzzyG (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The number of biographies (204) is too high. In my opinion for example Matisse, Rubens, Velázquez, Warhol, Dvořák, Cartier, Dietrich, Spielberg, Berners-Lee, Joule, Chomsky, Che and Hegel can be removed. I can support adding Ramses, Sappho, Murasaki Shikibu (Genji is currently listed), Jane Austen, Hippocrates, Louis Pasteur or Claude Monet. I don't think that the list needs any dancer, opera singer or aviator. --Thi (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Thi: I would support al these remivals which yku suggested. But as for additions, for now I can support just Pastoue as number of biograpbies should be much lower. 12:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reasoning behind removing Roosevelt. @Nicolas Eynaud and GuzzyG: Of the 39 political leaders, 4 are United States Presidents and 5 are WW2-era World Leaders. FDR sits at the intersection of both groups, and I'm sorry but the point of this list is not to find the most impactful leaders but to provide a variety of coverage. Replacing him with Shaka only makes logical sense as he is one of the most famous African leaders in history (Nelson Mandela is pretty lonely).
    Removal of Jean-Paul Sartre. To be honest, I don't care how it happens, but have way to many French philosophers on that list, and somehow do not have a single woman. If I suggested we axe Voltaire, people would've rioted. If I suggested we axe Descartes, the people would have rioted. If I suggested Rousseau or Beauvoir... same thing. The French don't have a monopoly on philosophy, and I picked the most well known woman philosopher I could think of.
    Boldings. Besides maybe Guevara, no one has articulated any actual reasoning behind disagreeing with my proposed boldings. I clearly state at the beginning that the list should reflect a diversity of content which adequately reflects the archetypes of each list not what is or is not the most "important" of the list. That's why I would prefer we have Che Guevara over Fidel Castro; we already have too many dictators on the list and not enough revolutionaries.
    I hope what I am saying makes more sense in context. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
No offense, MJL, but your reasoning on replacing Sartre makes no sense at all. Only four out of 26 listed "philosophers and social scientists" are French, one of them even a woman - and if I understand your commment right, you'd be ok with removing her to make place for Rand. — Yerpo Eh? 08:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yerpo: You are right. I did not notice there was a woman French philosopher in the list. I'm striking my previous suggestions on the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove Ovid & Matsuo Bashō[edit]

As title, since the English Wikipedia equivalent list also does not include them, and the meta one still lacks gene, heredity, RNA and Zoology, which are all included in the English Wikipedia one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

But we've got DNA, so I don't think we also need gene, heredity, or RNA. I'd certainly keep Bashō, and also Ovid but since I am a classicist by profession I'm probably a bit biased in his favor. I vote for no change here. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There should be a very good reason to make replacements between different categories because the list tries to keep certain balance between the different fields. On the other hand I would prefer to have in the list genetics (Q7162) instead of e.g. breast (Q9103). --Nk (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I also support swapping breast (Q9103) with genetics (Q7162) as genetics is universal across all living things and cover gene, heredity, and RNA, while breast is just one part of primates. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Replace Sorghum with Sorghum bicolor[edit]

The list contains Sorghum as a topic under the Agriculture and food heading, but in most WPs (including English) this points to the plant genus, whereas the edible cereal corresponds to a single species of that genus and usually has its own article (Sorghum bicolor in English). I propose to replace Sorghum with Sorghum bicolor on the list, as its importance among the 'should have' articles is obviously derived from the social and economic value of the cereal, not from scientific interest in the plant genus. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

How come this change was carried out unilaterally, barely 24 hours after making the initial proposal, and without waiting for a single other Wikimedia user to give their opinion?--Leptictidium (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It should be reverted until there's been discussion. I do think the change is correct but we need consensus first. I'll undo until that consensus emerges. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks and sorry about not respecting procedure. I agree that it makes more sense to give people time to express an opinion (also, thanks to A. for signalling support). --Oscar Zariski (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This change seems easy and reasonable. I support it as well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
So do I.--Leptictidium (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The change seems reasonable to me. — Yerpo Eh? 05:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. After 1 month, 4 opinions in favour and none against I am going to re-introduce the change. --Oscar Zariski (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Edith Piaf, Add Protestantism[edit]

