Jump to content

Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2010

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Archives of this page


Among the scientists, I wonder if a Chinese or ancient Indian scientist should be included? Some ideas...

en:Shen Kuo seems to be the most impressive Song-era Chinese scientist.
en:Brahmagupta was an Indian astronomer-mathematician.
en:Aryabhata was another Indian astronomer-mathematician.
en:Panini was a grammarian and linguist, but seems to be the greatest one from ancient times. His name comes up again and again in histories of India and Indian philosophy. He standardized Sanskrit and philosophized via language. Perhaps he should be put on one of these lists. He could replace en:Chanakya for example among the thinkers.

I'd pick Brahmagupta, already present in 27 Wikipedias, as a replacement for Fibonacci, who was merely a transmitter of ideas from the East. Fibonacci himself refers to the "method of the Indians" - so why place him over those he imitated? Or Aryabhata would work on the scientists list as well. Both influenced deeply later Arabic and European math and science. Panini could replace Chanakya among the social scientists. What do you think? Aghniyya 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot claim to be an exert on this topic but your argument to replace Fibonnacci with Brahmagupta seems strong. Here's the discussion about including Chanakya for reference. I thought we was a pioneer for accounting. I sort of hard to compare the impact of scientists in different fields. --MarsRover 08:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the Early Modern / Middle Ages section

Some suggestions... First of all, I do think that the en:Mali Empire should be here, as one of the few acknowledgments of Africa on this list. This medieval/early modern list is heavily European, although Europe was not yet dominant in the world, particularly not in the middle ages when it was a decidedly weak region. A full 11 of the 16 articles are about Europe! In addition, the en:Mughal Empire of India certainly belongs on the list as one of the major early modern empires (and the sole representative of India on the list). Yes, Akbar is already listed as a major leader, but so are plenty of leaders whose states or events appear elsewhere.

I think we should consider adding en:Mamluk. This was a very important Muslim sultanate and military phenomenon generally (see article). The phenomenon as a whole is certainly more important than en:Saladin, although the latter's fame means that I still might not want to remove him. Saladin and Mamluk are both medieval-era aspects of the Arab world...

With regard to Africa, perhaps en:Voodou could be added as well. I'd have to consider what to remove though.

That's all for now. Aghniyya 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

en:Voodoo was in the list a while back but it was removed. It was a disamb page for en:Haitian Vodou, en:Louisiana Voodoo and en:West African Vodun. None of the three localized religions seems important enough to keep by itself since all the other included religions have an International presence. --MarsRover 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that Voodou is problematic, but I would add that most languages have a single article for all forms of Voodou. Anyway, my two cents. 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

en:Benito Mussolini

It seems illogical that there is fascism in the list but not its founder. I propose to include Benito Mussolini into the list.--Kolchak1923 01:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This list focuses on ideas and concepts rather than individual persons. If you think Mussolini is important enough anyway, please propose a less important subject to be removed (the list is full). Yerpo 07:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please list here:
  1. Luxemburg, Rosa
  2. Nkrumah, Kwame
  3. Spielberg, Steven. Clearly less significant personality! He is the creator of the concept of fascism. --Kolchak1923 12:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Mussolini is undoubtedly one of the most important figures in the history of modern times. I fully support this idea.--GlaDooo 12:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I would agree once fascism be really a great and leading concept at least somewhere. Now we have fascism itself in the list (even not in bold) and we also have Hitler. That's clearly enough. Mashiah Davidson 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hitler - this National Socialism, not fascism... --Kolchak1923 05:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kolchak1923. Hitler indirectly related to fascism.--GlaDooo 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Suggest that we remove Rosa Luxemburg and add Benito Mussolini.--RekishiEJ 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion! --Kolchak1923 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it illogical to exclude the founder of an included topic. Any given topic you can say we need the founder or discoverer, too. I don't believe there are any fascist states left in the world. So IMHO, including it founder is too much about that topic. As for replacing Rosa Luxemburg, a quick Google notibility test shows she has 1.4Million hits vs. Il Duce's 1.2Million hits. --MarsRover 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Kwame Nkrumah 0.6Million hits. --Kolchak1923 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Nkrumah was a very important African leader, but African topics don't get much attention in the West, so there are naturally fewer web hits about him. I don't think we should increase western bias even further by removing an African and introducing another European. Yerpo 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And I think it is not so important ... Musssolini important little-known African leaders!--Kolchak1923 13:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree to put Mussolini on the list, he is more knowed than Luxemburg Rosa, Nkrumah Kwame or Spielberg Steven. --Santista1982 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a dubious claim just looking at the previous discussion. If anything he is only more well known than "Nkrumah Kwame" in the western world. IMO, we should select a western politican to replace in order to keep the list balanced and none of the three people meet that criteria. --MarsRover 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Duce - the most important person in the history of the 20th century. Without it there would be fascism, Hitler, national socialism, and, perhars, Second World War. It should be included in the list! --Kolchak1923 21:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kolchak1923. Mussolini is not only widely known in the western world, but he also has high significance for the whole world.--GlaDooo 09:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

en:Richard I of England

There we have Saladin, but don't have his main opponent. Fauust 12:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Need more of an argument than just being an opponent of someone notable for inclusion. MarsRover 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Replace Calculus with Mathematical analysis

The distinction between "Calculus" and "Mathematical analysis" seems to be well established in the English-speaking countries but it's rather artificial (based mainly on the educational tradition). In some languages "Calculus" doesn't exist as a separate term or exists but is rarely used (best illustrated in [1]). Therefore I believe that Mathematical analysis is more appropriate as more general and free of those culture-specific issues. --Nk 10:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the topic, but this makes sense, so I support the replacement. Yerpo 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be better if this list didn't rely so heavily on english terminology, but if most other language versions group around mathematical analysis, then that is what should be on the list.
Andejons 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sinan who?

The link Sinan points to a list. That list should probably not be something every Wikipedia should have. What is the correct article? Probably it's Atik Sinan or Mimar Sinan.

+ Hans Christian Andersen

I propose to add Hans Christian Andersen (section # 2.3 Authors, playwrights and poets) as a one of the world's most translated author. His works have been translated into more than 150 languages (see en:List of literary works by number of languages translated into). They have inspired many motion pictures, plays, ballets, and animated films. He is one of the most well-known authors of books for children and young people. --Igrek 12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case we need to remove another article. --Boivie 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I propose remove en:Nabokov, Vladimir. This author is absent in Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000 also. List Core_topics_-_1,000 have en:Brothers Grimm, but Hans Christian Andersen is more popular in this genre. --Igrek 06:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


