Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2011

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives of this page

Lukashenka, Nazism

Firstly, since the last presidential elections in Belarus' finished, it was once again wide-spreaded all over the world about crackdown and aftermath of December, 19th. That's why I suggest to add article about Aljaxandar Lukashenka to this list as responsible for occupying power here.

Secondly, there is Fascism in the list but no Nazism. Maybe they should be swapped, or Nazism instead of Nazi Germany. --Renessaince 11:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, you have misinterpreted international fame (or infamy, whatever) for global importance. Not even current American leaders are in the list, so there's no rationale to include Lukashenka, who is far less important, globally. As for Nazism, I remember that it has been discussed before. Check the archives. — Yerpo Eh? 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replace Sex with Sexual reproduction

I would propose to replace en:Sex with en:Sexual reproduction. The current subject of en:Sex is the sex as a property of organisms and this isn't a biological process (as says the section in the list). Furthermore the English article is just a patchwork of content taken from other articles - mostly from en:Sexual reproduction. en:Sexual reproduction is the general subject that would naturally fit in the Biological processes section. --Nk 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right "Sex" probably doesn't belong under "Reproduction" or "Biological processes" with the way it written. It is basically is an overview article of anything "Sexual". Replacing it with "Sexual reproduction" makes things more redundant since we already have en:Reproduction. IMO, unless there is some language translation problem or we do a multiple article swap it best the way it is. --MarsRover 05:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think honesty is a very important thing in the human society. Let's add it in this list.--Обывало 04:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure this rises to the top 1000 articles since we already have Ethics and Truth. Even the Russian article on "Honesty" was recently deleted so I guess it is not viewed as essential in your wiki. -MarsRover 04:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language List

In language list Tamil might be added. Because it's one of the oldest language. And it is a Classical language too. Please see : Tamil Please add Tamil to the list. Please see Tamil Wikipedia

--Surya Prakash.S.A. 10:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Important note: Since this list is full, it is important that you discuss any changes (adds or deletes) on the discussion for this list first. If you add an entry at this point, it will be necessary to justify deleting something else. " Bulwersator 13:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respiration (physiology) -> Breathing

The article en:Respiration (physiology) is quite miserable, and it doesn't really work with other languages. I propose a change to en:Breathing. Tanzania 17:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the change. The English naming conventions are a bit confusing (e.g. "Respiratory physiology" vs "Respiration (physiology)" vs "Breathing") so using a more common term seems reasonable. We already have "Respiratory system" I don't think we need such a similar term anyway. --MarsRover 05:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any more opinions, or can I change? Tanzania 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support -- Prince Kassad 20:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support --Manuel Trujillo Berges 20:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Tanzania 08:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm absolutely surprised to see en:Greece in the list. Modern Greece has never been a very influential or even important country. Note that we do have en:Ancient Greece in the list, as well as en:Athens, which should be more than sufficient.

Maybe the slot saved could be spent in a different section? I feel the Geography section is way too large and needs to be downsized. -- Prince Kassad 10:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nobody goes ahead, I'll have to propose my own, I guess.
Mathematics. This section is, in my opinion, grossly underrepresented in the current list. It becomes especially evident if you compare it to the other natural sciences like Physics, Chemistry and especially Biology. My suggestion, now, is to replace en:Greece by en:Coordinate system - a basic concept of mathematics which is very useful in many situations. -- Prince Kassad 10:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This gets no activity. So is it okay to do? -- Prince Kassad 09:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind the change. --Boivie 11:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change has now been effected. -- Prince Kassad 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's sound crazy, removing a important article like en:Greece ans leaving en:Satyajit Ray and many other insignificant articles. Where are you from Pince Kassad to say that even is not an important country? I would say is more important than yours. We already have small numbers of articles about countries. en:Colombia is not yet in the list despite the importance of the country. --Santista1982 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The list is not eurocentric at all, the list have many unknown people, like the indian I wrote before, they might be famous on their own country but not globally, one example is en:Benito Mussolini, and important person that is not in the list. Some important european cities are not in the list like en:Barcelona or en:Milan that are VERY important cities and we have many african and other continent cities that doesn't have any importance. What's the importance of en:Kinshasa, what companies are located there? Removing en:Poland and leaving en:Algeria is also crazy. What's the importance of Algeria? And what about en:Cuba? I suggested before to be replaced by en:Colombia as Colombia is much bigger and important than Cuba. --Santista1982 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well Cuba is a very strong Latin American country and one of the last Socialist countries in the world, and the disputes with the United States are what makes this country so significant to the world. But I agree en:Algeria seems useless.
          As for cities, en:Kinshasa seems like a bad choice, it should be removed and replaced with a non-city topic. A lot of cities should be removed actually, many have no importance beyond the country they belong to (like en:Bogotá, en:Jakarta, en:Kolkata, etc.) If you want this, it's worth it to plan out a table, like I did with some of my suggestions. -- Prince Kassad 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My next point is en:Century. A century is just one hundred years - there's nothing that can really be said about this time span (check out the interwikis), and it's not even used in the whole world (in East Asia, for example, the century is almost unknown). Therefore, I propose to replace it with en:Logarithm, another basic concepts of mathematics. They're in the same sections, so the balance will stay the same this time around. -- Prince Kassad 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that Century is expendable (en:Week and en:Month as well) but some of those suggestions are better than Logarithm (especially en:Probability Theory and en:Function (mathematics)). --Nk 06:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be fine with those as well. And I agree that week and month are just as bad. So, how about this:

-- Prince Kassad 08:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about the broader en:Probability instead of en:Probability theory? — Yerpo Eh? 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:Probability appears to be an article about the philosophical idea of probability, rather than the mathematical topic. Therefore, it's not a good choice. -- Prince Kassad 10:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The introducing sentence is the only part of the mentioned article at :en that hints at philosophy, the rest is mathematical treatment of probability. Articles at other Wikipedias I looked at are very similar. I think that probability is an excellent core topic that would deserve inclusion, even if not under Mathematics. — Yerpo Eh? 07:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The en: article is very bad (content-wise), it actually describes the probability theory which it shouldn't. My guess is many foreign Wikipedias just translated that. If we look at de:, it describes various applications of probability in philosophy (as well as a short heading on the probability theory), and at the end it is even categorized into the philosophy category. It would need a new discussion, as adding Probability breaks section balance. -- Prince Kassad 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, probability is a more crucial concept than its mathematical description. It would be rather redundant to have them both in this list, regardless of where we discuss it. And probability wouldn't "break" anything - the section on philosophy and psychology is even more malnourished than mathematics. — Yerpo Eh? 14:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh. I'm indifferent. -- Prince Kassad 14:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any other opposition, or can this be changed? -- Prince Kassad 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the proposal in its current form. — Yerpo Eh? 08:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I have now done the changes. -- Prince Kassad 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am surprised that a city like en:Kinshasa on the list, why this article should be on the 1.000 articles that wikipedia should have? The city have no global importance at all, en:Santiago is much more important. The same about en:Afganisthan, what this country produces? MAybe is the poorest place in the world, their agriculture is almost nothing, their production is almost nothing, you can't comprare with en:Colombia that have bigger population, bigger territory and bigger importance than en:Afganisthan. I think these are just some of changes that the list should be do, and later remove en:Singapore, a small country with small population that despite that is in the list. --Santista1982 16:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You want to remove Kinshasa and Afghanistan because they doesn't have any global importance (but they are large) and you want to remove Singapore because it isn't large (but is globally important). It seems to pass your criteria to be included Santiago needs to be large and have global importance but you didn't include any statistics in your argument for us to compare.
We did have Colombia in the list at some point (look in the archives) but since we had Venezuela, it was removed to be more balanced. Also, we have Bogota so it seemed fair at the time to have Venezuela instead of Colombia. --MarsRover 17:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Colombia should probably be in there but we already have quite a lot of Latin American countries so this isn't quite easy. Now here, I'll propose another change that shouldn't pose as many problems:

I mean, come on, Algeria is totally unimportant, they never did anything important in the present or past. On the other hand, Taiwan is a quite significant country. -- Prince Kassad 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what makes Taiwan more significant than e.g. Philippines? Maybe it's better to agree on a hard criteria about countries otherwise this discussion will start again every couple of months.
Just as a test I tried to make an union of the top 20 countries by GDP, area and population. Compared to our list that gives:
To be removed To be added
  • Afghanistan
  • Austria
  • Cuba
  • Iraq
  • Israel
  • New Zealand
  • Portugal
  • Singapore
  • South Africa
  • Switzerland
  • Tanzania
  • Ukraine
  • Vatican City
  • Venezuela
  • Greenland
  • Kazakhstan
  • Libya
  • Mongolia
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Taiwan
If we use such approach we could add more lists (for example top 5 by GDP by continent), increase the "top 20" value or just use the free positions in the list to compensate for the removed articles (like adding en:Arab–Israeli conflict instead of Israel). --Nk 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, that calculation puts countries with a large landmass at an advantage, which I don't think is any important at all. I see no reason to add countries like Greenland or Mongolia (we have w:Mongol Empire so the latter would be extremely redundant). -- Prince Kassad 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well this is just an idea to start from. We can choose more relevant combination of lists - Nobel prize winners, size of the military, export volume, ... The point is to have measurable criteria. --Nk 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Measurable? Surely notability shouldn't be just affected by statistics. That's always bad. Numbers can show some value, but do not tell the entire truth. Switzerland may be small and innocent by numbers, but in reality it's world famous as the seat of various international institutions. -- Prince Kassad 12:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by coincidence it's well ahead in the lists by GDP per capita or HDI. :) Btw I'm OK with changing Algeria to Republic of China if we are not close to a general rule. --Nk 17:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If everyone else is fine with that, I'll just do that in the next few days. -- Prince Kassad 17:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greenland isn't an independent country... change to "Denmark" 12:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with adding en:Colombia (46 million population) and en:Philippines (about 100 ml population) and removing en:Cuba (11 million population) and one of these countries: Austria, Afghanistan, Algeria, New Zealand. I don't agree with adding Republic of China, it only has high economic value, but Taiwan is not known in other areas. --Igrek 11:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I think, in the near future Taiwan may be surpassed by other countries such as Malaysia. --Igrek 12:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove Mount Everest & Add Salt

I think Himalayas and Mount Everest should not exist together due to the very limited quota in the list. Thus I suggest removing Mount Everest. Instead, I think Salt (table salt) should be included as it is a very common thing and it is essential for most animals. --Hkzense 06:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I partly agree. It makes no sense to have Mt. Everest as the only individual mountain in the list, when there are arguably several others that are at least as important. However, I don't think we should add en:Salt because there's already en:Salt (chemistry), and they're quite similar. Rather, I'd add the general article en:Spice, which can cover most things used as spices. -- Prince Kassad 09:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it's better to keep the section balance - to add Spice on the place of en:Nut (fruit) and look for a specific geographic object to replace Mount Everest with (en:Great Rift Valley, an active volcano, ...). --Nk 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specific geographic objects don't seem to be a good replacement here since again, there'd only be one single object, which is a huge POV bed. I think we should move both en:Mountain and en:Desert over to the mountains and deserts section, so they are at a place where an average user would look for them. -- Prince Kassad 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good suggestion to add en:Spice rather than en:Salt. I also think geographic section may be already too large so we do not need to keep the total number of articles in that section at the same. --Hkzense 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would propose to replace Everest with en:Library. --Igrek 12:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that's a good one, I'd have never thought of that. I agree with this proposal. -- Prince Kassad 13:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any further comments? -- Prince Kassad 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite sure about removing Everest, here. I know its inclusion seems a bit redundant, but as the highest peak on Earth, it is still a "classic" encyclopedic topic, one that a lot of people look up in an encyclopedia. en:Mount Everest has around 7000 daily views (compared to around 1500 for en:Library). Adding Library would still be a good idea, in my opinion, just not instead of Everest. — Yerpo Eh? 11:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove Lion & Add Algae

Here is my another suggestion, which concerns Organisms. Lion and Cat are both Felidae, so I think keeping Cat is enough. Lion, which is less important, can be replaced by en:Algae. --Hkzense 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Algae are not a systematic group and we already have in the list en:Protist - most of that kingdom consists of algae. Lion could be replaced with en:Rodent (the order that includes 40% of all mammal species - currently not represented in the list) or with a specific rodent (like en:House mouse). --Nk 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support Lion -> Rodent change Bulwersator 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, too. Lion --> Rodent seems like a good change. --MarsRover 14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so i guess ill just do it. Lion --> Rodent, i will attempt to do the edit right now. 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing the mathematics articles

I would like to change the list of mathematics articles to the following:

  1. Mathematics
  2. Algebra
    1. Logarithm
    2. System of linear equations
  3. Arithmetic
  4. Coordinate system
  5. Differential and integral calculus
    1. Differential equation
  6. Equation
  7. Function (mathematics)
  8. Geometry
    1. Angle
    2. Area
    3. Pi
    4. Pythagorean theorem
  9. Inequality
  10. Infinity
  11. Mathematical proof
  12. Number
    1. Prime number
  13. Set theory
  14. Statistics
    1. Standard deviation
  15. Symmetry
  16. Trigonometry

This involves the following changes:

  1. Arithmetic, Geometry, and Number get bolded.
  2. Group theory is replaced by Symmetry. Group theory is a specific discipline within abstract algebra. An article on group theory is necessarily specialized. The essence of group theory, however, is symmetry: Groups (in the mathematical sense) were originally discovered as symmetry groups, and many of their most important applications can still be understood directly as the presence of symmetry in some sort of mathematical object.
  3. Add logarithm. This is of great historical and practical interest. Logarithms are used every day for measurements of sound, power, earthquakes, and a wide variety of other natural phenomena.
  4. Remove Axiom. This has a lot of overlap with mathematical proof, truth, and logic, all of which are already on the list.
  5. Mathematical analysis is replaced by differential and integral calculus. This effectively undoes a change made last year (see this discussion), as on the English Wikipedia, differential and integral calculus is a redirect to calculus. The problem with the outcome of that discussion is that in English, "mathematical analysis" refers to a broad area within mathematics, encompassing not only differential and integral calculus, but also aspects of Fourier theory, number theory, and differential geometry. The list should link to the English article entitled "calculus", but to avoid confusion, the link should be titled "differential and integral calculus" since that refers unambiguously to the subject we are attempting to list. (In many languages the name of this subject translates as "infinitesimal calculus", which would also be acceptable, but on the English Wikipedia, that article is currently about some historical aspects of calculus.)
  6. Remove numerical analysis. Numerical analysis is about how to make accurate computations on computers. It's a specialized field which most people have no contact with; I'm a professional mathematician and I have no contact with it.
  7. Replace triangle, circle and square with angle, area, and Pythagorean theorem. The list is weighted heavily in favor of geometric shapes. Geometric shapes are a basic topic in geometry, but each geometric shape is not a new concept; they're all examples of the particular concept of shape. Angle and area are two fundamental concepts that don't appear anywhere on the list, and the Pythagorean theorem might be the most important theorem ever; it is at the heart of how we measure distance in the real world, and it is probably the only theorem that a layman might recall.
  8. Replace number theory by prime number. Number theory is a broad field of study with a tremendous range of interesting but not always easy to understand topics. When possible, I would prefer that the list contain more specific topics. Prime numbers are just that kind of topic: They can be approached using simple examples that anyone can grasp, and they are at the heart of number theory.
  9. Replace complex number by inequality. Inequalities are a part of everyone's life: "This pear costs more than that apple", "That will take an hour, but I only have twenty minutes", "This building is taller than that one", etc. Complex numbers are everywhere in physics and mathematics, but they don't connect to people's lives in the same way.
  10. Add standard deviation. This is one of the most important topics in statistics; it's consistently the #2 viewed article on the English Wikipedia (after Einstein, who was actually a physicist). Furthermore, it's also a bridge to other aspects of higher math: The standard deviation is actually an L2 norm (see en:Lp space), and L2 norms also represent important concepts like distance and energy.

There are many other articles that I would love to include but which I am not sure how to make space for (such as en:Pascal's triangle, en:Fibonacci number, en:Gödel's incompleteness theorems, en:Russell's paradox, en:Cantor's diagonal argument, en:Wave (maybe the physics list needs that one?), and en:Möbius strip).