Edith Piaf isn't too vital to be listed on this list. A much better addition would be Protestantism since it is the second largest denomination of Christianity and think that every Wikipedia should have an article on that subject. Interstellarity (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose

Strong Oppose This would leave the list with no women under music - despite them being the pre dominant popular musicians today. It absolutely makes this list worse. GuzzyG (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Why did you oppose adding Piaf in the vital articles list, but you are opposing removing her from this list? It doesn't make sense. Interstellarity (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: It makes sense when you consider the fact we have 77 more people than that list and with 77 more people a woman being listed in music makes sense. If we add Protestantism and have three Christianity articles to a worldwide list we would have to add Sunni Islam as well to be fair. New religious movements would also be a better add. We have no women in writers and only Frida Kahlo under artists. Having no women would be a further mistake. For a list that's supposed to be representative of the world, it's missing alot already. I'm not ready to contribute to that any further. Having no women in writers or music and only one in visual arts is really bad. GuzzyG (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: I didn't receive the ping because you forgot to update your signature. On the English Wikipedia's vital articles list, isn't it important that we cover women as well as this list? I understand this list is for all languages while the vital articles is for English Wikipedia. What's different about what articles both lists include? Interstellarity (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Obviously it's important to cover women on the English list - i've just been on the list for years and know none would likely pass as people arent radical there and tend to not consider anything out of the norm, someone like Cai Lun was rejected - for example. The difference is if we're recommending (or forcing) different wikipedias to create articles based off this list - we should make sure we include articles from every main area (African culture, Asian culture, European culture) The English list people skate by on a technicality - for example Wagner being seen as more important to cover on a English encyclopedia rather than Saladin due to being more important to "western civilization". (despite the crusades being inevitably more important than opera). Here we don't focus (we do but should not) on western civilization, we should try and cover every civilization. Or in simpler terms noone on the English list will swap Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Wagner for Piaf, Fela Kuti, Teresa Teng or Umm Kulthum - but when we list Dvořák and Dietrich we have room to swap them on this one, do you see how it's obvious a Malay or Yoruba wiki should cover African music, Asian music, European music and Women in music, all kinds of music - not just two? (Euro classical and American popular). That's the difference. GuzzyG (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Here's how you build a more representative "world" culture on a world list; Bold Chaplin/The Beatles - film and popular music should have a bold as they are big worldwide

  1. Swap HC Anderson for Chinua Achebe (Brothers Grimm are more important to fairy tales)
  2. Swap Chekov for Murasaki Shikibu
  3. Swap Ovid for Sappho
  4. Swap Marlene Dietrich for Jane Austen (Marilyn/Sarah Bernhardt are enough)
  5. Swap Dvořák for Bob Marley
  6. Swap Tchaikovsky for Ravi Shankar
  7. Swap Mahler for Umm Kulthum
  8. Swap Rubens for Wang Xizhi (Greatest calligrapher - of which Calligraphy is a major art in Eastern culture)
  9. Swap Spielberg (still alive) for Anna Pavlova

That would inherently make this list a world list, covering most forms of culture big outside of the west, with more of a balance towards women aswell. As it stands this list is kinda perpetuating bias by having European men centered in the biographies section on a world list. For example - by this list we would create a article on Rubens in Malay - but it would be better to cover Wang Xizhi, considering massive Chinese influence in Malay culture (and this goes for many other countries with Chinese culture - thus since Chinese culture is so widespread - it should be essential to cover a Chinese artist - meanwhile we cover European art with many other artists). This ofcourse would never pass but this is how this list is made better, not by removing our only women - in which we are already under-covered and thus already have perpetuated a bias to the world's coverage of art, encouraging European art over any others and men over women. GuzzyG (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Based on the discussions below, we managed to swap Spielberg with Jane Austen. Can you create a new list of people that should be swapped? Do you think we should have more biographies on the English list? I think in the past, it had more biographies, but many of them got removed. I would also like to see a list of items on the list such as countries that should be swapped. Do you think the number of countries on the list is too high? If so, which countries would you remove and what would you swap them with? Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Hebrew, Add Meditation[edit]