I think Colombia should enter in the list in the place of Cuba, Algeria or Venezuela. --Santista1982 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? Yerpo 08:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree to include Colombia in the place of Cuba, Colombia has the 29th largest population in the world and the second largest in South America. Population: Colombia - 45 000 000, Cuba - 11 000 000. --Igrek 13:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO, I would replace Venezuela before Cuba. (it important for so things that happened in the 1960s)--MarsRover 00:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Like MarsRover said, Cuba is important historically. Population size and area aren't the only important things (why then would we have Vatican City in the list?). I agree that Venezuela should be replaced instead if it must. Yerpo 15:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Cuba more historically important than Colombia? Both have small history the same as U.S.A., Brazil, Argentina or any other american country. --Santista1982 04:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cuba is politically a very special country. It's like a paradise for the last remaining communists in the world. It may have a short history, but since the Cuban Revolution it has been a vital part in several important historical events. I haven't heard much about Colombia's history or political importance. Except maybe for drug trade. Not much about Venezuela either. So I would agree with MarsRover and Yerpo in this question. --Boivie 09:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cuba had played an important political role in the second half of XX centure, until it was overtaken by the Venezuela in the last decade. I think this is a controversial issue, but I prefer to remove Cuba. --Igrek 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So, everyone agrees with adding en:Colombia, but were are about 50/50 one whether to remove en:Cuba or en:Venezuela. I agree with the above assessments and it just a matter of whether one thinks the Fidel Castro era was more important than the Hugo Chavez era. I don't feel that strongly either way but I think from the United States point of view Cuba was more important during its era. But I'll bow out of the voting to make it easier to figure out which one to remove. --MarsRover 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any voting here can be so very deciding. Changes in the list spoil statistics and reduce the value of the standard list. Sure enough every living patriot would prefer to see his country on the list (and will find many reasons and many voters to do that). What's really worth doing about the list, is solving the Middle East problem; most of Wikipedias give a dictionary-type article on the topic, discussing the origin of the name and its possible other names. Amikeco 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove city to add Colombia

There is another way to solve the problem - remove a city from the list. What do you think about removing of the article Bogota (capital of Colombia)? --Igrek 09:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm just throwing that out in here, but I'm pretty surprised that the simple concept of a mountain is missing from this list. It should probably be added somewhere, but someone must be very creative to find something to remove from the list. -- Prince Kassad 20:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Surprisingly I didn't find the king of pop in the list. His impact on modern music culture is unbelievable! Music videos, dancing, mixture of pop with hip-hop etc. It seems to me he is much more important personality than, for instance, Vladimir Vysotsky or Antonín Dvořák. --Yernar Yernar Yernar 07:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The list is just of 1000 places. It can't include every important topic; still the probability is high that every Wikipedia will have an article about Jackson without a hint from Meta. That is not true about regionally important Vysotsky or Dvorak. Amikeco 04:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Jackson is a relativly new artist. We might have to wait a few decades to see how much of an influence he actually was on music as a whole. --Ion-5 08:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes in technology

I propose a few changes in the section "Technology".

First, I think en:Fire should be replaced by en:Combustion. Combustion is a broader and much more well defined term which refers to the whole process of burning something. Fire perhaps refers more to the visible flame.

Second, I think it would be nice if the fuels en:Petroleum, en:Coal and en:Biofuel would be included (I think they have been at some point). Petroleum and coal are obviously very important while biofuels are the primary fuels in the developing world. I do not exactly know what to remove though. I am a bit sceptic about en:Steam engine, it is only historically important, and there is already the article en:Industrial revolution. The simple machines, en:Lever, en:Pulley, en:Screw and en:Wheel are perhaps not so necessary either (wheel seems to be the most important). en:Nanotechnology is also a very small field of engineering and hardly deserves a slot. --Ion-5 06:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose to remove en:Lever, en:Pulley and add en:Machine, en:Robot. --Igrek 08:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I support that proposal. What do you think about my first proposal, to replace fire with combustion? It would at least make the most sense in the languages I know (English, Nordic languages, Finnish and German). --Ion-5 18:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think en:Fire is broader than en:Combustion which is purely the chemistry part of fire. It is also a larger English article since with combustion it covers simply the chemical formulas. Covering "flame" and "heat" is seems important so cannot agree with that change.
We already have en:Fossil fuel which cover petroleum and coal. But I support en:Petroleum and en:Biofuel in the list. I think you have to draw the line somewhere so don't think we need "coal".
I have always thought the simple machines need to go. So, I support the change from "lever" or "pulley" to "robot". But the "machine" article in en.wp looks more like a disamb page than an article. I would prefer an actual machine like en:Rocket. --MarsRover 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with including en:Rocket, en:Petroleum, en:Coal and en:Biofuel. We can include these fuel instead of en:Hard disk drive, en:Central processing unit, en:Random-access memory or en:Inductor, en:Resistor, en:Transformer. --Igrek 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Also I propose to add en:Laser. --Igrek 09:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the fuels, I think en:Fossil fuel and en:Renewable energy can be left out, since the individual fuels are more important than the terms. They could be replaced by en:Petroleum, en:Coal, en:Biofuel and en:Windpower (en:Nuclear power is already included elsewhere, and if the line has to be drawn somewhere, en:Natural gas can be left out). Anyway, having both the fuels and their umbrella terms is too much. If I could choose what is more important in an encyclopedia, I think the individual fuels would be more important. Then only two other articles have to be removed, and I think one could be en:Nanotechnology and the other one of the simple machines. Not sure I agree with removing the computer or electrical terms though.
I agree that en:Machine should be included! A very basic term. The fact that the english articles is short is no reason - it would be a signal to english wikipedia that it needs to be improved. English wikipedia is in general not so good on technology, compared to for example German wikipedia. en:Rocket and en:Laser does not strike me as hughely important though.
Concerning fire and combustion - I think combustion is the broader term, which includes everything about fire - ignition, fuel, conditions, fire, flame, glowing, char, ash, heat and so on. Just because it is a "chemical process" doesn't mean it's only about chemistry, "chemical process" is a very broad term. English wikipedia has indeed chosen to include more content in the article en:Fire but I think this is erronous, the term "fire" refers more to the actual flame rather than the whole process. Just because English wikipedia has it wrong I dont think everyone else should follow. --Ion-5 06:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the argument about en:Machine. We have these articles in Wikipedia also: de:Maschine, it:Macchina, he:מכונה. --Igrek 12:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


It's obvious in List of Wikipedias by sample of articles: en:Addiction has been split so it should be replaced here (with one of the new subarticles (en:Substance dependence ?) or with something completely different). --Nk 05:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't keep the disambig page in this list anyway. --Boivie 10:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm also surprised, this disambig is present in the list. --Alex Blokha 10:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's remove it. 05:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

If there will be consensus over the removal of "addiction", I propose to replace it with the astronomical term "dwarf planet" (so that the total number stays at 1000). It has become popular after the new definition of "planet" came out in 2006: now Pluto and Ceres, among others, are considered dwarf planets. It would be a good item to put on such a list, and I had been waiting a bit to propose it, because I couldn't find any article really worth being removed from the list. What do you think about it? --WinstonSmith 09:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic of Addiction is very important. IMO, en.wp made a mistake with turning it into a disamb page. I would like to see it replacement be similar like "Drug Addiction" instead of a completely different topic. -MarsRover 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
But as it is now, the statistics of all Wikipedias is not as good just because of a split on enwp. Maybe "en:Behavioral addiction should be the article instead? Tanzania 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the topic of Constellation in astronomy is more fundamental than en:Dwarf planet. I propose to enlarge the section of astronomy, but not by removal of Addiction. My suggestion - to remove one article of the Biography section. --Igrek 09:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
But it does not work the way it is now with addiction.. Tanzania 14:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If en:Addiction is going to be gone, I'd like to see it replaced by en:Mountain... -- Prince Kassad 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The possible replacements

So, everyone agrees addiction needs to go, and these have been suggested to replace it.