Comments? Ozob 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like reasonable and well motivated changes. I noticed however that en:Differential and integral calculus is redirected to Calculus, and that Calculus have quite few interwiki links. Boivie 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, many of those interwiki links are wrong. The word "calculus" in English usually means "Differential and integral calculus". This is not true in other languages. In other languages "calculus" is more like en:Calculus (disambiguation). Usually the correct analog of the English "calculus" is named "Differential and integral calculus" or "Infinitesimal calculus". Ozob 12:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following up on myself, I've fixed as many of the interlingual links as I can. Of the languages linked from en:Calculus and en:Infinitesimal calculus, I attempted to tally how many articles used each of the possible terms. "Calculus" was used by 11 (bs, en, ga, io, id, jv, ms, pt, sco, ss, tr), "mathematical analysis" by 1 (an), "infinitesimal calculus" by 15 (an, ca, da, de, es, eo, fr, gl, hr, it, la, pt, sl, sr, sv), "differential and integral calculus" by 5 (fr, lt, pt, sk, fi), there were a whole bunch that I couldn't read at all (am, ar, zh-min-nan, bn, el, fa, gan, he, ko, hi, is, ml, mr, ja, pl, si, ta, th, ur, zh-yue, zh), and there were two that I couldn't read but my best guess is that the interlanguage link points to the wrong article (qu (see en:Quechua language) and war (see en:Waray-Waray language)). The count appears to be won by "infinitesimal calculus", which has all the major European languages. (However, someone actually fluent in all those languages would probably be able to make a better count.)
I think the right thing to do is to merge en:Infinitesimal calculus into en:Calculus, and then include "Infinitesimal calculus" on the list. Ozob 03:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm OK with most of the changes except:
5. See Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2010#Replace Calculus with Mathematical analysis. I don't see a reason to exclude "aspects of Fourier theory, number theory, and differential geometry".
6. Numerical analysis is of great practical importance. If it crates a problem for a professional mathematician we can move it to Engineering section. :)
8. See #Replace number sets - general theory should be more important than one of its subjects.
9. Complex number could be replaced but I think that Inequality would be highly redundant with Equation.
Nk 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. I don't believe the argument put forward in that thread. "Mathematical analysis" is a huge, huge field, but its original basis and most important tools are derivatives and integrals. The cornerstone of harmonic analysis is the en:Fourier transform, which is an integral; harmonic analysis considers more general objects such as en:integral transforms, but these too are defined by integrals. The earliest use of analysis in number theory was en:Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions, which is an application of the Fourier transform (an integral). Analysis is everywhere in differential geometry because integrals and derivatives are everywhere in differential geometry. For example, the en:Isoperimetric inequality is at heart a statement about integrals. en:Hodge theory is a very powerful relation between shape and derivatives. Without derivatives and integrals, mathematical analysis would not exist.
6. If you can find an engineering topic to get rid of, then we can replace that by numerical analysis. It would be better there, because it's an obscure, tiny corner of mathematics. (Also, as far as I can tell, about half of numerical analysis is how to approximate integrals. So we can't include numerical analysis unless we include calculus. :-)
8. I disagree here, too. The study of prime numbers is not merely one subject among many in number theory. Primes are central to number theory in a way that nothing else is. Number-theoretic questions, even ones that appear to have nothing to do with prime numbers, are often solved by studying primes. For example, a large part of number theory is studying en:Diophantine equations. "Solving a Diophantine equation" means finding all the possible integer solutions to that equation. en:Fermat's Last Theorem is an example of this kind of problem, and solving it is equivalent to solving it when the exponent is prime. In fact, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem required studying the behavior of elliptic curves modulo primes. Prime numbers hold a special place in number theory in the same way that integrals and derivatives hold a special place in mathematical analysis.
9. I disagree. Compare en:Equation (which is quite short) to en:Inequality (which is long and detailed). There is a lot to say about inequalities.
Of course, all the articles currently on the list are interesting, too. I would prefer to not remove any articles from the math section, but I do not think that is practical. Ozob 20:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nk, I saw from your revert that you still disagree with my changes. I was hoping that you would post a response to me, but so far you haven't. I am particularly concerned at the loss of en:Inequality. Mathematical analysis and numerical analysis cannot be understood without inequalities, and there are many topics in geometry, number theory, and statistics that depend on inequalities. If the list is supposed to cover "general theory" as you said above, then I think it should cover the very general and very practical topic of inequalities. I still believe that Inequality should replace Complex number. Ozob 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry for the rather long delay but I don't follow that discussion very closely. As I said before from my point of view the content of Inequality and Equation should be overlapping to a great extent. Currently en:Inequality is longer than en:Equation but if you look inside you can see that most of the content could be moved to the other article with small changes (properties, examples, etc.). I can't say which one is more important, I'm just saying that we don't need both articles together in the list. --Nk 16:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ozob did the change diff --Akkakk 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:Differential and integral calculus is a redirect to en:Calculus. and please update Template:Top1000 recent changes. --Akkakk 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. And what shall we do? Calculus in Ukrainian is a very useful practical skill to count to 10, 100, 1000 or more (I never tried). We can't point Differential and integral calculus to a redirect. Perhaps, the result will be pointing ukrainian Mathematical analysys to your Calculus. You changed the topic with a fair competition to something weird. 18:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that because en:Differential and integral calculus is a redirect to en:Calculus on the English Wikipedia, it should also be a redirect on the Ukranian Wikipedia? I do not think it should be. Most languages call this subject "Infinitesimal calculus". In English it is usually called "Calculus". I made it a redirect above so that it would not be confused with other meanings of "calculus". Ozob 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever. This is a funny competition. You set the rules, we dance. I just want to note that it is called 'articles every Wikipedia should have. Every language chapter of the Wikipedia should have an article on derivative, integral, sequence, series or limit. Likewise, every chapter of Wikipedia should have an article on mathematical analysis, while the article on calculus is not really necessary or pressing. What is calculus? This is a traditional English term for mathanalysis. We respect traditions. What is differential and integral calculus? It is mathematical analysis. Neither theory of differential equations or differential geometry belong to mathematical analysis. They are related but separate fields of mathematics. Fourier series do belong to the mathematical analysis as a specific case of series. -- 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, in the English language and in professional mathematics more widely, "calculus" and "infinitesimal calculus" refer to the study of derivatives and integrals. "Mathematical analysis" is a wider field which is based on derivatives and integrals. Because it is impossible to understand mathematical analysis without understanding infinitesimal calculus, I believe that "infinitesimal calculus" is a more important article. Ozob 11:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it fair to impose English usage on others? 5 of the top 10 Wikipedias, Catalan, French, Italian, Russian and Ukrainian do not consider this distinction important at all. The article Calculus should not be in all Wikipedias. Guess what will happen to the end of the month? All interwiki from en:Mathematical analysis will gradually migrate to en:Calculus. The advantage you gained is for a month only. -- 14:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think that most of the interwiki links from en:Mathematical analysis should be moved to en:Calculus. They are articles about different topics. I think that calculus is a more important article because mathematical analysis builds on calculus. Ozob 21:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the point in removing square or circle, all the basic shapes should be in the list, since they are very common concepts, above than others more specialized. We are talking about core articles--Barcelona 08:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to include them, but I think that angle and area are more fundamental. But if you can offer a reason why square and circle are more important, then I may reconsider. Ozob 11:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well they are basic shapes, with an important symbolism besides maths. I can agree with angle but area it seems less important than any shape, it's a subordinate concept --Barcelona 14:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there are important symbolic meanings of squares and circles (and triangles, too). I would like to keep them in the list, but area is one of the basic kinds of measurements, and I can't imagine the list being complete without it. If there were more room on the list I would keep them. I think the rest of your argument would be more appropriate if it were applied to en:Shape. Area is common to all shapes, but no particular shape is important to the concept of area. Ozob 21:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I'm coming late to this discussion, but I agree with Barcelona. As the list stands, it is too technical. Sure, calculus is an important concept, but the concept of a square, circle or other is more well-known. I would remove differential equation (seems redundant to differential calculus) and add back circle or square. Purplebackpack89 17:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could go for that. I would be okay with replacing a more advanced article such as differential equation, complex number, or numerical analysis with a shape. But which shape? Ozob 15:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circle first, then square, then triangle Purplebackpack89 21:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that including all of them gives too much weight to geometric shapes. I would be okay with substituting, say, circle for numerical analysis. Ozob 12:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the order circle, square, triangle, and I'd add at least the two first concepts instead of the specific terms

Purplebackpack argues that the list is "too technical," but I think that's how it should be. I'm not sure we need articles about really basic concepts -- like circle, angle, area -- because anyone who's sophisticated and educated enough to be reading an encyclopedia probably already understands those. I think it's more useful to have articles about the fundamental ideas of mathematics -- analysis (incl. derivatives, integrals, differential equations, dynamical systems), algebra (incl. number theory), foundations (incl. logic, set theory, category theory), geometry (incl. topology) -- rather than about elementary concepts that happen to have some mathematical content. (But of the recent changes I do think en:Symmetry is an excellent idea, and I expect to write the corresponding article for my "home" WP myself.) Amahoney 12:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, of course anyone who reads tihos know what is a triangle, but not perhaps all the formulas related, its symbols and history: this is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary. Think about students, for example, they should know about all the things I said before, we are talking about the core topics each language should have and that means that they are basic concepts--Barcelona 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it depends on what your conception of a space-limited encyclopedia ought to be. Should it start from the ground and ensure that all of its articles need no knowledge not contained elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Or should it be the most important articles from a larger (possibly nonexistent) encyclopedia? In practice it has to start in the middle, but where's that? The middle depends on the encyclopedia's target audience. I could have proposed a more technical list above (with for example en:Measure (mathematics) in place of en:Area), but even though that would be appropriate for a mathematical encyclopedia, I do not think it would be appropriate for a general audience encyclopedia.
I am not sure what principles should be used to determine the content of this page. It makes me uneasy about the choice of articles on this page. Ozob 13:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic geographical concepts