Hebrew isn't influential like other languages are. Meditation is influential in many cultures. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose

Oppose Hebrew being the only dead language revived on a mass scale makes it a vital language to cover and does make it stand out. GuzzyG (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I think Hebrew was influential more than other languages.--Toku (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: Remove HC Andersen, Add Sunni Islam[edit]

Sunni Islam should be added if swapped with something else. Interstellarity (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  • If anything, it should be swapped with Shia Islam. — Yerpo Eh? 08:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Yerpo, Shia Islam could be swapped with Sunni Islam.--Toku (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

@Yerpo and Toku: I opened up a discussion below to swap Shia Islam with Sunni Islam. Interstellarity (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Spielberg, Add Jane Austen[edit]

We try to avoid people that are still living. Jane Austen is a better add. Interstellarity (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  • Jane Austen is fundamentally more important to western culture than Spielberg and we have no women under writers. The fact that this is up to question shows massive bias in this list. Not convinced that Spielberg has a bigger legacy in the English language than Jane Austen, would like Toku to clarify his argument. GuzzyG (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Austen is important; whether Spielberg will turn out to be is still quite an open question. A. Mahoney (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As a matter of principle, biographies of living persons pose a number of challenges that render them unfit for this list, including the general problem of near-sightedness (which also applies to topics other than people: it is hard to say if anything happening now is among the 1000 most important topics to read about in an encyclopedia) as well as more specific restrictions applicable to what can be published about living people. Also: I had no idea that we had no women yet.--Oscar Zariski (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Jane Austen is an important female writer--Wolfch (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  • "We try to avoid people that are still living": not convinced by this argument. --Toku (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Discuss

{{help me}} Given the amount of support for this swap and the ones below that, can someone perform the swap for this one and the ones below which include Sunni Islam and Umm Kulthum? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done -- there seems to be good consensus. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Shia Islam, Add Sunni Islam[edit]

Sunni Islam is by far the more popular of the two denominations of Islam. Interstellarity (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  • Support, as the proposer. — Yerpo Eh? 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • --Toku (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support addition Dawid2009 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose

Oppose removal @Interstellarity: There are few articles which have too much overlap with Cathicism like architectural byildings or Vatican. Maybe try swap for St Peter Basilica (which isess famous than Cathedre Nottre Dame on tge list). All subbranches of major religio s are more than enough significant for this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Piaf, Add Umm Kulthum[edit]

I think this is a better addition than Piaf since we don't have many Arab composers on here. Interstellarity (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support
  • I agree; composers are in general probably more important than performers, too. A. Mahoney (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

Due to its huge worldwide impact, I suggest adding COVID-19 pandemic and removing smallpox as this disease is eradicated from 1980. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Smallpox was a very important disease from Antiquity to current era and there were more deadly epidemics than covid-19 in 1918-1920, in 1957-1958 or in 1968-1970. Smallpox is also regularly mentionned in biological warfare. Then, I think it's not a good idea to include a very recent disease. --Toku (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose COVID-19's impact is because we're living through it now; it's very likely that in a decade it will be way less important. For comparison, the 1918 pandemic isn't listed here, even though that pandemic infected 500 million people worldwide and killed potentially 100 million of them (at a time when the global population was "only" 1.8 billion people); COVID-19 is likely to infect and kill far fewer people before it's contained. Even the Black Death, which killed between a third and a half of Europe, isn't listed here. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in medicine and diseases, but the importance of a disease is given not only by the number of casualties, but other aspects. I think it's an important subject for many reasons, it is the first pandemic disease broadcasted in live to the whole world, the negative impact on economy, work and trade is still unknown, it is profoundly changing the way of working and teaching, etc. Maybe smallpox deserves not to be removed, but there are another diseases in the list that could be. What about headache? --Xosé Antonio (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - I would rather add Black Death first before adding this one since that was the deadliest pandemic in history. We don't know how history will remember this pandemic. Come back in 25 years and I might change my mind. I might support adding Black Death though. Interstellarity (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per Interstellarity --62.42.68.49 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Additions and removals[edit]