  1. Substance dependence -- Nk
  2. Behavioral addiction -- Tanzania
  3. Substance abuse AKA "Drug abuse" -- MarsRover
  4. Dwarf Planet -- Winston
  5. Constellation -- Igrek
  6. Mountain -- Kassad

I suggest the third one as the best replacement. The first two articles read a bit like medical journals and the last three are not related to addiction. How about if at least two people agree to one these choices, we switch it out? --MarsRover 03:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Behavioral addiction. Drug abuse is a quite English-specific phrase, which is why the article about it has only two equivalents in other Wikipedias. Sure, substance dependence and behavioral addiction have none, but that's because of the recent split, I think. I feel that among those two, Behavioral addiction is broader (it also covers a part of Substance dependence which is why I agree that splitting them is silly), but I'll reconsider if someone puts out a better argument. Yerpo 07:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer to leave w:en:Addiction. There are fr:Addiction, es:Adicción, pl:Uzależnienie, uk:Залежність but not only disambiguation en:Addiction. --Igrek 08:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the subject could be replaced. Mountain seems best to me actually. Tanzania 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Substance dependence -- Nk
  2. Behavioral addiction -- Tanzania, Yerpo, Nk
  3. Substance abuse AKA "Drug abuse" -- MarsRover
  4. Dwarf Planet -- Winston
  5. Constellation Addiction -- Igrek
  6. Mountain -- Kassad, Tanzania
  7. Alcoholism -- MarsRover
Shall we change it to "Mountain"? --MarsRover 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think so. Tanzania 16:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the subject so much - Behavioral addiction seems to be closer to the original intention than Substance dependence. (Furthermore I can ask why Mountain and not Plain, there are more people living in the plains, etc. :) ). --Nk 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now we have a tie again.  :-) Behavioral addiction is sort an overview of gambling and sex addiction but excludes all forms of drug addiction. How about Alcoholism since it's specific and one of the most common addictions. --MarsRover 03:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit that I didn't read the Behavioral addiction definition - only the interwiki links (and they are completely wrong). :) I believe that Igrek made the best choice restoring en:Addiction. --Nk 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


This page was converted to disambig on English Wikipedia with no traces of the previous article (i.e. the article was simply replaced with disambig). Currently ALL Wikipedias seem to be lacking this article (see list). What will it be replaced with? I suppose it should be en:Behavioral addictionNickK 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's being discussed just some headings before. -- Prince Kassad 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about new version of the en:Addiction? --Igrek 09:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

list of philosophers and social scientists

The rules of choice in list of philosophers and social scientists seems to me very doubtful. I dont think that names such as Simone de Beauvoir identify the evolution of philosophy more than Martin Heidegger, the philosopher the most influencing on Sartre, Levinas, Derrida, Gadamer etc. Also there're no Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza or Hume- the most common names from manuals of philosophy together with Plato, Aristotle, Decartes and Kant.-- 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When we list more than one article about the same topic (e.g. philosophers, countries, languages, cities, works of art...), we don't just stick to the most important ones (e.g. bigger cities, most spoken languages): we try to cover that topic broadly. That's why you will find relatively small countries like Israel, relatively secondary languages as Esperanto and works of art which are not so popular as many others, but are maybe relevant as the most outstanding work of art of that kind or from that geographical area (yes, although "hey, but we lack more important ones!"). --WinstonSmith 08:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anime vs Bollywood/Hollywood/

In 2009 George Lucas was replaced by anime. I agree with that. However, I don't see why anime, itself only a fraction of the Japanese film industry. Why not "History of animation", "Cinema of Japan", "World cinema", "Cinema of the United States", "Hollywood", "Cinema of India", or "Bollywood"? Each had much more of an impact on the world than anime. -- Zanimum 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We already have Animation which should hopefully have a "History" section. We already have Japan, United States, Film and some American and Japanese directors. So, that whole area seems well covered. Also, Hollywood is just a neighborhood is LA which is already included. But "Bollywood" and "Cinema of India" seems like good suggestions. --MarsRover 02:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

List of 10,000 articles

Has anyone ever proposed creating a list of 10,000 important articles, which every big Wikipedia should have? This list of 1,000 articles is very useful indeed, but I think the two could co-exist, especially as more and more Wikipedias succeeding at having most of these 1,000 articles in their own language. Sooner or later, the need for a more comprehensive list will emerge. What do you think? Is it too early for such a thing? I think it would already be of valuable importance for the top 30-40 projects on the list of Wikipedias by sample of articles. --WinstonSmith 11:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone takes time for it, I can't see why not. Then we could add w:en:Pythagoras, w:en:Pencil and maybe w:en:Pasta or w:en:Pizza. Tanzania 14:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
WinstonSmith, you have wrote that I wanted to write. We have en:Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, and they might be taken like base for the list of 10,000 important articles. I have already started working on this list and I invite you also. --Igrek 07:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the worrying about whether it's "appropriate" or "allowed" to do such a thing. This is an open Wiki system and not a conventional publisher, and you can do anything as long as it makes sense and follows certain rules of inclusion (which an expanded list certainly does). So just stop asking and do it. You can even make both of them - 2000 and 10,000 articles. The sooner you publish the draft, the sooner others can contribute and make it better.

PS: I just found out, half by accident, that there already exists an expanded list - List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded which looks like a version of the list at :en and hasn't seen any action since October 2008. It could be useful as a starting point if you throw out the obvious nonsense, such as American cars, racehorses and magicians. --Yerpo 08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PPS: See also Talk:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles#Extended list. Yerpo 09:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This idea was talked about a few years ago (/Archives/2008#1000 is just too few). When looking at these expanded lists it is so easy to find articles that shouldn't be there (ex. en:Pikes Peak, en:Geraldo Rivera, etc). Racehorses and magicians are just a symptoms of little filtering or applying of criteria. How about instead of having an actual list of "articles" we have a list of "article sets" like "every element in periodic table", "every person who won a nobel peace prize", "every movie that won Oscar for best picture or best foreign film", "every country represented in UN", "every musical instrument in standard orchestra", etc. That way the list wouldn't be so long and you can see the criteria. It would be easier to debate since your debating criteria ("Is oscar a good indicator the movie is notable?") --MarsRover 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I like MarsRover's criteria. Add to that every national capitals, every language that has a Wikipedia, 7 Wonders of the World, every sports recognized by IOC. ...Aurora... 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've actually been doing it

I see lots of you have been talking about editing the expanded article list. But I've actually been doing it

  • Added all of the Seven Summits, plus other important mountains, to the Mountains list
  • Expanded the city list to have all the articles that are here for starters, and I'm going for an even 100 that includes 20-40 major non-capital cities (Capital cities isn't always the best benchmark, Aurora; Los Angeles or Shanghai are clearly more important than, say, Podorigo, Montenegro)
  • Updated the political leaders list, and made current political leaders (12 of them) a seperate section