I'm a bit surprised that, while there are many articles on specific geographical objects, articles on the related basic concepts are missing. There are several articles on individual lakes, but none on lake, several on individual countries consisting solely of islands, but none on island. Also, there's one on rain forest, but not on the more basic concept of forest, one on city but not on settlement (and on migration, a major component of the ever-increasing importance of cities). I know that the last one is a bit hard to argue for, because city is probably much more often searched for, but as in other mentioned cases, I cannot imagine defining a city other than by "large settlement" (and it seems I'm not the only one doing so). Also, the non-settled lifestyle of nomad, a historically very important concept, isn't featured on the list. Interestingly, agriculture is on the list (and rightfully so), but not hunting. On the other hand, there are articles on both sea and ocean, but isn't the difference between them only one of definition, just like the one between island and continent? I'm not even sure these differences exist in every language, especially the "smaller" ones this list is addressed to. I know, it's a long list of proposed additions and a small one of proposed removals, but generally, I would argue for less specific objects and more basic concepts to be featured on the list, even if the latter ones are a bit more searched for, because one of the most important tasks an encyclopedia should fulfil is defining, while explaining can only be the following step. --Axolotl 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Axolot --Barcelona 10:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not in favor of selecting general topics since we have the constraint of 1000 articles. The sea article is a good example why including them is not useful. They tend to be just a definition and a list of examples. The same would go for most basic geographic concepts. Also, I think we can assume a certain level of knowledge for people who are read Wikipedia. They are using a computer and the Internet after all. I am pretty sure the audience for these articles can understand an article on "rain forest" without beforehand reading "forest". I would just make the decision purely on importance. In that case "rain forest" is more relevant and important, IMHO. --MarsRover 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I insist on the arguments above, you can say a lot about a sea, and knowledge everybody has is a very subjective issue: we are talking about the must articles--Barcelona 16:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, in my opinion, "sea" is a good example of a problematic concept that would not be as suitable for inclusion here, because it doesn't have a precise definition. What is a sea? A body of saline water somewhat larger than a bay and somewhat smaller than an ocean where the name "sea" reflects traditional naming rather than size. You really cannot say much about that, other than list the examples. "Island" is almost the same. "Lake" is much better; sure, there's a couple in Central Asia bearing the name "sea", but those are about the only ones. I think we should keep this in mind when discussing changes. — Yerpo Eh? 06:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: a city has a much more precise legislative and administrative definition in most (all?) countries than merely being a "large settlement". In many cases, it also has historical relevance. — Yerpo Eh? 06:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, first, "sea" is included (even in bolt letters), and I had just argued why an article about it can also comprise enough information about "ocean" (at least for the standards of an encyclopedia of 1000 articles). So, while I am basically in favor of more articles on basic geographical concepts, this was the only example where I found an included one to be a bit too redundant. The way I see it, it's not supposed to be about "a sea", but "the sea" as an ecosystem, a waterway, a legal or political term ("high seas"), and so on. This comprises oceans, bays and other bodies of saline water of various size, though to different extents. So, if you're wondering why the English article on the topic is so bad, it's not because such a concept is too "basic" to even write about it, but too abstract to be completely captured in an easy way. That's also why we have so many specific geographical objects listed here, while it took several attempts to finally include "mountain". In fact, many articles on specific geographical objects are bot-generated on small Wikipedias anyway, and while this still leaves the task of expanding the articles to the authors, it's not quite what this list is about. To sum it up: Geographical articles are considered to be about describing, not explaining – which, however, is a convention, not a necessity or fact. Seen that way, your concerns just echo the contraints caused by the non-equal structure of Wikipedia's authorship (which, btw, not only favor "western" topics, but also "male" ones).
Concerning "forest", I'd agree that "rainforest" is important enough for being listed seperately, but shouldn't all large ecozones be included in some way or another, not just "rainforest" and "desert"? This is also a main factor of the importance of islands, which often feature very distinct assemblages of species, in contrast to the political and geological concept of a "continent". "Lake" is similar in that aspect, being some kind of a counterpart to "island". Concerning "city", however, you're definitely right. I shouldn't have brought that one up in the first place. --Axolotl 09:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe Dvořák should be replaced with Liszt. Although Dvořák was an amazing composer, I feel that Liszt was more influential to music in general- after all, he more or less invented the piano recital and the masterclass. Perhaps, although Chopin is an incredible composer, Liszt could replace him becuase they both wrote in similar styles. The Composers and musicians list is packed full, so I understand if there isn't room. Vladmirfish 01:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replacing "Dvorak" with "Liszt" seems a reasonable change but I am not a musical expert. --MarsRover 18:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about Dvorak, but surely Chopin deserves to remain in the list, because of his influence --Barcelona 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

replace "Sovereign state" by "Sovereignty"/"state"

I suggest to replace by "Sovereign state" by "Sovereignty" as separation between this topics is larger in English than other languages - and Sovereignty is more general topic (also 67 interwiki links instead of 33) Bulwersator 15:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds very sensible, I support. — Yerpo Eh? 06:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree with you. If I'm right the aim of this list was to contain basic and important concepts in every knolwedge area (wasn't?). I know how difficult is to arrive to an agreement about the relative importance between different concepts (circle vs square for instance) but I think the criteria to decide can not be based on the number of wikipedias pointing to enwiki nor on the length of the English article (to cite two arguments used here in the past to promote a change). In the present case I want to remember that "state" was replaced by "Sovereign state" (a little artifical since in many languages "state" -without adjectives- have implicit the idea of "sovereignty") and a lot of wikis, in a mimetic reaction, have recently created the equivalent term without needing it since it was still covered by "state". In my opinion the important concept is the state as a sovereign entity independetly of the term used in any particular language, this concept of state is today a main element, the keystone of the international relations. --Loupeter 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but there are languages where there is no need for separate entries "sovereignty" and "Sovereign state" as sovereignty is used only in this meaning (for example in my language). Based on interwiki check it is true also for other languages Bulwersator 21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. It has been State, then Sovereign state, then Sovereignty. -- 07:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

State is fare more general than the other concepts --Barcelona 20:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I suggest return to state Bulwersator 16:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major refactoring of /Removed

I have just refactored Talk:List of articles all languages should have/Removed based on the current structure of List of articles every Wikipedia should have. That is, I duplicated the section structure of the latter page and moved certain entries around to fit that structure as best I could. (Stuff that didn't fit very well are listed under italicized section headings.) I hope this will be acceptable to people here. I verified that I didn't lose any links in the process (well, okay, I just counted them, and the number was the same before and after the change). Interested parties might want to look over the current state of the page to see if they disagree with the placement of any of the entries. See, in particular, the remaining entries in the Culture section, which I couldn't find good homes for. - dcljr 18:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for creating this list. I have added it to ia:Wikipedia:Articulos Vital to save us the space that was being used to keep track of this. Almafeta 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't create the list, I just rearranged the entries. I don't even know how well it's been kept up to date, since this is the first thing I've done with it. — If by "you", you didn't mean me personally but just people here at Meta, then you're welcome. [g] (Oh, and the link you gave wasn't quite right. You meant ia:Wikipedia:Articulos vital.) - dcljr 05:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to suggest that The Art Of War be added.

  • It is one of the oldest books known to us.
  • As a book of military strategy, other books are compared to it treating the Art of War as the golden standard of military strategy: see en:The Book of Five Rings and en:The 48 Laws of Power.
  • For almost four millenia, wars have been fought according to its precepts, making it useful for understanding war in general.
  • It is required reading in the military of the United States, Japan, China, and other countries. (I remember it being taught in the military training in Chile, but I don't have a citation for it.)

