Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2013

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

Archives of this page

Inventors, scientists and mathematicians: Brahmagupta, Emmy Noether

Brahmagupta introduced zero as a number. Emmy Noether is probably the most important woman in history of mathematics. Plus she represents modern algebra.

They could replace Michael Faraday who is redundant with James Maxwell in the field of electromagnetism;

and Fibonacci who is important for Europe as he brings Hindu-Arabic numeration, but not for the rest of the world.Lomicmenes (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hilbert, Riemann, Cauchy, Boltzmann, Bohr, Gibbs, Hertz and many others are far ahead in the waiting list. -- 11:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
we could replace Faraday with another name--Barcelona (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Fibonacci also should be replaced. His main contribution is translating some books from Arabic to Latin - I would call this eurocentrism ad extremum. --Nk (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You are right regarding Fibonacci. Fourier and Faraday seem inappropriate, too. David Hilbert should be top priority, he masterminded the modern conception of mathematics. --Chricho (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree about Fourier. First I was shocked Hilbert wasn't in the list, but considering there are already Gauss and Euler, Hilbert is just a third big master of mathematics of his time and the three of them are close in time and space. On the other side Brahmagupta would be alone between ancient greeks and arabs (1500 years). Alone in India too. And invented zero wasn't nothing for the modern mathematics. --Lomicmenes (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Fibonacci and Faraday should not be excluded, and some people regard Fibonacci the most talented Western mathematician in the Middle Ages. O.K., if you want to remove Fibonacci, then let's replace him by David Hilbert. By the way, electromagnetism should be replaced by speed of sound or particle physics (I prefer the latter as it is a vital field), and German language does not have corresponding word for electromagnetism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that the electromagnetism problem most likely is just another case of mixed interwiki links. I don't believe that one of the 4 fundamental interactions of physics doesn't have a name in German.
Currently de:Elektromagnetismus redirects to de:Elektrodynamik which in turns links to en:Classical electromagnetism. In the same time de:Elektrodynamik is discussing not just classical theory but also relativistic effects - it's possible that it has wider meaning than en:Electrodynamics (redirect to en:Classical electromagnetism). --Nk (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Classical electrodynamics (in German and English) include special relativity, Maxwell’s equations are Lorentz covariant, not Galilei invariant. Only in some special cases non relativistic approximations can be applied to electrodynamics. However, the article also covers quantum electrodynamics, thus the correct interwiki link is Electromagnetism. I changed that. -- 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with adding Noether, who is higher in priority than Hilbert or Hertz, comparable to Riemann, Bohr, and Cauchy; Gibbs and Boltzmann are also important. But the equivalence between symmetries and conservation laws is very deep and essential to 20th c. physics. Also, Avicenna does not really belong as a scientist -- he's much more of a philosopher. A better choice for a scientist would be Alhacen, who really was responsible in a certain decisive way for "reasoning from experiment."
Huh? Noether should be higher in priority than David Hilbert? David Hilbert was certainly much more influential. Hilbert developed fundamental aspects of the theory of ideals (later Noether worked in this area, too). He was probably the most influential formalist, and formalism significantly influenced all areas of mathematics and even the conception of what mathematics are. He developed an axiomatisation of euclidean geometry and a calculus for first-order logic. In 1915 he formulated General Relativity using variational calculus (Noether also worked on variational calculus). Numerous of his 23 problems had significant impact on the roads of research in the next decades. --Chricho (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding “just a third big master of mathematics of his time and the three of them are close in time and space”: A replacement of Fourier by Hilbert would even broaden the temporal range. --Chricho (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Concrete suggestion:
  • Brahmagupta should replace Fibonacci. There are strong arguments against Fibonacci, see the comments above. Brahmagupta is the most famous/important ancient indian mathematician and we do not have any indian yet.
  • David Hilbert should replace Fourier (he is only well-known because Fourier transform is named after him, but even for the Fourier series he only played some role). Resons were given above.
  • John von Neumann (János Neumann Margittai) should replace Faraday (very redundant to Maxwell), I quote the Wikipedia article: “He made major contributions to a vast number of fields, including mathematics (foundations of mathematics, functional analysis, ergodic theory, geometry, topology, and numerical analysis), physics (quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics, and fluid dynamics), economics (game theory), computer science (Von Neumann architecture, linear programming, self-replicating machines, stochastic computing), and statistics.” That way we would get a second person related to fundamental aspects of computing (additionally to Alan Turing), a great mathematician and a person with important contributions to physical fields which are not yet well covered (he gave quantum mechanics a precise mathematical meaning, he was important in the development of statistical physics). --Chricho (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have replaced Fibonacci by Brahmagupta nad Fourier by Hilbert. The only objection I have seen was the closeness of Gauß and Hilbert, which seems to be inaccurate. Still waiting for objections/comments regarding von Neumann. --Chricho (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Happy to see Hilbert here, and certainly no objection to Brahmagupta. A counter-proposal: perhaps von Neumann can replace en:Hard disk drive, since that's becoming obsolete technology, and he is more important to computing than most specific bits of hardware. A. Mahoney (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I oppose increasing the proportion of biographies on this list. What's wrong with the proposal of von Neumann replacing Faraday? — Yerpo Eh? 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Nothing, necessarily, just that I know more about computers than about physics, and more about math than about either! :-) I'm not in a position to judge Faraday's importance over-all. A. Mahoney (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Data storage device instead of the hard disk? --Chricho (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dream of the Red Chamber