This page doesn't seem to have a formal procedure on additions and removals. On enwiki's vital articles list, they have a formal procedure. For example, how do we know if we have consensus to add or remove something? Should we have a consensus on what to bold and what not to bold? Some things to think out. There could be a slower response to this one since this isn't as actively watched as enwiki's vital articles. Interstellarity (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Some proposals[edit]

I'm going to propose the swaps that GuzzyG suggested in an earlier post. I think all of these swaps are worth considering. Interstellarity (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: I think number of biograpbies is already far too high on this list. Personally I would support removall of all biographies which Thi and GuzzyG have suggested except Hans Christian Andersen. The only biography which I would support very fastly add (for now, and among proposal which they gave) is Louis Pasteur due to obvious reason. I would keep H C Abdersen. In my view Fairy Tale should have one representative based disussion where someone nominated Fairy Tale for removal on English Wikipedia. H C Andersen is by far more vital than Grimm Brothers as he is the most translated author from 19th century (yes, he is THE one), the most popular European writer in China (yes, probably more than Shakespeare. While readers rather not search about Fairy Tales on the Wikipedia then there so many reliable sources for that fact on the Internet. There are even sources H C Andersen is the most popular forgein writer there) and represent Scandinavia area better than Grimm Brothers Germany. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: I have changed a few proposals so that most of the biographies are removed. Let me know what you think of them. I would like to ask you your thoughts on removing some of the countries on the list. Do you think any need to bhe removed? If so, which ones? Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Interstellarity:. I agree number of countries is bit too high on this list too. Among 1000 divewrse space this is not very neccesary to list so many countries. 40-45 seems be about right. Firs three countries which I would remove would be Vatican City, Singapore and New Zealand but this is just me. I would prefer this topic be discussed among more people to not do it subjectively. I also keep votes in changes nominations by You. I am ambivalent about adult/adolescence so I did not put vote them. Later or earlier personally I would remove all those biographies but I did not put vote at Tschaikovsky as there are also still other biographies which I would remove before Tschaikovsky but it jst me. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap St. Peter's Basilica for Shia Islam[edit]

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose Shia Islam is important,but St. Peter's Basilica is also important.--Opqr (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose I don't think we should have in the list the subdivision of important religions except for the two biggest ones : catholicism and Sunni Islam. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Chekov for Louis Pasteur Hygiene[edit]

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose Louis Pasteur on the list.--Opqr (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose 200 is a good biography number, i didn't mean to swap weak biographies with non-biographies, just a more diverse base of biogaphies. Chekov is a important writer. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Chekov is an important writer. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

@Dawid2009 and Opqr: I changed my proposal for something different. Interstellarity (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Swap Ovid for Protestantism[edit]

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose This goes to indepth on Christianity to the detriment of other religions. I'd take New Religious movements over this. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Ovid is an important classical writer. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Marlene Dietrich for Eastern Orthodox Church[edit]

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Support--Opqr (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose This goes to indepth on Christianity to the detriment of other religions. I'd take New Religious movements over this. We have so little women on this list as it is? She's a easy target, but with so many men why go for the little amount of women. are we going to list every Christian sect when this is a world list and the world is not fully Christian? What makes "Eastern Orthodox Church" more important to write a article in Amharic for than Chinese Buddhism? One of the many reasons listing regional religions that are offshoots off a major one is bad for this "world" list. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per GuzzyG + after the suppression of Spielberg, I don't it's a good idea to reduce again the number of articles regarding cinema in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Dvořák for Adult[edit]