I do not have a suggestion for an article to remove. Almafeta 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "Pyramid" could be removed from the architecture section. The reason is simple: Compared to the other things in the list, like tower or bridge or dam, people dont really build pyramids that often. Also, the article about "Giza pyramid complex", covering the big pyramids in egypt and the sphinx, is in the list, so its quite redundant. 02:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was actually thinking Statue of Liberty, because pyramids are a major step in a culture's architecture, found across the eras and across continents... while the Statue of Liberty is fairly recent. Almafeta 07:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I'd remove en:Burj Khalifa - the only significant thing about it seems to be its height, and many buildings were at one time significantly high in history. It could be adequately covered in en:Dubai which is in the list. -- Liliana 13:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Burj Khalifa, strongly against removing Pyramid, because it's an important topic in history, symbols and architecture --Barcelona 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because Burj Khalifa's already in the Expanded section, I support this. Almafeta 08:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly prefer removing one of the two Pyramid articles. In my opinion the highest building and the bridge with the most big span should be in the list. --Nk 13:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's only a temporary thing tho, there will be larger buildings in the future. Hell, a "List of tallest buildings and structures in the world" article is more important then that. Brightgalrs 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't consider this as big problem - changing a wiki page is much easier than building a taller structure. :) --Nk 16:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... there's still en:Joule or en:Watt. Both were proposed for removal before, and everyone agreed, it just didn't happen because people couldn't decide on an article to replace these with. Pick your favorite! -- Liliana 17:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soo... should I replace en:Joule with en:The Art Of War if nobody disagrees? -- Liliana 11:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done -- Liliana 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose to replace en:Light year with en:Spaceflight.

Light year is another one of those units of measurement that, while basic, are not a good idea to have in a "articles every Wikipedia should have" list, because you can't write much about them (several other units of measurement were already removed in the same vein). Spaceflight is an article I'm surprised we don't have in this list, given how significant the topic is. -- Liliana 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Support Since metre is in the list, light year can certainly go. Guido den Broeder 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this seems like a good change. --MarsRover 07:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done -- Liliana 17:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computing section

The computing section currently has the articles en:Hard disk drive, en:Central processing unit and en:Random-access memory. I'm not convinced we need any of these as separate entries, since they should already be accurately described in en:Computer, and have almost no importance on their own.

As replacement articles, I propose en:Clock, and perhaps en:Bow and arrow and en:Artillery (but I am really at a loss of ideas, so feel free to suggest articles on your own). -- Liliana 08:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I partly agree (usually these multiple swap suggestion are hard to debate). I agree "Clock" is more important than "Random-access memory". CPU is fairly important technical development although probably should be the generic en:Microprocessor for this list. HDD perhaps could be replaced with en:Integrated Circuit when enabled smaller computers or en:Typewriter which helped define the interface for the computer (keyboard). --MarsRover 16:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Microprocessor is much better than CPU (which is more a position in a device layout than a class of objects). If we are looking for alternatives of HDD an important missing subject in the technical field is en:Concrete (or even better en:Reinforced concrete). --Nk 17:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Microprocessor seems good to me as well. As for the third one, of the articles suggested so far I'm most fond of en:Concrete - Typewriter wasn't really any significant in history, and Integrated Circuit is just too specialized. -- Liliana 17:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Concrete" isn't a bad choice although the "en.wp" has a boring article that is hard to be fond of. And historically en:Stonemasonry seems more important. --MarsRover 06:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we need to slim the section down, I would suggest replacing the three specific pieces of hardware with en:Computer hardware, especially considering that en:Computer software is already in the list. (And as a point of order, I'd put Operating System in a category below Computer Software, to illustrate that an operating system is a key type of software. Almafeta 07:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Computer hardware is a terrible article. Pretty much all Wikipedias have only lists for this, understandable since usually you'd cover that in en:Computer. (I don't feel all that strongly about its software counterpart either, which is equally just a bunch of lists). -- Liliana 14:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theoretically, we're talking about articles which wikipedias should have, not about articles which are already done... but point taken. Suggestion withdrawn. Almafeta 06:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The size or the contents of the English article should not be a criteria to decide but the importance of the concept, isn't it?. I think the aim behind this list is to improve the articles devoted to the basic and most important concepts in every knowledge area, in English and in all other wikipedias.--Loupeter 15:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a way you're right, but consider this: if both Computer hardware and Computer software are considered separate articles in the list, and should ideally be full-fledged articles on the subject matter, what is there left to include in Computer (besides maybe the history)? -- Liliana 11:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides an overview of the types of computers, and the history of their development? You could add in nice sections about the growing role of computers in science, education, entertainment, commerce, and communication, to start. Almafeta 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll go ahead and replace en:Random-access memory with en:Clock if nobody objects. That seems to be the part everyone agreed with so far. -- Liliana 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

clock seems ok, disagree about the others --Barcelona 09:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added en:Clock. -- Liliana 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(sorry for the flood of suggestions, I just thought I'd bring some activity in here)

I noticed en:Treaty of Versailles in the list. I think this is a really poor choice, because 1. the subject matter is pretty much covered by en:World War I already, and 2. there were a number of peace treaties after WWI, and Versailles is only one of them. Therefore, I propose removing it and replacing it with another article - history isn't my strong point but I think someone suggested en:Mali Empire before... -- Liliana 18:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree to replacing "Treaty of Versailles" with "Mali Empire". --MarsRover 05:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being the result of World War I and the cause of World War II, I oppose removing the Treaty of Versailles for any reason. Almafeta 07:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
disagree --Barcelona 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note we also have en:Great Depression and en:Nazi Germany, which should both cover the interim period very well, and which are much more the reasons of WWII than Versailles ever was. -- Liliana 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also oppose removing either en:Great Depression or en:Nazi Germany. Almafeta 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that they were ever suggested... -- Liliana 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least we could consider replacing it with en:Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Of course Treaty of Versailles was most important and the rest of the treaties were based on it but in fact the intention was that all of them function as a system. Furthermore most of the contemporary nations in the Middle East and Central Europe were created with the secondary treaties. --Nk 16:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. It might be a good compromise. -- Liliana 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do you agree to replace Hundred Years War with w:Ancient Carthage? -- Bojan  Talk  11:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguably, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire are enough articles referring to the same time period, and we don't need Carthage on top of that, so I'm inclined to disagree. -- Liliana 11:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, but why Middle Ages and Early Modern has two articles on wars (+Protestant Reformation overlaps Thirty Years' War). Can we replace it with something from Americas, like Mayas or Mesoamerica? -- Bojan  Talk  12:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that en:Thirty Years' War is highly redundant (in fact, it was proposed for removal before). But I'm really not sure what better article to replace it with. -- Liliana 12:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
edit: possibly en:Achaemenid Empire? -- Liliana 12:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. But what about Hundred Years War and Mesoamerica (or some other New World topic)? -- Bojan  Talk  12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with achaemenids, there are many articles of similar importance from the old era. --Barcelona 08:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we already have Cyrus the Great. --Nk 16:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that Hundred Years War has major importance for European History as the different phases of the conflict have contributed to the formation of the main countries of Western Europe (France, United Kingtom and Spain...) and also to the emergence of the modern concept of nation (at least for France and England) and of diplomacy (if we consider the number of treaties signed between the main belligerents, their allies... etc). On anecdotal level, Hundred Years War is also the longest war in the History.--Nicolas Eynaud 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well, let's face it: the Geography section is way too large, and contains many entries which I feel are absolutely not needed.

At this time of writing, there are 46 countries listed. Of these, I consider at least the following unneeded:

  • en:Algeria (not a significant country)
  • en:Poland (not a significant country either)
  • en:New Zealand (they may be English-speaking so some of you are biased, but in reality this country isn't significant at all)
  • en:Sudan (what have they ever done in the past or present?)
  • en:Ukraine (not a significant country)
  • en:Vatican City (why do we even have this? The subject matter should be adequately described in en:Catholic Church already)