"Journey to the West" or "en:Water Margin" could replace this one. Among Four Great Classical Novels in China, "Dream of the Red Chamber" is the newest one and least famous. -- ChongDae (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should go for "Four Great Classical Novels" to cover it all.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"Romance of the Three Kingdoms" would be a better candidate. But it overlaps history of Han Dynasty partly. "Four Great Classical Novels" is not a good candidate. It is a collective term and tt means 四大名著(four famous novels) or 四大奇書(four strange novels). -- ChongDae (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any references that it is the least famous? --Chricho (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Math tweak

Should "Systems of linear equations" be replaced with either matrix or Linear algebra, both of which are more broad/valuable? 06:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Linear algebra would be my choice; it includes not only systems of equations and matrices, but vector spaces as well, and it points toward higher-level topices like Hilbert spaces. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
it makes sense --Barcelona (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I see support, and no objections, so I'm going to go ahead and make the change now. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Allthough Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world, it is not all that significant in my opinion. I suggest we replace it with Angkor Wat, which is not only said to be the world's largest single religious monument, but also of great significance to the Khmer Empire and the history of Southeast Asia (a region that is not well represented in this list). Helt (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Splendid proposal.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A question of consensus

This might have been discussed previously, but the issue is still a bit unclear to me: When changing the content of the list, what degree of consensus is needed?

  • Is it enough that noone opposes a suggestion?
  • If support votes are needed, how many, and do they need to be cast by "experienced" contributers to this discussion page?

Some examples to illustrate my query:

In June, Nolanus took it upon himself to replace the article Umm Kulthum with Hector Berlioz, claiming it had been discussed on the talk page. As far as I can see there was no agreement in this discussion, but the change still stands.
There seems to be an agreement to replace Systems of linear equations with Linear algebra, still no change has been made. Who executes the changes, and how long after the agreement is reached should it be done?
My suggestion above to replace Burj Khalifa with Angkor Wat is only supported by a user with only one contribution. Can I still change it?