Purplebackpack89 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Dubai

I think this is definitely a strong nomination, not just because of how well-known the city is, but also because of its importance; Dubai is ranked as a beta world city, and is one of the most important destinations/centres in the Middle East. The article also enjoys GA status on the English Wikipedia. Any thoughts? 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Which city would you remove to make room? --MarsRover 16:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Bogotá, since the frequency of this city appearing on news media is much less than that of Dubai.--RekishiEJ 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe instead let it replace en:United Arab Emirates? --Boivie 09:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
United Arab Emirates is an important topic since this country is abundant in crude oil.--RekishiEJ 20:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an important topic but largelly overlapping with Dubai. From my point of view we should have only one of them, preferably United Arab Emirates as more general. --Nk 17:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest replacing either Bogota or Kinshasa 02:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
See The Global Cities Index 2010. Dubai is ranked #27 and Bogota is ranked #54. Kinshasa is out of the list.--Afaz 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Then we'd better remove Kinshasa.--RekishiEJ 06:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with replacing "Kinshasa" with "Dubai" also because we already have the "DR of Congo" in the list. But perhaps we can also replace "UAE" with a "Kenya" so we don't lose an African topic. Usually you hear more about the Dubai than the UAE anyway. --MarsRover 06:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No, we should keep UAE since UAE is quite abundant in crude oil. As long as a country is abundant in oil, it is vital. We Metawiki do not pursue political correctness or equality; this list only lists what's truly important, as so, big cities in Africa are usually much less important than those in East Asia or Western Europe. Many African countries are quite poor.--RekishiEJ 07:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We already have Burj Khalifa and UAE, that's a lot for such a small country. If Dubai is added we should remove at least one of the two others. And the most overlap is between UAE and Dubai. Crude oil doesn't make a country interesting. --Boivie 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dubai isn't abundant in oil. However, UAE is. And though crude oil does not make a country interesting, it makes her important.--RekishiEJ 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As the original nominator of this proposal, I must agree that the United Arab Emirates does largely overlap with an addition of Dubai. I don't think the UAE is the only country which is 'interesting' because of crude oil; there are several other states in the Gulf today which are wholly or partially dependant upon same resource. I would support taking out UAE and adding Dubai, as we more frequently hear about the latter than the former; in fact, countless people mistake Dubai as a country than realising that its actually a city in a country. That goes to show how notable the topic is on itself. If the UAE were to be replaced as the result of Dubai's inclusion, I would suggest adding Qatar - another resource rich state, which according to its main article, is also the "second highest per-capita income country" in the world. 05:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like we have enough people (anon, myself, boivie, nk, afaz?) agree to replace "UAE" with "Dubai" to do it. So, I will make the change and see how many people complain. Also, IMHO, adding Qatar should be a separate debate. --MarsRover 08:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Add Akashi Kaikyō Bridge

I propose to add en:Akashi Kaikyō Bridge in "Architecture and civil engineering" section. This is the structure with the longest span in the human history (almost 2 km between the supports; + it's built in a quite unfavorable environment). It could replace en:Pyramid - more or less a list of vaguely related subjects. --Nk 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just change Pyramid to "Egyptian pyramids" or something? -- Prince Kassad 20:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment we have "Giza pyramid complex" and "Pyramid". I suppose that we can remove one of them in order to find a place for the biggest single structure ever made. --Nk 19:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I may start to annoy people but at this point I will throw in en:Mountain yet again. Obviously we don't need both Pyramid and the Giza pyramids, and one of these could be replaced with this. -- Prince Kassad 09:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the articles you have mentioned seem important enough to be kept on at least historical levels. Purplebackpack89 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think they're redundant. They describe pretty much the same thing. -- Prince Kassad 09:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Two pyramids is not necessary. Replace one with mountain, I think. Tanzania 17:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not the biggest structure ever made. The general article on pyramids is international in content, and of cultural & historical significance. Macdonald-Ross 05:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you give an example of a bigger single structure? --Nk 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


en:Brussels is devoted to the Region of Brussels instead the city (en:City of Brussels), is this correct?--Loupeter 06:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the same situation occurs with en:London vs. en:City of London. The city is a smaller subset of what people usually mean. IMO, the list should have Brussels and not city of Brussels. --MarsRover 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree. This list should primarily reflect usage, then legalities. — Yerpo Eh? 08:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Per above suggestion, any consideration about adding Qatar now that the UAE has been taken out (and replaced with Dubai)? Possible reasons:

  • Another oil (and gas) rich state; adding in place of UAE would be like a neutraliser. Would also meet the argument of RekishiEJ, who said that UAE, a state rich in oil is critically important. For record, Qatar, apart from being rich in oil, additionally has the third-largest gas reserves in the world. I would have nominated Bahrain too, another Mid-East country rich in its resources, although am advocating Qatar as it is more larger and important.
  • As pointed out, Qatar is also the second (or first) highest per-capita income country in the world. As said in the main article, "Oil and gas have made Qatar the second highest per-capita income country – following Liechtenstein – and one of the world's fastest growing."
  • A small but important gulf state in its own right, Qatar is also regarded by many economists as an 'emerging Dubai.' Many important organisations such as the international news network Al Jazeera are Qatari.
  • Qatar Airways is ranked among the top ten in the world and its Economy Class was named best in the world in 2009.
  • Qatar's capital city, Doha, is an important regional economic center, and has been the center of important occasions such as the 2006 Asian Games, (the Asian Games are Asia's Olympic-style sporting event).
  • Speaking in terms of sports, Qatar has made bids for events such as the 2016 Olympics and the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

The conclusion is that Qatar emulates the UAE in many ways as an important gulf state. Don't get me wrong - I am displaying no special bias or favouritism towards Middle East topics (neither do I come from there) but on an independent look, I give this proposal second-thought and think that it would be a good candidate - and we could perhaps take out Kinshasa. 05:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A very good proposal. Let's substitute Qatar for Kinshasa.--RekishiEJ 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Kuwait have greater oil reserves? And I think the per capita income is mainly because few people live there. The city of Kinshasa has 6 times the population as the whole country of Qatar. I think the reason for the other good bullet points in your argument is the country has spent its money wisely and hasn't been involved in a major war. I am not sure the makes it a top 1000 article. Qatar isn't a bad choice if one believes we are short an article about the gulf region -or- an article about a oil producing country. --MarsRover 02:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's works

Why here isn't William Shakespeare's works, for example, en:Hamplet or en:Romeo and Juliet? I propose to change en:Dream of the Red Chamber, en:The Tale of Genji or en:Shahnameh on any of the works of William Shakespeare. PS: Sorry for my poor English knowledge. --Treisijs 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