Support
'Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose Adult is a bland article. Like Box, not my definition of "vital". GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per GuzzyG. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Tchaikovsky for Adolescence[edit]

Support
Oppose
Oppose Oppose Tchaikovsky is important. Adolescence is not so important.--Opqr (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per Opqr. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per Opqr too. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Mahler for Information Age[edit]

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose "Information age" would be too close to "Information technology" which is included in the list. whym (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per Whym. GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose To me, "Information age" is very close to "Information technology" but the notion is not so clear. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Rubens for Bow and arrow[edit]

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose Bow and arrow is a bland article, more what used to be a everyday object. Armour would atleast be different GuzzyG (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose To me, "Bow and arrow" is a very generic article, Rubens is an important painter ans this change will reduce the part of arts in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Swap Tim Berners-Lee for Mental health[edit]

We should probably remove a lot of bios from the list. This article might be a good alternative. Interstellarity (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
Dawid2009 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose He invented the World Wide Web, one of the most vital inventions ever; which has completely changed the modern world. I would strongly dispute we should lower the list of biographies. It would be vital for every modern encyclopedia to list the inventor of the web. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per GuzzyG. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss

Remove State (polity), Add Country[edit]

The defintion of en:state (polity) is ambiguious. It can be a state (Ex. Texas) of Federated state. it can also be a country (Ex. Slovakia). I suggest to use a less-ambiguious article en:country.--Wolfch (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
Wolfch (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Oppose "State" is an important politic, economical and philosophical concept. I think it's necessary to keep it in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud too.--Opqr (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
How about the ambiguity issue of en:state (polity)?
The en:country is also a political entity. There is "Countries" section tilee in the List of articles every Wikipedia should have#Geography. However, the "country" itself is not in the list --Wolfch (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nicolas Eynaud:, do you mean en:state (polity) is an important politic, economical and philosophical concept about en:country?--Wolfch (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Industry industry (Q8148)[edit]

Industry in this list is connected to Q8148, which in enwiki is only a redirect to manufacturing (Q187939). Eniki manufacturing again is connected eg not to dewiki Industrie industry (Q8148) , but to Verarbeitendes Gewerbe (Q187939). This redirect business between references on this list is not helpful. Kipala (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

This talk page is long (150+ kB) and it seems like a time-based automatic archiving system would help. User:ArchiverBot is a bot to automate that. Most of the talk page sections here are about the current state of the list that keeps changing, so it doesn't make much sense to keep sections from years ago 'alive' here. I would suggest something similar to the setup of Talk:Global AbuseFilter, with an inactivity threshold of 90 days. If that is too fast, the threshold can be longer, 180 days or 365 days. Any thoughts? whym (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I set up auto archiving for 6 months to clear out this talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap Presley for Michael Jackson[edit]

Jackson really represents pop music. He was recently swapped with Presley on vital articles. I think this would be a good swap for this list. Interstellarity (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