--Helt (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

However I have about 100.000 changes on the NL-wikipedia and even more on my NL botaccount.--nl:Gebruiker:Joopwiki 16:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Since this proposal sat for over a week with no discussion, it seems to be relatively uncontroversial. I certainly don't object myself, and people who do object, if any, have had a chance to weigh in. So I don't see a problem with the change. It's when someone changes the main list without discussing it here first, or within minutes of proposing a change here, that people tend to get upset. And this doesn't happen very often, because in general people play fair. Joopwiki is right that the number of contributions a person has on Meta probably doesn't correlate with what the person is doing in Wikipedia (in whatever language -- if you look me up in English you'll find very little, but in Latin I'm fairly active. A. Mahoney (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Joopwiki, I hope you didn't take this personally, you were just a convenient example in this case :) Mahoney, when you say "this proposal" I take it you mean Angkor Wat. The decision to insert Hector Berlioz was opposed, still the replacement was not reverted. I find that a bit odd, and that is the main reason I asked my questions. Helt (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings, if you write (or ride), you have always the chance of being hit. :-)--Joopwiki (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Add Henrik Ibsen

Why isn't en:Henrik Ibsen included on this list? He is widely regarded as the greatest playwright since Shakespeare (per Maurice Valency: The Flower and the Castle, Schocken, 1963.) and is also "the most widely performed dramatist in the world after Shakespeare."[1] He is the internationally most known Scandinavian in this category (no Scandinavian author or playwright is included). There is no doubt Ibsen is vastly more well-known than eg. Mahfouz, Naguib (a person I've never heard of), García Márquez, Gabriel. I suggest Mahfouz, Naguib is removed and Ibsen added to the list. PMohind (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Nobel Prize in Literature has been given to over hundred people and is notorious for being given to rather less well-known individuals. Merely being a recipient of that prize doesn't establish notability on par with Shakespeare. The prize to García Márquez was also poorly received by critics, because he is not considered a that great author, and the Mahfouz guy seems just obscure. Thousands of people have received Nobel Prizes. PMohind (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ibsen is important; yes, he is a good candidate for addition to the list; but, please, wait until there's been some discussion before changing the list. Moreover, why remove Mahfouz simply because you've never heard of him? Perhaps Mark Twain should be removed instead, or some other author? Finally, some of us strongly prefer that changes happen earlier in the month, since this list drives the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles scoring. I'm going to revert the change for now. When there's general agreement about whether to add Ibsen, and which author should go out to make space for him, then the change can happen. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it can easily be demonstrated that Mark Twain is vastly more notable than Mahfouz. I don't consider him relatively obscure just because I've never heard of him, but primarily because his (rather short) English Wikipedia biography doesn't establish or indicate any notability beyond that of other less well-known Nobel Prize in Literature laureates. Various database searches seem to support this, for example Henrik Ibsen gives 1 480 000 results in Google Books compared to 72 000 for Mahfouz. I think Mahfouz is the least notable person currently included in the list, as indicated by Wikipedia biography and searches in various databases. PMohind (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, looking at the works of Mahfouz (eg. en:The Day the Leader was Killed), none of them seem to be iconic or very widely known (in the way Ibsen works such as en:Peer Gynt or en:A Doll's House (the world's most performed play) are), and very many of them are red links. PMohind (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You should note that this list strives not to be too western-centric, so coverage in English-language Wikipedia isn't exactly the most relevant argument here... — Yerpo Eh? 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other Wikipedia editions that demonstrate Naguib Mahfouz to be more notable than Henrik Ibsen? At the very least, coverage in the English Wikipedia is a good indication of the subject's relative importance, i.e. the article doesn't contain anything that indicates or demonstrates that he is among the world's most iconic and well-known 31 authors, playwrights and poets, which necessarily has to be a very selective list. Also note that the list doesn't contain a single person from the Scandinavian-language realm, although Ibsen is generally ranked as the no. 2 playwright after Shakespeare. PMohind (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact Andersen is in the list. But I'm completely OK to replace him with Ibsen. --Nk (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Andersen gives 963 000 results in Google Books, compared to Ibsen's 1 150 000 results, and compared to Naguib Mahfouz's 59 700. While Ibsen may be somewhat more notable than Andersen, are there any sources at all that demonstrate that Naguib Mahfouz belongs on this list of the 31 most well-known authors, playwrights and poets, or that Naguib Mahfouz is more well-known and iconic than either Ibsen or Andersen? PMohind (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "most well-known" should be a criteria to include someone on the list, if that was the case then Stephen King and J. K. Rowling should be on it. And although Google is a good indicator, it cannot be taken as proof of a person's importance. That being said, I do agree that Ibsen is far more influential than Mahfouz, and that such a replacement makes sense. Helt (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps we should keep Mahfouz, add Ibsen and delete some other entry, even from another category --Barcelona (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions? If not, how about following the suggestion below and remove Behavior in favour of Ibsen? -- Helt (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Ibsen is important by his own merit. He's a must. He is in the school curriculum, so the article is viewed. Addition to the list would improve our score, but nothing more. I'd rather keep Mahfouz for diversity if he were not a Nobel prize winner. All Nobel prize winners should be and are. -- 08:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is my results from Google Books:

  • 'Henrik Ibsen' gives 1 160 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Ибсен Генрик) - 6440, in Arab language - 942 (هنريك إبسن)
  • 'Naguib Mahfouz' gives 55 500 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Махфуз Нагиб) - 11 000, in Arab language - 153 000 (نجيب محفوظ)
  • 'Hans Christian Andersen' gives 1 190 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Андерсен Ханс Кристиан) - 13 900, in Arab language - 796 (هانس كريستيان أندرسن)

In my opinion, Andersen is important for the list as the only children's writer (author of popular fairy tales), and Naguib Mahfouz as the only modern Arab writer. My suggestions for removing - Franz Kafka:

  • 'Franz Kafka' gives 1 050 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Франц Кафка) - 15 400, in Arab language - 485 (فرانتس كافكا)

But I'm not sure that we must include Henrik Ibsen... --Igrek (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add Jules Verne, writer who pioneered the science fiction genre:

Jules Verne gives 1 590 000 results in Google Books (all language), in Russian (Жюль Верн) - 15 000, in Arab language - 226 000 (جول فيرن)

Jules Verne is 2-nd in top of en:Index Translationum also. --Igrek (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Computers and Internet section should include Computer science

In the "Computers and Internet" section,

"Computer science" should be added (with "Algorithm" and "Artificial intelligence" listed as subtopics of CS). Also, "Information technology" should be replaced with the broader term "Computing". ("Hard disk drive" can be removed to compensate). 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Computing" is an umbrella term. I am not sure specifically what that article would cover. "IT" is also an broad term but at least it is commonly used. Only change I agree with is replacing "IT" with "Computer science". --MarsRover 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, Computer science is an academic discipline while Information technology is a real thing. -- 08:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As for Hard disk drive, the broader term en:Data storage device would be better, perhaps. -- 08:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn

A classical giant, Joseph Haydn is considered the "Father of the Symphony" and composed numerous amounts of music during the Classical Era. He has certainly had a significant impact on music (being a friend of Mozart and teacher of Beethoven). However, who he should replace is up for debate.

Perhaps he might replace either Vysotsky or Piaf? A. Mahoney (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Vysotsky is not good choice because he is not in the list as a music-related person. --Nk (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Since he's listed with other performers, I assumed that was part of his importance; should he be moved to the political figures section? Is he that important as a resister/dissident? (I don't know much about him beyond what I've gleaned from updating the article on him in my home Wikipedia.) A. Mahoney (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm considering him a poet first of all but indeed he has many sides - an actor not the least. --Nk (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, although that might make the list seem too crowded by classical composers/musicians. Macintoshkid (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


In 2010 I come and complain about this list. Three years later I return and nothing has changed. Sigh.

For one, we have en:Rainforest but not the generic en:Forest. I think this should be changed, because forests are much more common than rainforests.

We're also missing en:Lake, a very basic and important concept. It could replace e. g. en:Vatican City, which is completely redundant to en:Catholic Church. -- Liliana 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed replacements. πr2 (tc) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
agree with the first change, but the second is not obvious. Perhaps we should remove the Vatican, but not for being redundant to Catholic Church (it is not) --Barcelona (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Did the first. -- Liliana 19:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Please let me express my doubts on usefulness of this list. Most of its entries are, and invariably have to be, very arbitrary; different persons want to know different things, and the realm of knowledge is infinite.