William Shakespeare is in the list, the authors of the mentioned books are not there. Why should we lose information? --Nk 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I also think is much better to have the author --Barcelona 09:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
But I don't understand why we have these books but not the Bible, the Koran etc. Tanzania 07:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The Bible and the Koran should be in the list.--RekishiEJ 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we should change Dream of the Red Chamber and The Tale of Genju for the Bible and the Koran. Others? Tanzania 10:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is the "etc" part since every religion has a religious text. I think having the religion in the list is enough. --MarsRover
I know of that, but I just can't see how the Dream of the Red Chamber and The Tale of Genji can be of greater importance than the Bible and the Koran. Even if all religions has religious text, to me, it seems like the Koran and the Bible are among the most important ones. Tanzania 19:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; let's substitute the Bible and Koran in place - 12:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We already have Islam, Christianity and even Judaism - they should discuss the Bible and the Koran. In fact the are the reason why those books have an importance. And on the other hand the Chinese culture is already underrepresented in the list. --Nk 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
But shouldn't the list include the 1000 most important articles? Or have I missed something? Tanzania 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You missed the agreement that we should strive for fair representation of all the world's regions. Additionally, it was for the Nk's argument that those books were excluded from the list in the first place (at least I think I remember them here) and I agree that the articles about Islam, Christianity and Judaism should provide excellent intro about Bible and Koran. Both have fairly little value outside of these religions. — Yerpo Eh? 07:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Why, and what you think should be removed to make place for those additions? I hope you realize that the topics for inclusion must have worldwide (or, at least continent-wide) importance. National importance is not nearly enough. Also, note that we strive for balanced representation of world areas. Not one nation has this many entries in this list. You'll have to tone your proposals down quite a lot if you want them to be taken seriously here. — Yerpo Eh? 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No, nothing should be removed. But we may to increase the number of articles. Sibelius and Eino Leino have worldwide importance, not only national one. --Suomen Joutsen 20:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the custom here, there can not be more than 1,000 entries in the list, this is because small Wikipedias usually can not have many articles due to fewer participants.--RekishiEJ 22:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from that, simply stating that a person has worldwide importance is unfortunately not enough for this discussion. There is no indication of anything more than national importance in articles about either. — Yerpo Eh? 07:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should check List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded. --Nk 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Yellow River

Yellow_River is the sixth longest river (some say fifth) in the world. It is the most important river in Chinese culture and bears influence to many Asian countries. I think it can replace water bodies like Niger River (13th longest), Lake Victoria, or Lake Tanganyika. What's your opinion? --BettyJJ 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's replace Lake Victoria or Lake Tanganyika with Yellow River.--RekishiEJ 21:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
But I'd prefer not to remove African bodies of water, as they already look too few. Maybe we should remove some European sea? --WinstonSmith 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick counting. If we don't count in the Five Oceans and the water bodies on the borders of continents (i.e., Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and Suez Canal), all continents happen to have five each, except for Oceania, which has only one (Great Barrier Reef).

  • America: Amazon River, Caribbean Sea, Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Panama Canal
  • Europe: Baltic Sea, Danube, North Sea, Rhine, Volga River
  • Africa: Congo River, Lake Tanganyika, Lake Victoria, Niger River, Nile
  • Asia: Dead Sea, Ganges, Indus River, Lake Baikal, Yangtze River

The American waters are all very important and they are well-balanced. Better not to change.

As for Africa, Nile and Congo River are undoubtedly worthy of the place. But Lake Tanganyika, Lake Victoria, and Niger River? I'm still doubting.

As for Europe, Rhine is the shortest river in the whole list (111th in the world and 4th in Europe). But Rhine is quite important. I prefer not to remove it. Baltic Sea and North Sea, maybe we can remove one of them. No other single-continent seas are in the list.

As for Asia, maybe we can remove Dead Sea. It is a place of interest, but perhaps not a place of as much importance. Then maybe Ganges. It is quite important, but there are so many bigger Asian rivers that are not on the list, such as Mekong River, Amur River, and Euphrates.

So, my vote is Yellow River is definitely in, and one of the European seas or African lakes or Asian small waters is out. :) --BettyJJ 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would replace Dead Sea. And for sure not Niger River. --Nk 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I would choose Yellow River to replace Dead Sea--Wolfch 04:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, replace the Dead Sea with the Yellow River. Njaelkies Lea 10:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, too. I am not sure how the Dead Sea made it into the list. --MarsRover 15:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Done -- Prince Kassad 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Urdu to Hindi

According to en:Hindi it isn't a "specific language" and Urdu is widely used in both Pakistan and India. I propose to replace en:Hindi with en:Hindi-Urdu which is really a language although with more than one standard forms (same as en:Persian language that covers Farsi, Dari and Tajiki). --Nk 18:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more.--RekishiEJ 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree en:Hindi should be replaced. en:Hindi-Urdu is a good choice (or possibly en:Standard Hindi). --MarsRover 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Nk 12:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Language section

I see en:Noun and en:Verb in this list, but e.g. not en:Adjective or en:Pronoun, which are arguably just as important. Therefore, I propose the following:

-- Prince Kassad 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere at the bottom of #Poll ? you can see 2 opinions in favor of replacing of en:Capital city with en:Mountain. That way we don't have to change the current section balance.
And in the Language section I would remove Noun and Verb and add en:Morphology (linguistics) and en:Phonology. en:Word is already in the list and it should cover to some extent the lexical categories (= parts of speach). --Nk 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If the above suggestion passes, I support this idea. -- Prince Kassad 16:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'm not sure about en:Letter - I think it is way too redundant to en:Alphabet. I looked in other Wikipedias and their articles on letter were mostly just stubs. Therefore, I think that en:Letter should be replaced by another article, such as en:Etymology. -- Prince Kassad 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that en:Letter is redundant to en:Alphabet, but I'm not sure about adding so many linguistic terms. I mean, if we add en:Morphology (linguistics), en:Phonology and en:Etymology, why should we leave out, say, en:Syntax, en:Semantics, en:Pragmatics?--Betty 07:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be replaced with something like en:logogram? It would make the list more diverse but isn't too different.
Andejons 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I dunno about en:Logogram, especially seeing as we already have en:Chinese character in the list. Perhaps en:Abugida may be a good choice, since it's not yet covered by the individual writing system articles we have in this list. -- Prince Kassad 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Or even en:Writing system as the most general article in this field? --Nk 20:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
en:Writing system would be an excellent choice for this list, IMO. We do already have en:Writing, however, which is an even more general term. — Yerpo Eh? 07:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if en:Writing system is a good idea when en:Writing is already in the list. While they are different concepts, they cover very similar areas, so I would rather not have them both in here. -- Prince Kassad 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
On a second thought you are probably right. --Nk 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How about en:Devanagari? Most common abugida alphabet. see en:List of writing systems.--Afaz 07:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have general articles than articles about specific alphabets. If we add Devanagari, no doubt will the Tamil faction come and request Tamil script, and then the other people of India might do the same. -- Prince Kassad 09:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the current section puts too much emphasis on the writing part of language. We should add some articles about the spoken part. But I can't think of a good title to cover this. Maybe en:Speech, en:Vowel and en:Consonant?--Betty 03:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Swahili should be added. Biggest African language by far, and very important historically and now for Africa. Replace Capital city with Mountain. Tanzania 21:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think this Capital city -> Mountain mantra is getting kinda old now that the change has been made? I feel a new meme is coming up... maybe I could refresh my signature :P — Yerpo Eh?
Wow, remarkable! I didn't notice that change, haven't been here for a while.. Anyway, I think Swahili should be added :) Tanzania 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Since Swahili is a frequently-spoken language in Africa, it should be included in the list.--RekishiEJ 04:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree re: swahili. It is one of the more important languages in Africa and so should be added to the list.
Now about the other two articles, I'm not sure. Perhaps one could be en:Phoneme, and the other en:Syllable, which are good choices that emphasize on the speech (which some have said is underrepresented here). -- Prince Kassad 08:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
What might then be a good article for Swahili to replace? Tanzania 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
We'd need a replacement for en:Noun, en:Verb and en:Letter. If you count correctly, you should notice it fits perfectly. -- Prince Kassad 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sounds good. Tanzania 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Is someone disagreeing? Tanzania 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
? Tanzania 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems not. -- Prince Kassad 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm Kulthum