Support Support As I stated in the first section, I support swapping Elvis Presley for Michael Jackson. --Awvazquez (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Support Michael Jackson is regarded as the most important Pop music icon in History, probably the most famous black man of all times, and one of the greatest creators with huge influence in the development of music videos and a legacy in Dance that is globally known. I think The Beatles are the best rock representatives from 60’s-70’s time period, and Elvis Presley doesn't add anything additional, since he was not a great songwriter, not a great creator (which is, after all, a key characteristic of artists). There are others music artists (like Freddie Mercury or Chuck Berry) better suited to be considered creators and Rock music icons. In addition, Michael Jackson has a greater influence than Elvis on other artists and the music panorama. --Salvabl (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Support Jackson’s English Wikipedia page is the most visited musician page of all time. That speaks volumes. Jackson reach was far more reaching than that of Elvis who mostly appealed to English speaking countries. Jackson is known around the globe and has a massive following from North and South America, to Asia, Europe, many African countries and villages, to even Russia. What separates the two is this global reach. I’ve met over a dozen people who, like me, has learned to speak English because of Michael Jackson’s music. No one has ever said that about Elvis.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Oppose I hope we can all recognize that what happens on a list with 126 people is different on a list with 200. This list can have both (swapped with a weak composer like Dvorak). This would not be a good swap. On a (global) list with 21 musicians, we shouldn't have 17 western classical and just 4 pop musicians (the Beatles, Elvis, Kulthum and Louis Armstrong). We should fix bias, not reinforce it. There was no need for Piafs removal here too. We could've had two women listed, which obviously would've been better - but now that opportunity is gone. Bob Marley, Michael Jackson, Fela Kuti, Teresa Teng and Ravi Shankar are all good nominations for A GLOBAL project since they represent music from around the globe. If you just blindly put up these noms in a hurry, please be strategic atleast to actually cover the globe on a global list. GuzzyG (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@TruthGuardians : are you sure you're against the swap ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Neutral
Discuss
Emblem-question-yellow.svg
I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also look at Help:Contents.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{tl|helpme}}

Could an uninvolved editor perform this swap since there is consensus to add it? Interstellarity (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Interstellarity : done. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Vatican City, Add New religious movements[edit]

I think we should cover New religious movements on this list. Interstellarity (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose

Oppose Oppose OK with removing Vatican City but not with this article. Indeed, the concept of "New religions" looks unclear and, to me, is not so important in the modern society. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral
Discuss

Remove Chomsky, Noam, Add Heidegger, Martin[edit]

The most important and influential philosopher in the continental tradition in the 20th century should be in this list. Ratte (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Neutral
Discuss
Emblem-question-yellow.svg
I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also look at Help:Contents.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{tl|helpme}}

Also add this one since there are no objections. Interstellarity (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating a better list[edit]

I would like to get some input from users regarding which articles should be removed and added to the list. It seems like my nominations on this page gained opposition. I would like to know which articles would be the best candidates for removal and which ones would be a good for addition. I've created a list where you can come up with articles that could and could not be fit for the list. I think the sections that need the most work are the people section and the countries section. We can create a list that every culture is represented. I would also like everyone to sign next to your suggestion so I know who made the suggestion. These are not formal nominations, just suggestions. Once we get a good list of suggestions, we can decide which ones will be added and which ones will be removed. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible removals[edit]

Possible additions[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I support the addition of Michael Jackson and Teresa Teng, as well as the removal of Antonín Dvořák. --Awvazquez (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
OK with the removal of Vatican City, Singapore and New Zealand and OK with the addition of Marley. Others propositions seem to be very famous people during their life but their influence on the following years doesn't look so important or is still hard to establish as they died "recently".--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Singapore is not an important country, but a very important city.By the way, Hong Kong is on the list.--Opqr (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I would only support swapping the same topic like a singer for a singer, a geographic area for a geographic area, etc. Not only is it easier to compare importance but the list doesn't becomes just biographies. --MarsRover 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the addition of Michael Jackson to the list. I would also add Ernest Hemingway. --Salvabl (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we should only be swapping like for like. I also disagree with Cartier being removed. Very notable figure at least in my part of the world. Heck there is even a vignette about him that comes on TV all the time here. -Djsasso (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Removing Louis XIV and Marxism don't look like a good idea to me.--Toku (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Toku: Considering that we list Communism, which is a broader topic than Marxism, it seems redundant to have it listed. I would support a swap removing Marxism and adding Genocide. Interstellarity (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Emblem-question-yellow.svg
I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also look at Help:Contents.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please replace this template with {{tl|helpme}}
How can I get more people to comment on this thread since this page is not watched as much? Interstellarity (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have&oldid=21311206"