We might argue about what topics are universally important and what are not, and seek to fit the list into the number of exactly a thousand articles (although even the distribution of material among articles depends on the language to use, and some words, especially very common ones, like "mind" or "man", have no direct translation to some languages that use other words to break down and present the concept, which words, in their turn, have no translation to English), and speak, and try to persuade, but the arguments to make always depend on the culture and language, and so, argumentation lacks its point unless the language and the culture are known; argumentation in favor of one topic to exclude another usually has to be vague.

I think that a group of Wikipedians who create a new Wikipedia know a lot better what their Wikipedia should have at its beginnings than we do here; and then expansion goes in a natural process as the new Wikipedia evolves: people who speak the language of the new Wikipedia demand knowledge and write articles on topics that interest them. So, I guess it's very amusing to discuss what titles should be included in the list and what titles they should replace, but such discussion has no use. Except, well, the result has interesting informations on its own; but better still, these informations could be presented in other places, like "List of the most influental Chinese people throughout the history of China" or "List of influental mathematicians". ;-) – 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your doubt is noted, although I'm not sure what did you want to achieve by expressing it. As explained in the introduction, some language projects are quite stagnant, so obviously their communities aren't so sure on how to commence this "natural growth". This list is therefore intended as a suggestion (although its title may be worded a bit too harsh) which, according to statistics, many people across the world do use. Its entries, in general, are universally important, or nearly so (at least in classing encyclopedic sense), being of course also subject to compromise and tweaking - as every other Wikimedia page. They are also the subjects on which many sources exist, so it's generally easier to write about them, therefore stimulating growth by the virtue of red links to non-existing related articles. Everybody is of course free to write about anything they want, and local Wikipedias also have their local lists. Again, I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve by the above message, except maybe implying own superiority with snarky comments about you being amused by our activity (which is not exactly relevant). If you don't consider this list useful, you're free to ignore it, you know? — Yerpo Eh? 09:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
"Its entries, in general, are universally important": Well, the list is only as good as it is structured. In sections where it is structured, it is indeed a guideline: it is easy to use only the structure, and revise the details to achieve a good "classically encyclopaedic" result. The list is a continuous problem in the sections that are not structured and constitute nothing more than a sublist: one country, city, person, language, or river is just as good as every other one to make up an article, and it's useless to discuss candidatures. So, the basic structure had been laid out early (it is not as hard, but does indeed require a work), and since then, the discussions proceed mostly on: 1] candidatures, 2] some "basic concepts" (I'm having difficulties imagining a person who would look up in a newly created Wikipedia who is a man or a woman). Such discussions are interesting for themselves when they concern candidatures (especially people, and especially if the discutant makes real arguments about the person's life and achievements), and not quite so when they concern "basic concepts" (because the arguments for their importance are usually self-evident and directly follow from the structure of coverage), but they do not achieve any goal. Informations are interesting, their exchange is nice, but they get lost here.
So, to reiterate the conclusion: in fact the compromise is not needed, because real Wikipediae do not contain compromises, but real articles; all is needed is structure; it is the structure that may be "universally important", not the entries. An alternative is a list of articles that are, true, important, with the exception that they are not generically important in the academical sense, but "very likely" important if premised that a newly created Wikipedia follows a specific goal to be guessed... In 2007 someone posted a good example of such a list (very nice job, the niciest of all, I'd say). If these things are not of help, then nothing else is. That's my humble opinion, of course. – (the same user) 16:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
one country, city, person, language, or river is just as good as every other one to make up an article: For example, I don't think that being more influental than others is indeed the criterion; there are lots of criteria for different persons to make choices of those kinds. – 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Which example do you refer to? Perhaps it could represent an alternative on a different page? — Yerpo Eh? 18:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand the questions... By "lots of criteria" I mean that one rather gathers information and writes about what has appealed to him for whatever reason, or just was easy to access. You know, biographies or language articles can be more interesting for themselves than for their subject being very much influental for something, and such interest is too individual, it can't be predicted. - 02:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Useful is used. It is used by several medium size chapters. Generally, by people who like to compete. -- 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