I just saw "Umm Kulthum" in the list of musicians every Wikipedia should have. To me, this seems quite weird. I don't think that many people know this singer, or will ever now her. I think that we should replace this singer with another famous african singer, and my thoughts go to Miriam Makeba. I think that the relevance of the article of Miriam Makeba on every Wikipedia is clearer than the one of Kulthum. Tanzania 17:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK Purplebackpack89 18:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me, too. — Yerpo Eh? 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I never heard about both of them but Umm Kulthum seems to be really popular in an important region. Isn't it better to remove Handel or Puccini? The section is rather West-biased in the moment. --Nk 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Handel? No way. Handel is widely considered to be one of four or five greatest composers in the history of the world. Purplebackpack89 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not hardly. He should be cut, with Piaf, Puccini, Vivaldi, and others. Dufay, Monteverdi, and Palestrina should be added, and then several composers or performers from somewhere other than Europe & the United States. 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You haven't given a reason why. I 100% strongly oppose Handel being dropped from this list Purplebackpack89 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Very funny. --Santista1982 19:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Hilarious that an IP thinks that one of the four greatest composers in the world should be dropped. Purplebackpack89 14:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "greatest"? Certainly not "most influential on the course of music history," because then Handel and many of the others on the list would have to be cut, in favor of others. Certainly not "best known & loved by the most people," because then almost all those on the list would have to be cut, saving maybe Elvis and the Beatles. Probably not "best in artifice, as judged by professional composers & music historians," because then Handel and most of the others would remain in jeopardy. 01:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, maybe both Kulthum and Mikeba should be there? Handel seems pretty well-known to me, but never heard of Puccini. Others have heard of Puccini but not Handel. Tanzania 17:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
To be on 'all wikis' notability must have an international dimension, but putting relatively unknown people on the list does not make the list better. The notability of Handel, Puccini &c is overwhelmingly established. Macdonald-Ross 05:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


I noticed in the archives that someone suggested that en:Film be changed to something less ambiguous, and I agree with this. In English, "film" refers to the art of filmmaking, the industry, and the product itself. This is very confusing and unfair for other language which have a separate word (and article) for each. I think "cinema" should be used instead, as it is less ambiguous. Thoughts/suggestions? Secundus Zephyrus 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since we've already got photography, the "film" thing should probably refer to something in regard to motion pictures Purplebackpack89 20:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "cinema" would refer to motion pictures, and not to photography. --Secundus Zephyrus 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
en:Cinema is disambiguation page in the English, German, French, Japanese and Hebrew Wikipedias. Is "cinema" really a unambiguous term? How about en:Movie theater, en:Film industry or en:World Cinema instead? --MarsRover 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that en:Cinema should not be a disambiguation page, but should be the title of the article that's now at en:film. Then an {{Other uses}} could be added to the top. This is how en:theater is set up: it is an article about the history of theater, the art of theater, the theater industry, etc.; and then there is a seperate page called en:theater (building). --Secundus Zephyrus 00:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact fr:Cinéma is the article about the general subject. To make it more complicated en:Cinematography is limited to the camera work but many of its interwikis link to the general subject (ru:Кинематограф, pl:Kinematografia. I think that the problem is not the English article in the list but the wrong interwikis. --Nk 07:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


[2]: What should we do - replace City with Town in the list or create mew of articles about "big town", a concept that doesn't exist in many languages? --Nk 16:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been talk about before (/Archives/2009#Town or city, Talk:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Archives/2008#Notes on Finnish) and I think the best solution is to just remove "City" and add another actual city. --MarsRover 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Or "Mountain". :) --Nk 18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure "mountain" is not "big rock" in some languages? :) --MarsRover 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
City and town are exactly the same thing in Swedish. To get 0 abscence of articles in Swedish, I had to translate "City" from enwp and call it "city", but the article that should be the "article every wikipedia should have" is instead "stad", which is "town" in English. Remove city and add something else. It is too hard in many languages, I reckon. Tanzania 17:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Poll ?

We have now a lot of different changes we are talking about but not doing. A little vote?

  1. Take away city/town and add en:mountain instead.
  2. Take away one pyramid article and add either en:mountain or en:Akashi Kaikyō Bridge.
  3. Either:
    1. Take away Umm Kulthum, not add Miriam Makeba and add a new performer/composer etc.
    2. Take away Handel, Puccini or someone similar and add Miriam Makeba to make list less west-biased.
  4. My own little proposal: Take away en:grape, which is important indeed, but seems a little redundant to me as wine is in the list as well, and add something like en:Soft drink instead. Or maybe en:Yam (vegetable). Tanzania 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For me:

  1. Yes
  2. Not mountain then, but maybe the bridge. But I'd rather say en:Golden Gate Bridge.
  3. Number 2
  4. To me, it does not really matter which. To get the list a little less adult-biased, soft drink could be added (haha..). Tanzania 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

3 I thought was a dead topic. Here are my answers:

  1. No
  2. Mountain
  3. Number 1 or nothing (absolutely not #2 if you want to axe Handel)
  4. Keep grape

I know those are all contrary to Tanzania, but this is how I feel. Eliminating the Golden Gate Bridge is even more ridiculous than eliminating Handel Purplebackpack89 18:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The golden gate bridge is not in the list (as far as I can see). That's why I mentioned it. I did not mean to throw away Handel just so, it was just examples that had come up in the discussion. I do still think that Miriam Makeba should have a place in that list. Tanzania 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

4.My answers:

  1. No
  2. Pyramid (both) or Mountain
    1. Keep Umm Kulthum or replace her with other arab or islamic world's singer (composer).
    2. Keep Handel, Puccini, remove another european composer (Brahms, Dvořák, Mahler, Stravinsky), add Makeba or another african singer (composer).
  3. Keep grape, remove lemone, add Cassava (world production - 200 mln T) or/and Sweet potato (world production - 130 mln T), but not yam (world production - 40 mln T).
  4. My own proposal: add Mountain, remove one city (we have 44 cities in the list). --Igrek 06:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Nk:

  1. Replace city with town (or try to fight with the interwiki bots :) ).
  2. Replace Pyramid with Akashi Kaikyō Bridge (Mountain could replace a specific geographical object as the construction technology is underrepresented even now).
  3. Replace an European composer with Miriam Makeba (Handel was just an arbitrary proposal, I'm not really competent on that subject). --Nk 13:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My answers:

  1. Take away one of them, but don't replace it with mountain, which is in a different category
  2. Replace Pyramid with Mountain
  3. I don't have an opinion on this
  4. I don't have an opinion on this
--WinstonSmith 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we then at least say that it seems as one pyramid should be taken away and switched with Mountain? I think we could take away one city as well, but maybe we should have en:Swahili instead? Tanzania 13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding Swahili instead of one city. --Igrek 10:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Which city might be good? Should I take away one pyramid and change to mountain? Tanzania 21:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer remove Vienna or Amsterdam. --Igrek 11:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't be messing with the numbers of things in subcategories Purplebackpack89 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
But pyramid and mountain, aren't they in the same subcategory? Tanzania 05:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus about removing Pyramid and adding Mountain. The problem is that they are in different sections and it's better to keep the current balance so I would make 2 new (independent) proposals:

  1. Remove en:Pyramid; add en:Civil engineering - it's in the title of the section, it's a general subject and from my point of view should enter the list even before Dome or Arch.
  2. Add en:Mountain; remove en:Capital city - it's inherently more a list of lists than a real article + we already have City that should describe the different functions of the cities.

Nk 17:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The second sounds good. The first sounds not as good to me, I think Pyramid is more "basic" than civil engineering. Tanzania 07:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced en:Capital city with en:Mountain. I have not yet done anything else. -- Prince Kassad 20:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

add Hayao Miyazaki

As his influence has been compared to be on par with Walt Disney, who is on the list, he should be added as well. 00:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As his influence has been compared ... By whom? — Yerpo Eh? 09:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That statement by anon is true: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/08/08/2009-08-08_hayao_miyazaki_the_walt_disney_of_japan_still_does_animation_the_old_fashioned_w.html --MarsRover 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

add South China Sea

South China Sea was added by an anonymous user. I undid this edit, but I think this sea should be in the list. See Bodies of water and their sizes, South China Sea and Arabian Sea are greatest seas by square. I propose to add South China Sea and Arabian Sea in place of Black Sea and North Sea or Baltic Sea. --Igrek 07:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see it replace a biography article. To me, both seas seem significant enough to be kept. -- Prince Kassad 09:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not at the expense of North or Baltic Seas, which are of huge historical significance. Macdonald-Ross 05:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My new proposal is to add South China Sea and replace Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria with the African Great Lakes. --Igrek 08:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--RekishiEJ 08:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Lake Victoria is the 2nd largest freshwater lake in the world (after Lake Superior) seems to deserve its own article. And the African Great Lakes seems merely a listing of lakes. --MarsRover 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm from China, but I actually don't think South China Sea has so much historical significance. I'd rather save the place for some other more important Chinese topics. --Betty 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

add Cantonese language

It is a language prevalent in most Chinatowns in western countries. It has at least 70 million native speakers. 13:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The criterion for an 'all wikis' language article should be, not the number of native speakers, but rather the number of non-native speakers. Macdonald-Ross 05:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

add Portuguese language

In the list so far, there are languages with very few speakers such as Greek and Hebrew, languages spoken in only one country like Japanese, languages with a medium to large amount of speakers but limited prestige and few second language learners like Bengali, Tamil and Turkish, the dead ones and the promoted ones such as Latin, Sanskrit and Esperanto and then there are those others that form what I would call a certain, if heterogeneous standard. With its number of total speakers, its number of foreign learners and its history/literature I consider Portuguese definitely to belong to the latter group. - 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The langauge selection is based on more than just number of speakers. See the discussion in 2009. Which language would you remove? --MarsRover 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Just went through the thread, thanks for linking. One criterion that also seems to be involved, is something one may call "not standing in the shadow" of another big language which may be a point of not considering Cantonese which in its home country also represents less than 10%. The same applies to Tamil and besides, from India two languages are already included. So it may make sense to either go for that one or for Sanskrit. Sanskrit does in my eyes however stand out more due to its historic role compared to Tamil that I see as not being distinguished over Telugu, Gujarati or Marathi. - 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Bengali, Hindi, and Sanskrit overlap somewhat, as all three are members of the Indo-Aryan sub-subfamily of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of the Indo-European family, and all three are therefore cousins of numerous European languages already on the list; Tamil provides contrast, as it's a member of the Dravidian family, unrelated to any of the preceding. In that sense, it doesn't "stand in the shadow" of these Indian & European examples, whereas Portuguese does. 02:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
A good friend of mine's native language is Kannada yet he wouldn't argue that Telugu is not Dravidian, apart from its being listed as lingua franca as opposed to Tamil (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca). For me the argumentative base for instance is not just 1. prestige (look at how many Noble Prize Winners in Literature were Polish or Italian), 2. the number of books published (take a look at page 9 of www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf and at page 12, too to understand my reasoning) or 3. the simple fact that Portuguese is spoken in each of the four highly populated continents (also look at Dutch and its spread to Suriname, to South Africa and to Indonesia which also did not make it to the list, also cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-widely_spoken_languages_%28by_number_of_countries%29). I didn't mean to offend anybody and targeted with the point about the shadow only the ratio (of Tamil) to Hindi; you seem to overgeneralize there. Hindi does work as a lingua franca (apart from Tamil being a fraction of Sinhala in terms of speaker numbers in Sri Lanka) and a big one, too. With your arguments, Swahili or Bahasa Indonesia (other lingua francas that are not Indo-European) would make much more sense and I have a lot of respect for them (numbers of second language speakers appear to be over five times higher than native speakers and anybody can learn them with Pimsleur, Rosetta Stone and for free via the FSI which also applies to other languages that do not make it to this "distinguished list of twenty" such as Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog which apart from being listed in all three language learning programs and apart from their unrelatedness to the Indoeuropean language family are, again, all national languages and not the third, fourth or fifth one "at home"). The reason why I didn't nominate one of them was that by learning Portuguese one can have a more significant and immediate global impact as it is spoken in many international organizations such as Mercosur, FIFA, the General Conference of UNESCO, SADC, IADB, ACTO, AU, UNASUR (to give a brief excerpt) and its role is most likely to continue to increase over the coming decades. 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