Seeing as the list on en: has only 22 entries, there's certainly room for more removals. I'd be happy to add some more important countries in their place (I think someone suggested en:Philippines...), or possibly other unrelated subjects. -- Liliana 12:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe most these countries are "insignificant" especially when compared with other regional countries. "New Zealand" is more significant than the "Philippines". But going off "significance" is very POV. You're best point was that "Vatican City" is redundant. -MarsRover 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And many cities are unnecessary, too: Cape Town (where is Johanesburg), Dubai, Bogota, Mecca... -- Bojan  Talk  17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I planned to cover the cities in a separate topic, but yeah, most of them are pretty useless too. -- Liliana 18:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For countries, it's really hard to draw the line, as unlike with other topics, there is no clear definition of "significance" or "importance" for countries. Both current importance, historical importance, and other factors need to be taken into account. Naturally, such definitions are never going to be objective, but at least I'm trying to get them close to that.
Take for example a country such as Algeria. What was its history? Populated by Arab and Berber tribes, later colonialized, then gained independence, and there it is. There is no point that says "hey, this makes the country very significant when compared to the others", and I'm sure if this was proposed as a new country for the list, it would fail in discussion.
New Zealand is especially bad, because this list already has a strong English bias, with the USA, UK, Canada and Australia all there, and a fifth English country seems way superfluous. Another, unrelated country, like en:Ghana, is clearly the better choice in this case. -- Liliana 18:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Ukraine, but replace the others with: Inca Empire, Iroquois Confederacy, Mali, Mongolia, Venice. Replace South Korea with Korea. Guido den Broeder 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree to review the countries, but talking about importance related to a country is a bad way to start a discussion. Perhaps we should first agree on the basic terms for geography section (political geography): we should have countries, empires, cities, none of them?--Barcelona 08:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Countries yes. Empires should go into the history section right above. As for cities, I'm kinda split on the matter, as cities don't seem that important to me. You can't tell me that a page like en:Jakarta is more important than basic topics such as en:Lake or en:Waterfall, both of which we're still missing. -- Liliana 14:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with general concepts above cities but I'm not sure some cities aren't as important or more than their countries, so I'd like more opinions --Barcelona 10:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only one I might agree with as being 'not significant' is Algeria. A far more important question: What do we do now that Sudan's split into two countries? Almafeta 19:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think en:David Ben-Gurion should be removed, because as a leader, he didn't actually do a lot, and he pales in comparison to the other political leaders listed. Instead, I think he should be replaced with en:Arab–Israeli conflict, which is the same subject but from a much more general view. -- Liliana 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I obviously prefer that general article but I suggest to slow down a bit, many changes and few people discussing them! This project afects a lot of wikipedias, so it's important to have a lot of consensus--Barcelona 10:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Liliana. --Pequod76(adminiubbo) 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replace with en:Tecumseh. Regards, Guido den Broeder 20:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tecumseh? How is he important enough? — Yerpo Eh? 06:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike Ben-Gurion, he actually had a political ideology (beyond 'let's form our own state'). And while Ben-Gurion faced mostly guerilla tactics, Tecumseh fought the American army, saving Canada where the British failed. Guido den Broeder 10:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not compared to Ben-Gurion, but compared to other core topics. — Yerpo Eh? 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easily more significant than Joan of Arc. Guido den Broeder 23:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to whom? — Yerpo Eh? 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly agree. In fact as I mentioned before adding Arab–Israeli conflict we could remove Israel. --Nk 17:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it makes sense --Barcelona 10:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this okay to do? -- Liliana 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done -- Liliana 11:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think that en:Austria (in the Geography section) should be replaced with en:Austria-Hungary (in the History section). I think that Austria is not essential, because the nation in question is not the empire of the XIX century, but the republic formed in 1918 following the defeat in the First World War. Austria, as a republic, is a relatively young nation, not of great historical importance. I think instead that Austria-Hungary has played a key role in the history, and I think that the person who put the article "Austria" on the list, was referring to the empire of the XIX century, not to the current republic. --Reder 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was about to propose the exact same thing, and yeah I agree with your reasoning. -- Liliana 00:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Austria-Hungary existed only 50 years. :) Maybe it would be better to go for something like en:Habsburg Monarchy - that article should cover a larger period and is more comparable to the rest of the empire articles in the list (Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, etc.). --Nk 17:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we can remove Austria but I don't agree in any of your proposals, there aren't basic topics --Barcelona 10:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hebrew alphabet

Added Hebrew alphabet. -- 22:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? This wasn't discussed anywhere. -- Liliana 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it should be reverted. Are we on a race? Why so hurried? --Barcelona 10:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't polit-correctly. Arabic alphabet is included. Tora written with Hebrew alphabet too. -- 13:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list is about significance, not political correctness whatever that may mean. I'd add the Pickering alphabet first. Anwyays, you can't add an item to the top 1000 without dropping another. Guido den Broeder 16:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I only have one suggestion, Bob Marley. He is the black/African/Caribbean equivalent of the Beatles, hugely influential, incredibly gifted, universally acclaimed, and world famous.

We should remove one of the many classical musicians to make way for him.

An in general, this list, unlike other which have minor balance problems, is completely Euro-centric, and heavily skewed to 18th-19th century music on to of that. This needs to be fixed, either by exchanging one for one, or by trimming to make way for addition in other categories. I think we should include one musician from each continent/cultural sphere, before doubling up.

If an alien took this list, they would think we only listened to classical music, jazz, and classic rock. Sounds more like what wikipedians listen to than an overview. I love la Piaf, but what is she doing in this list?--Cerejota 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piaf should more than likely go. I for one have never heard of this person before, despite living in a country that directly borders France. I'm indifferent re: Marley, though. -- Liliana 10:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that Reggae is already in the list. Having both Bob Marley and Reggae is too much in my opinion. --Nk 16:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do not know Piaf, you do not know music. Guido den Broeder 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor do I claim to. But this list shouldn't just be geared towards people who "know music", it should be a general list to use for everyone. -- Liliana 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, as I said, I love la Piaf, but she was just a singer. To have her is a space limited list with Mozart is a stretch.--Cerejota 23:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Marley was not just a Reggae musician and composer, he started his carreer as a mento, ska, and r&b singer. Then he was a rocksteady artist. Even in his reggae period, he dealt in folk, rock, afro-pop, dub, disco, etc. By this logic, we already have "rock" so The Beatles should go. Bob Marley's contribution to sub-saharan African music (not just reggae) is immense, as is his influence on contemporary music world-wide. He is up there with The Beatles. The problem is that this list sounds like a fan list for a certain kind of music aficionado, rather than a world-wide overview of music. Hence my proposal is that we have at least one prominent musician from each cultural space before repeating the space.--Cerejota 23:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

having Reggae, not need to remove an author to put Marley, we already talk about him in the genre article --Barcelona 10:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you just ignore everything I said?--Cerejota 18:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps add en:Pop music? -- Liliana 16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

euro/american bias

Whether or not Marley or Piaf should be on the list seems like minor problems compared with the euro/american bias Cerejota brings up. That should be our first priority. I suggest we replace blues, jazz and rock music (and perhaps hip hop) with en:African American music, remove electronic music, flamenco and perhaps (though it breaks my heart) Symphony and Opera (we'd still have Classical music to cover those topics). The room we make in the list should be used for articles like en:Indian classical music, en:Gamelan, en:Arabic music etc. Niklas R 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For more ideas and arguments see the second half of this discussion. Niklas R 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

subst Socrates

Since we know the major part of Socrates' philosophy through Plato's oeuvre and currently we cannot be completely sure about what is surely Plato's and what is surely Socrates' in Plato's dialogues and since Plato's work is a sort of direct continuation of Socrates' work, I think that inside a minimal Wikipedia of 1000 articles an article about Plato is enough to describe this philosophers, therefore I suggest to remove Socrates article from this list and add other Greek persons really important for Western civility, as Hippocrates or Herodotus. Could it be?--Nickanc 19:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd consider the Dutch theologian Erasmus. Regards, Guido den Broeder 21:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not sure, Socrates is one of the fathers of philosophy. We could remove him but I don't see your proposals as more significant. Perhaps a more modern one?--Barcelona 10:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggested Hippocrates because of the Hippocratic Oath and its importance within ethic, it is one of the first statements of a moral of conduct. Don't you agree on his importance inside a minimal Wikipedia?--Nickanc 13:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, about more modern philosophers, we may consider also en:Karl Popper or en:Thomas Kuhn.--Nickanc 20:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they could be in the list, but I don't agree removing Socrates, any other suggestions for removal?--Barcelona 10:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Popper, remove Truth. There is no need to have both Truth and Reality, right? Guido den Broeder 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. --Nk 15:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
why not? they are both basic important topics, not the same field of philosophy. Another proposal? --Barcelona 10:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why dont you agree on removing Socrates, Barcelona? Motivations may help the discussion.--Nickanc 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's one of the greatest philosophers of Greece, his principle of "I know that I know nothing" it's basic and has inspired a lot of thinkers of different countries and religions, the socratic method is on the basis of many active pedagogy theories, his death is a cultural hit... --Barcelona 10:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Abraham - Jewish, Christian, Muslim
  • Aquinas, Thomas - Christian
  • Augustine of Hippo - Christian
  • Buddha - Buddhism
  • Ghazali - Muslim
  • Jesus - Christian, Muslim
  • Luther, Martin - Christian
  • Moses - Jewish, Christian, Muslim
  • Muhammad - Muslim
  • Paul the Apostle - Christian

Out of ten figures, 8 have to do with Christianity, either in combination or singly. That is severely unbalanced.

I would take out:

  • Paul the Apostle
  • Aquinas, Thomas
  • Augustine of Hippo

Because they are singly important to Christianity. So is Martin Luther, but the Reformation was a world-changing event that makes him a world figure - and the reformation itself had peripheral effects on other religions, like Judaism and Islam.

As a replacement, I would put:

  • Zoroaster - founder of the first monotheistic religion.
  • Confucius - founder of the first non-theist religious philosophy.