I doubt Behavior is expansible to great article. It remains a stub in many big Wikipedias. It may be basic topic of psychology but more specific one would be better, though I don't have concrete alternative... -- 05:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How about remove Behavior, add Belarus? First, it is diffical to edit Behavior because too fewer informations talk about Behavior. Belarus is an important country and I think it will important and basic then Behavior--CaseyLeung (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Composers and musicians

IkariSindzi (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? --MarsRover 07:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Controversial choice of Dvorak, however Berlioz is not that important IMVHO. However, what really bugs me is:
  1. the presence (in bold!) of Richard Wagner, who being honest is a rather second-tier, flashy composer
  2. a removal of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, one of the most prominent figures of romantism in music, a master of choral romantic music, a founder of Bach
  3. an ommission of Palestrina, a great example of a pre-classical music.
My proposal is:
I'd agree removing Vysotsky, not Wagner, and discuss which inclusion would be optimal. Wagner is important not only for his music but because of his influence in po`pular culture and important people --Barcelona (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

link to Wikidata, not to :en:Wikipedia?

At the moment, items in this list are identified by links to the pages in English Wikipedia that discuss them. For example, the list says "Homer" and the name is a link to en:Homer. It might be useful instead to link to the relevant Wikidata entity, d:Q6691 in this example, because that's now our definition of the concept, person, place, or whatever.

It's perhaps also useful to provide a link to an article, whether in English or in Simple or wherever else, or maybe even to a couple of articles, in case a reader of this list wants more detail. But what defines "Homer" for purposes of this list, I think, should be the Wikidata item rather than the page in English Wikipedia. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, linking to Wikidata is far more "natural" in regard to the purpose of this list than English or any other Wikipedia. I'd say there is no need to provide further links, as they are all collected inside Wikidata objects (even if it might take a while for the UI there to become more user friendly). — Yerpo Eh? 07:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
agree with the proposal--Barcelona (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense. I agree. ...Aurora... (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the Wikidata label dynamically? Wouldn't it be useful to have the links like materialism, but that they are created something like: [[wikidata:Q7081|{{#property:label|id=q7081}}]]? Boivie (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it will be possible after phase 2 of Wikidata gets rolled out to Wikipedias (which will happen this week AFAIK), so maybe we can wait for a bit. But then it might create problems for small language projects who by definition won't have a lot of translations in Wikidata yet. — Yerpo Eh? 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we have to wait for Wikidata to get rolled out to non-Wikipedias (e.g., Meta) (Babel#Country_name_translation) PiRSquared17 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need Wikidata support here to do this: all we need is to go through the list, look up the existing items in Wikidata by their titles in English WP, and get the Wikidata IDs that way. Then we change existing links of the form [[:en:Homer|Homer]] to [[:d:Q6691|Homer]], perhaps adding [[:en:Homer|English: Homer]] [[:la:Homerus|Latin: Homerus]], or whatever other versions it would be most useful to link to. (Realistically probably not Latin! I'd suggest Catalan, since that WP is very good on the 1000 Pages, and one or two widely-spoken languages.) This is very easy to do with a program; I've done something similar already (see this table for example). What we do need is to verify that the program that makes the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles will be able to adjust! A. Mahoney (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, after some thought I think it would be enough with [[:d:Q6691|Homer]]. From the page at Wikidata everyone can find links to the languages they understand. But the code for List of Wikipedias by sample of articles needs to be changed a lot, since it's heavily based on the article names from enwiki. I'll start working with that code, but it would be great if the change here is not made until after the next update of List of Wikipedias by sample of articles (beginning of May), since I'm not sure the code will be finished in time for that run. Boivie (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough: no hurry on this, after all. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
One drawback I noticed now that is implemented is the "" seems slower then "en.wp". Perhaps we can have both links? --MarsRover 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini

I think it should be included in the call list. Hitler is listed. And Mussolini - the founder of fascism, is missing. Fascism had a great impact on the world history in the 20th century. To exclude suggest Rosa Luxemburg (Lenin and Stalin is enough) or Kwame Nkrumah, Carl Marx or Marxism. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

disagree. We have one of the three fascists dictators (Hitler, Mussolini and Franco), the best known of all three, if we include a second one, why not the third? --Barcelona (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Because Mussolini - the founder of fascism. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Disagree, I think like Barcelona. I also believe that this attempt to change seems to be more influenced by personal preferences than by articles's value, and this change has already been proposed and rejected at the time. --JaviP96 talk me 20:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rejected it was not: many were in favor, but the discussion without the total sent to the archive. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
What is there to Barcelona? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was rejected, it had 4 votes against and 3 votes votes in favor. --JaviP96 talk me 20:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
And here is it a vote? Voices of there 3 of 3! I think the main argument, not the number of votes. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think most important is the argument, not the number of votes, there were only two people (including you) who wanted to add Mussolini to this list. --JaviP96 talk me 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And no arguments against. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that you don't understand English, when Yerpo said: "Oppose. This has been discussed before. Fascism is listed, so its founder doesn't have to be. Replacing Kwame Nkrumah with Mussolini would make this list even more western-centric." and MarsRover said: "Oppose - We don't have Pan-Africanism in the list so we should have Kwame Nkrumah and we do have Fascism so we don't need Mussolini." What do you understood, aren't arguments against? --JaviP96 talk me 15:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the argument? No. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Previously, the idea had more support. But the decision was not accepted. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kwame Nkrumah should stay and Mussolini is way behind compared to Hitler in relative importance. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why Nkrumah should remain? He is as significant as Hitler? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe it is not necessary to glorify fascism by including both itself and its founder in this list. After all, we are talking about a largely obsolete ideology. Fascism itself should stay as a warning to present and future generations, and Hitler's importance is broader than just as a "fascist dictator", but Mussolini? I don't think so. — Yerpo Eh? 08:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This argument is bad. Otherwise, why glorify communism, too bad and outdated idea? In list Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Marxism, Communism, Luxembourg, Mao... What is Luxembourg so significant in comparison with Mussolini? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Communism != socialism != leninism != marxism. We can talk about replacing further people if you think they're not important, but their presence is a really bad argument for inserting Mussolini. — Yerpo Eh? 04:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? 5 Communists in the list is, and the founder of fascism (which is listed) is not. Where is the logic? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe because lots of countries have had communist governments during long periods, while fascism has played a much smaller role in the history of mankind? Boivie (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
A Franco and Salazar, who ruled until the mid 70's? The Communists them, and even Pinochet and other Latin American dictators noisy calling them fascists то 90's. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that you are oversimplifying. The persons you mention don't just represent "communism", but a variety of thought systems/ideologies. Plus, if you think that they are excessive, that is not an argument for inserting another person, but an argument for removing them. — Yerpo Eh? 13:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an argument for a replacement. Without Marx would not have been Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and of Luxembourg, too. Without Mussolini would not be Hitler. The more famous Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao clear. But the famous Luxembourg and it is greater than Mussolini? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
They are not directly comparable, you look at it too narrowly. Luxembourg had a significant influence on the development of socialist thought, feminism, and the modern German society (according to her article). In any case, I can't see how Mussolini can be called "great" in any context except Italy, which is too narrow for the scope of this list. The statement that "without Mussolini would not be Hitler" is your personal opinion and irrelevant here. Mussolini was not the only person who contributed to the creation of fascism. — Yerpo Eh? 08:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not my opinion but the opinion of historians.[citation needed] And the fact that the founder of the fascism Mussolini know all (not even the historians). So the Luxembourg with his article is not exactly comparable to him. Your opinion about the value of a Luxembourg here just does not matter. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
That was not my opinion, as I said, but the facts according to Luxembourg's article. Also, popularity doesn't equal importance. — Yerpo Eh? 10:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Mistake in number of science articles