Someone at enwiki has moved most of the iw-links from en:Sovereign state (included in this list) to en:State (polity) (not in this list). Maybe we should discuss which of the articles is best for this list? See also: en:Talk:State#Requested move --Boivie 05:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved back bg:Държава according to the article definitions. en:State (polity) looks like a cover term for sovereign states + federated units - I suppose that in many languages the term doesn't exist at all. --Nk 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think en:sovereign state shouldn't be the one on this list. It's a short article, with only 5 interwiki links (and 3 more which are not rightfully there). Instead, en:state (polity) or en:sovereignity should be in the list - they are longer, and with versions in many different languages. Also, the ideas of a state and of sovereignity are more basic and are more suitable for this list. בן גרשון 03:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
We should change from "Sovereign state" to "Sovereignty" for the reason above. I think "State (polity)" as described in EnWp is not an article I would say every wiki needs. --MarsRover 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the list is not about articles as they currently appear on en:Wikipedia, but about which topics should be covered on every wikipedia. The page is definitely not intended to induce other projects to copy en:Wikipedia. Since Sovereign state is a concept of key importance to human civilization, IMHO it should be on this list. Hopefully en:WP users will then expand their article. Guido den Broeder 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why "Sovereign state" is a key concept and not "Sovereignity" itself or "State" itself. These terms are more basic and fundomental. This is why so many wikipedias have articles for these two terms, and almost none (about 5) have articles for "soveriegn state". בן גרשון 13:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
What is a state without sovereignity? Nothing more than a hunting ground. What is sovereignity if it is given to something else than a state? Not much more than personal recognition. It's the combination that makes all the difference. Most of Wikipedia is not written by scholars; it is a poor source. The purpose of this page to give some guidance, not to receive it. Guido den Broeder 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Guido den Broeder about the importance of the concept of Sovereign state, states are the keystone of the international order. --Loupeter 06:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Guido. A sovereign state is just one of the different kinds of states. There are, for example, federated states. Also, isn't en:nation state an important concept? It isn't on the list. But the concept of nation state is basic to most independence fights, so it's been an important concept. Adding entries in the list for federated states and for nation states is impractical, so we should go back to the most general concept, which on en:WP is currently called en:State (polity). --Lou Crazy 10:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Now it was done again. --Boivie 21:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Replace number sets

Since couple of months I'm thinking about replacing the number sets in Mathematics section. It seems strange that more than 1/3 of the articles there are about specific numbers and number sets while large and widely used mathematical topics are missing. So I would propose:

Nk 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably need a mathematician to comment but... I agree with removing the types of numbers. Of the 5 new articles you mentioned, you have them in the order of importance for me. I checked how popular they are and the monthly EnWp views are 39k, 22k, 20k, 17k and 11k. So, I would vote for "Differential equation", "System of linear equations", "Numerical analysis" along with "Number Theory". --MarsRover 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Not much interest on that subject. :) If there are no objections I will make the changes after the update of the ranks in List of Wikipedias by sample of articles. --Nk 18:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems I'm late for the discussion. I don't agree with the change. This section should first cover basic concept in maths, not advanced and specialized mathematics. It is odd to have en:Differential equation and en:System of linear equations while the more basic and general ideas like en:equation or en:Function (mathematics) are not there. And I don't understand why there are three articles under en:Mathematical analysis while there is none for en:Game Theory or en:Probability Theory, or the general en:Applied Mathematics. --Betty 06:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Artist section

hello, I'm very surprised not to see any impressionnist painter: Renoir, Cezanne or Monet,

Littlejazzman 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Film directors

again hello ! an encyclopedy without Chaplin is like New York without manhattan !!!

and about Rosebud ? Littlejazzman 02:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Chaplin is in the list (on the second row actually :)). --Nk 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Units of measurement

I think we should not have articles about measurement units in the list beyond the basic ones. They rarely have the potential to grow anywhere beyond a stub, and in fact most of these are stubs on the English Wikipedia and many other Wikipedias.

This affects many entries. I'm bringing only one here for now: en:Newton (unit), a stub on en and many other Wikipedias. What should we replace it with? Maybe en:Volume? -- Prince Kassad 20:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Two others like this are en:Watt and en:Volt, both also mere stubs. Maybe one could be replaced by en:Battery (electricity) (a very important invention of the modern world), for the other I don't really have any good replacement article, so I'm open for suggestions. -- Prince Kassad 22:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree the units of measurement are not good choices for this list. And en:Newton (unit) is the worst one. Only one wiki had made anything beyond a stub of this topic. How about and article about an actual force. We have 2 of the 4 en:Fundamental forces of nature but are missing en:Strong interaction and en:Weak interaction. -MarsRover 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Certainly these make more sense to have in the list, especially since they are in the Vital articles list as well. Therefore I propose:
-- Prince Kassad 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There already are quite a few electricity related articles in the list. I don't think it's necessary to add en:Battery (electricity). The list lacks some basic ideas like en:Wave, en:Temperature or en:Heat. Besides, en:Joule and en:Kelvin are also very short. So my proposal is:
--Betty 07:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about en:Wave since we have en:Electromagnetic radiation in there, and that should cover waves. The others look okay, they're fundamental concepts and in the Vital articles as well. But now that you mentioned it, I noticed another article from our list which should go: en:Length. That one is absolutely horrible and contains just a list in most Wikipedias. en:Length should be replaced by en:Matter, and instead of en:Wave we could have en:Vacuum in the list. -- Prince Kassad 09:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agree with proposals, along with Kassad's modifications. — Yerpo Eh? 18:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think wave is more interesting than vacuum, but I also think it is a bit much to have heat, temperature and en:Thermodynamics on the list. So, include wave and vacuum, and skip heat.
Andejons 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think en:Wave covers more than en:Electromagnetic radiation. There are sound wave, water wave, etc. en:Matter can replace en:State of matter, which is in the list. en:Vacuum is a good option to replace en:Length. --Betty 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can't someone who knows the procedure add these changes now? I agree with the proposals. Tanzania 21:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no agreement yet, so no changes can be applied. -- Prince Kassad 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Okey, but when do you take it as an agreement, what is needed? Tanzania 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could agree on a more general principle - all SI base units included, all derivative units excluded? That means removing en:Joule, en:Watt and en:Litre and adding en:Ampere, en:Candela and en:Mole (unit). --Nk 20:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say en:Litre is a more important topic than en:Candela (when do you encounter that in daily life?) The base units can already be explained in en:International System of Units, which is in the list. -- Prince Kassad 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggestions:

Sadly, this discussion appears to be stale. I'm trying to revive it - is there any opposition to replacing en:Length with en:Vacuum? -- Prince Kassad 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think, something is better than nothing. :-) --Igrek 09:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've performed the change. I've also changed the above listing to indicate which points are still open.

Next, I'd like to tackle the temperature one - it also seems rather non-controversial since temperature is a rather basic concept. Does anyone disagree with me? -- Prince Kassad 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems not. I've done this change also. This way, all the uncontroversial requests have been taken care of. Now is where the fun begins - the controversial requests. I myself don't think we should have either en:Wave or en:heat in the list as these concepts are already adequately covered, but others may be disagreeing with me. -- Prince Kassad 19:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a (somewhat) new suggestion (in the hope to close the section):

That way we are evading the questionable Wave and Heat. On the other hand Matter and State of matter are not really replaceable despite the title resemblance. If you check en:Matter you can see that state of matter takes just a couple of paragraphs in a rather big article. And state of matter is a basic end important concept by itself so it would be better to keep it in the list. --Nk 17:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is Prokofiev?

Looking at this list, there is Stravinsky but no Prokofiev, which is not just weird but straight impossible. Stravinsky is a notable figure but he is nobody as compared to Prokofiev! Please add Prokofiev, the greatest classical composer of the 20th century. Thanx.


Food under Science? Oh, my...

It should be somewhere else, or maybe under its own heading. -- Prince Kassad 08:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)