I cannot decide whom, but a Hindu religious figure (perhaps some expert can comment)

This would balance the list. As it stands, it is Christian propaganda, not a world overview of religious biographies.--Cerejota 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Confucius is already in the list (but under the Philosophers and social scientists heading), so you're gonna have to think of something else. I do support the suggestion in principle, though. -- Liliana 00:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added bullet points to make your post more readable. As a side note, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Islam are just other families in the greater christian family, not really distinct religions, so of those ten, nine have something to do with Christianity. Also, I would not take out Paul because there are religions that worship him, not Jesus, as the son of Jehovah. Nor would I take out Augustine of Hippo if I could avoid it, as he is important to philosophy as well as religion - his works, stripped of religious context, set out such important ideas as free will and just war, and wrote important early thought on the nature of time, thought, language, and memory. He could be taken out, though - it seems a bit odd to me that we have Augustine of Hippo, but not the Bible. As to Hinduism, there are few central religious figures as there are on the judeochristian tradition, and far too many gods - it's old like Shinto, as polysyncretic, dates back before modern written record, and does not have a set "canon" to refer to; hinduism is not a "given" religion as in the Abrahamic or Buddhist traditions, but a "grown" religion. If any more articles need to be added for Hinduism, I think we could start with en:Trimurti (replacing the specific Shiva) and then add en:Varna (their infamous caste system which has influenced culture, government, and society in the region for millenia and to this day).
Also, I do not support adding Confucius, because anything he did for the purposes of the top 1,000 is sufficiently covered by Confucianism. Almafeta 07:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Christian propaganda" - Christian bias in the worst case. Shouting "propaganda! propaganda!" is in a poor style Bulwersator 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two counterproposals, in their own sections for organization:

Shiva -> Trimurti

I propose replacing the specific (en:Shiva) with the whole (en:Trimurti). Almafeta 07:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This hasn't been commented on? support, even though I can't really judge the proposal due to my lack of knowledge. -- Liliana 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will make the change tonight, if there's no objection. Almafeta 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Aquinas -> Varna

I propose replacing en:Thomas Aquinas with en:Varna. Almafeta 07:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually not a bad idea Amahoney 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Humm.. I assume you mean en:Varna (Hinduism) and not a resort in Bulgaria. -MarsRover 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...right, yes, of course. Almafeta 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul the Apostle -> Sedwa'gowa'ne

And replace Paul the Apostle with Sedwa'gowa'ne. Regards, Guido den Broeder 08:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

strongly oppose to remove Paul, we can talk about the others. The apostle is the one who in fact shaped christianity as a religion, so we can't miss him. If we remove the 2 medieval philosophers, I wouldn't add Confucius (we already have his doctrine) nor these names proposed by Guido: they can be less eurocentric but we are talking about core topics and they aren't. Perhaps we could add instead some concepts, not names of people.--Barcelona 10:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paul's influence on Christianity should be covered in the article on Christianity, which is on the list. The entire religion of America's indigenous people is missing, as are their cities, culture, philosophy, leaders, etc. Guido den Broeder 00:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose re: adding Sedwa'gowa'ne. -- Liliana 16:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose both: St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the most important theologians in the history of Catholicism. When a book came out about the seminal figures of the millenium, he was in the top ten or fifteen. Also oppose subbing out Paul of Tarsus. And considering that Augustine of Hippo was one of the people responsible for choosing the canon of the Bible, that makes a little sense. Purplebackpack89 23:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what? Jesus takes him for a ride. The point is, we have ten slots, cannot fill them up with Christianity, this list is not of Important Christians, but of the Top Ten Religious Figures Everyone Should Have in Their Wikipedia. St. Thomas and St. Agustine are covered under the appropriate articles on their religion. I think that is reasonable request.--Cerejota 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Barcelona; Paul shaped Christianity and its philosophy, spreading it in the Greek-Roman world. We can't miss him.--Nickanc 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sedwa'gowa'ne did more than that in his part of the world. He revived a religion AND came up with a code. Guido den Broeder 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, based on wikipedia article I see that his influence was limited to Iroquois tribes Bulwersator 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The en:Wikipedia article is not very good, and there is no article on the religion itself. Even so, Paul's influence was also limited to one region. Guido den Broeder 09:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greek-Roman world together with Christianity influenced area was/is bigger than Iroquois tribes lands Bulwersator 11:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Greece, Rome, and Christianity are on the list. This is about Paul. He went where a one man could go in his lifetime, but so did Sedwa'gowa'ne. Their travels are comparable. Guido den Broeder 18:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not at all for me --Barcelona 09:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I cannot understate this: someone from this list needs to go to place him here. Zoroastrism was the first prophetic and evangelical religion, and at its height was practiced more than any religion in the world. It might be a historic artifact now, practiced by a few hundred thousand, but its influence on Abrahamic religions cannot be understated, as well as being the definitive form of monotheistic worship (even if really duotheistic). This is an extremely important figure in providing a comprehensive view of religious biography.--Cerejota 17:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have en:Zoroastrianism under Religion; do we need to have Zoroaster himself as well? Or would you propose this list should include an article about him rather than one about the religion? (Presumably the larger WP versions will have both, of course, but this is the 1000-articles list, not the everything-that-matters list, right?) Amahoney 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By this logic, then why have any religious figures at all? Why have Jesus if we have Christianity? Even then, I think Zoroaster himself, rather than the Zoroastrian religion, is more significant in a 1000 item short list. --Cerejota 21:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion Zoroastrianism and Zoroaster are overlapping too much for that list. --Nk 16:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Top 10

The page gives the top 1,000 of must-have articles; I am wondering what the top 10 would be. My own list might look like this (in alphabetical order):

  1. Art
  2. Earth
  3. Human rights
  4. Internet
  5. Life
  6. Literature
  7. Music
  8. Philosophy
  9. Scientific method
  10. Time

What is yours? Guido den Broeder 00:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd eliminate "Human rights" and "Internet", and replace them with "History" and "Human" Purplebackpack89 03:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Culture
  2. Geography
  3. History
  4. Human
  5. Life
  6. Nature
  7. Philosophy
  8. Science
  9. Society
  10. Technology
--Afaz 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Dewey Decimal Classification has already specified the top ten for us:
  1. Computer science
  2. Philosophy & psychology
  3. Religion
  4. Social sciences
  5. Language
  6. Science
  7. Technology
  8. Arts & recreation
  9. Literature
  10. History & geography
Note that, except for biographies (all of which might profitably be eliminated, because they're special cases of general & more abstract topics), the items of this set stand broadly in the same order as the 1000 articles, presumably revealing the origin of the larger list. Jacob. 23:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are probably correct about that. We are, however, not creating a classification, but a list of what we think is the most essential knowledge to spread around. Regards, Guido den Broeder 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have a vital 100, of which ten are bolded as the most important... Almafeta 18:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that list is already done, see Vital articles' levels --Barcelona 08:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is en:Wikipedia, they don't speak for all of us. Guido den Broeder 09:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this discussion has died down. I'm not sure we really need this list, if we do, I reaffirm what I said above that something about history needs to be one there, and computer science is important, but not top 10 important Purplebackpack89 05:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sudan -> Bible

I think that Bible is way more important than Sudan Bulwersator 12:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not comparable. And, it was removed before, because it's not so necessary to have religious texts here when we have their respective religions. Check the archives and come back if you have something to add to that discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We still haven't answered the question about what to do with Sudan now that it's two nations... Almafeta 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replace it with Mali. Regards, Guido den Broeder 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watt -> Menstruation

Removing Watt has already been agreed upon; nobody has suggested an alternative. I would like to suggest Menstruation, to go under Reproduction in the Biological Processes section.

Maybe I'm biased, but growing up, I knew a lot of girls who were fed complete fiddle-faddle about their anatomy. I think it's important not only to English-speaking girls, but every girl in the world, to have a source of complete and factual information about their bodies. This article is about as basic and as non-controversial a place to start as any. Almafeta 09:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly concur; this strikes me as a more important article than several of the others we've proposed. Amahoney 17:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, we should remove "Watt". But I and probably 90% of Wikipedia editors don't know the practical value of including "Menstruation". I'll leave it up to the 10% to decide whether it essential to have this article. Also, we do have en:Pregnancy, en:Reproductive system, en:Reproduction and en:Sex so I cannot see a complete void of coverage. --MarsRover 04:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as one of the 10%, I'd say it is a useful article, alongside en:Reproduction and so on. Amahoney 12:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly agree, for the reasons Almafeta mentioned. One one hand, I'm surprised it isn't here, but then as one of the x-deficient 90% of editors, I wouldn't have even thought to add it. --Quintucket 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicotine -> Herpesvirus

IMHO there is no need for nicotine since tobacco is also on the list. Herpesviruses are the cause of many diseases. Regards, Guido den Broeder 09:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with removal of Nicotine. Almafeta 09:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree with the removal, but the are more important topics related to health than the virus, perhaps menstruation as suggested above? I insist, however, we seem on a rush, there's no need to hurry to make changes --Barcelona 08:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly en:Non-fiction? We have many other categories of literature in the list, and it's strange how this important category of literature is completely absent. -- Liliana 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about en:Immune system to stay in natural sciences? This was proposed last year but got ignored, somehow, and I think it's really an important topic, one that should be included a long time ago. — Yerpo Eh? 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Immune system" sounds like a good article to include since I don't think we have a similar topic. And Nicotine is too similar to Tobacco so it could go. --MarsRover 05:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

perhaps that for another change, first I'd change nicotine for menstruation; immune system seems clear for me but instead of which? --Barcelona 09:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong with removing Watt? — Yerpo Eh?
I support removing both Watt and nicotine, and replacing them with menstruation and immune system. --Quintucket 15:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Integumentary system -> Hospital

en:Integumentary system is sort of overlapping with en:Skin which is already in the list. Also, another interesting fact is this term for the covering of an organism is least popular article in the entire list. We are missing en:Hospital which is sort fundamental to Healthcare systems. We do have "Health" and "Medicine" but neither describe the structure used to get the healthcare. --MarsRover 05:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hospital is a bit western biased as a basic infrastructure--Barcelona 09:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. What about en:Hygiene? -- Liliana 15:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh.. little bit too similar to "Health" which is already in the list. --MarsRover 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps replace en:Integumentary system with en:Menstruation, then? Amahoney 12:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is dealt with above. Keep it there, please. -- Liliana 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK: let me see if I get the principle here; discussions are arranged by articles proposed for addition rather than those proposed for replacement? No problem; once I know what the customs are, I'm happy to conform Amahoney 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but I don't get it. I believe that the hospitals are globally present in modern times? --Nk 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in ancient times, too. However, I don't believe that this is an appropriate replacement. Without the integumentary system, my organs wouldn't be where they are today. Almafeta 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support proposal. In general, I think this list is too geeky, favoring important but highly technical subjects over more well-known ones. Same with the expanded version Purplebackpack89 05:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, for reasons mentioned by MarsRover and Purplebackpack. --Quintucket 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource list

I have started List of texts every Wikisource should have. Please add anything that comes to mind - once we reach 100 we'll start to make decisions about which texts are more important than other ones. Also, there are quite a few lists of respected lists of books that everyone should read before they die .. we should find them and add the most broadly mentioned texts that are public domain. John Vandenberg 05:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of vital categories and templates

My proposal: 1) Create the list of vital categories (with their relations). For example use some top-level categories from EN, DE, FR Wikis (first 4-5 levels). On the first stage these categories will empty. But, correct relations and correct names are good thing.

2) Create the list of vital templates and infoboxes (with their categories), for example "Commons", "Commonscat", etc. --Averaver 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a good proposal...create a new page for it and we can keep talking about it there Purplebackpack89 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative Country Proposal

Back in April, it was suggested that some of the less important countries be replaced with more important ones, though it somewhat trailed off. I'm going to bring it up again, because really, it's true that Algeria and Cuba aren't all that important, and I'm going to suggest ditching the current list and picking 40 countries from scratch.

Here's my suggestion. The first 25-27 countries I feel are fairly objective criterion:

1. The G8 + BRICs = 11 (Russia's in both). These also happen to be the 11 countries with the highest GDP. 2. Countries that are in three of the following: Next Eleven, EAGLEs or Eagles' Nest, Developing 8, newly industrialized countries and in the top 40 by GDP or purchasing power parity. 3. Countries which are will be in the top 10 for population by 2050, according to the UN. [1].

  • USA
  • China
  • Japan
  • Germany
  • France
  • UK
  • Brazil
  • Italy
  • India
  • Canada
  • Russia
  • Mexico
  • South Korea
  • Indonesia
  • Turkey
  • Iran
  • Thailand
  • South Africa
  • Egypt
  • Pakistan
  • Malaysia *see below
  • Nigeria
  • Philippines
  • Vietnam
  • Bangladesh (7) *see below
  • Ethiopia (9)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo (10)
11 countries 13 countries 3 countries

This gives a fairly nice group of 27 countries, though I might suggest not including Malaysia and Bangladesh, because South and Southeast Asia are already well-represented by even more important countries. This would give us 25 countries. After that, it becomes arbitrary, but I would suggest first:

4. The two important parts of the UN geoscheme not represented (I had Oceania, but realized that's also a continent).

  • Central Asia
  • Caribbean

Now up to 27 or 29 countries select from 11-13 from the remainder (asterisks indicate my picks)

5. Fairly populous countries, which are also regional powers and played a key role in the development of human civilization. 6. Sundry regional powers 7. Biologically megadiverse countries, from geographic areas that aren't well represented in the above 8. Remaining arbitrary countries that are kind of interesting and important, but part of well-represented regions in the above list
  • Iraq
  • Peru *
  • Colombia *
  • Australia *
  • Israel *
  • Kenya *
  • New Zealand
  • Poland *
  • Spain *
  • Saudi Arabia *
  • Madagascar *
  • Papua New Guinea *
  • Argentina
  • Chile
  • Finland (because of the economic miracle)
  • Morocco
  • Netherlands *
  • North Korea *
  • Norway
  • Switzerland *

--Quintucket 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also suggest, regarding the cities, replacing Washington, DC with the city-state of Singapore. Unlike New York or LA, or even a number of smaller cities, such as Boston, DC is only internationally notable by being the capital of a powerful country, and not as a city in its own right. And while Singapore isn't especially notable as a country, as a city it's one of the most important in the world. --Quintucket 15:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: why 40 countries? That seems like an awfully arbitrary number to me, and it isn't explained anywhere how it was chosen.
As for the list, the top one seems okay, although I'm a bit unhappy with Ethiopia (Kenya seems like a better choice to me). As for the others, Australia, Spain, Saudi Arabia and probably Switzerland seem like good additional choices to me.
As for Singapore, be wary: the city of Singapore was officially dissolved in 1965, so including it as a city makes little sense. -- Liliana 16:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
40 countries is the number we already have. I don't think that 40 out of 1000 is overmuch. There's more than that in the top 1000 most visited.[2] (I stopped counting when I got to 41.) Obviously the English Wikipedia article isn't a great example, but you can try other languages, and skimming quickly see that the numbers of countries appear to be similar, though many of the particular countries vary. (Brits and Americans care about Afghanistan. Spanish speakers don't.)
I agree that we should add Kenya (see above), but I think we should include Ethiopia. It's one of the most important countries in the history of human civilization, the only African country that remained independent, second most populous African country (and 18th most populous in the world today; it would be the only country in the top twenty we excluded), and center of pan-Africanism.
Also, I notice, surprisingly that Nepal seems to be quite popular in a number of Wikis, in the top thousand in every one I checked except Georgian, top 500 for most (and as high as 8 on the Arabic WP). Same for most European countries, which suggests we might want to increase their representation. Europe makes sense, since most people everywhere know multiple people who live there or have lived there, but the enduring popularity of Nepal (it seems to be consistent, I tried multiple months and years on several Wikis) baffles me. And why is Georgian the one exception? (I tried Spanish, Turkish, Uzbek, Arabic, Indonesian, Javanese, Komi, Nahuatl, Greenlandic, Swahili, Yoruba, and Korean.)
And you're absolutely right that we can't expect people to start with 40 articles; we will have to choose a new set of vital articles. Suggestions?
And the bit about Singapore is interesting, thanks. Though I feel like we can still treat it as a city for our purposes. How do you feel about my evaluation of DC? Maybe I should start a separate section in the event that we remove it from the countries. --Quintucket 01:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list on English Wikipedia has 22 countries. That's probably too little for our purposes, though, so a middle ground (30? 35?) should be appropriate.
As for European countries, you need to watch out: from your European standpoint, it makes sense to include many European countries. However, for a user from Africa or Asia who is trying to improve his or her Wikipedia, he or she might find it appropriate that the list is so centered on a region considered "foreign" to them, and that doesn't have the same importance to them as it does for us. It's important that some kind of balance is maintained, even if it may be a bit difficult for us.
As for the cities, that would probably need to be discussed separately, although I agree that DC isn't really worth including. We have too many cities in the list that don't serve a real purpose. -- Liliana 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can agree with points 1 to 4 but a real improvement of the current situation would be a solution that doesn't rely on any handpicking. The subject is relatively sensitive and is reopened too often. --Nk 10:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]