I was counting the number of science articles in the current version and, according to my counts, there is 299 science articles (not 246). Besides, in the science´s section biology the number is 120 (not 119). --Xosé Antonio (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers have not been updated in a long time. Boivie (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Latin script or Latin alphabet

Which article should be in the list? Most wikipedias relate to d:Q9229, but there is also d:Q41670 with two or three interwiki that pretends to be the article from the list. --Zanka (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Q9229 is Turkish grand prix. I think you meant d:Q8229. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course, thank you. --Zanka (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think d:Q8229 (en:Latin alphabet, la:Abecedarium Latinum, de:Lateinisches Alphabet, etc.) rather than d:Q41670 = en:Latin script or d:Q681021 = en:Latin-derived alphabet is the most basic and thus the appropriate one for this list. It looks like the topic in English WP has been divided into sections to make shorter and more readable pages, which is fine of course; the link here, seems to me, should go to the first or most central one of the group. And it looks like other languages have not chosen to divide the subject into separate pages, perhaps another argument for choosing d:Q8229. A. Mahoney (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Look at it the other way around: Are you sure the undivided pages in most languages (as you rightly point out) ought to be connected with the en:Latin alphabet article in English, which is about system for writing ancient and classical Latin? Littledogboy (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. All correct now in this list. Littledogboy (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito

I think that Tito should be included in this list instead of Bismark, de Gaul or Rosa Luxembourg. Tito

  • was the leader of resistance movement that waged battles against Axis, which more ferocious than those battles which involved Free France
  • didn't flee out of country. In one occasion we was (lightly) wounded, and in second, Germans sent a SS airborne battalion that nearly captured him
  • outsmarted Churchill
  • defied Stalin
  • was one one leaders (together with Nehru and Naser) of the Third World during Cold War
  • had one of the largest state funerals -- Bojan  Talk  11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I think this list have enough political leaders, and we already have Nehru, if we include Tito, why not to include Nasser? --JaviP96 talk me 14:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Then remove someone - I listed three names, You gave Nehru. Honestly, personal achievements of de Gaul, Nehru, Luxembourg or Bismark are nothing compared to what Tito did from 1941 until 1980. -- Bojan  Talk  20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Honestly, your measure of achievements is weird. A small-scale dictator, there are scores like that: Fidel Castro, Lee Kuan Yew and many others. -- 07:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The "dictator" was awarded by such undemocratic regimes such as Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany and Italy (former enemies), Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom. See how many the highest statesmen came to his funeral and compare to JFK's, Churchill's or Breznev's funeral. Some hitorians claimt that broacast of his funeral was (at that time) the second most watched event (after Moon Landing). Sir Fitzroy MacLean is often quoted here (rough translation): Some people like Tito, some people do not. Some people like 20th century, some people do not. But no one can deny that Tito marked 20th century. That man and 20th century go together. I cant see what Rosa Luxembourg, Bismarck, de Gaulle, Nehru did so significantly, and Tito his not. He was supreme commander (Marshall) of his army, yet he was wounded in combat. Wehrmacht even sent SS after him. If Gandhi is here, then Nehru (who was ally of our dictator) is redundant. Rosa Luxembourg is not so much great name Marxist world (I guess the only reason she is included in the list is due to gender). De Gaulle had British help from very beginning and bulk of liberation of France was done by Anglo-Americans. Bismark... there were so many Bismarks in history... -- Bojan  Talk  10:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


en:Brussels is linked with d:Q240, which seems to be the capital region in other languages. Is this intended? In most languages except English d:Q9005 seems to be the more general article about the city. --Wikijens (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This subject is slightly messy, and I don't have a good idea on how to resolve it. Actually, the article en:Brussels is also about the region if you read it closely, but there are also the items d:Q239 about the municipality with the same name (which is de jure capital of the country) and d:Q9005 about "City of Brussels (Belgium's capital) and Brussels-Capital Region, as a combined topic" - which, I assume, is for Wikipedias that don't have separate article about the municipality. Personally, I think that the item d:Q240 should be on this list, but people have been moving interwikis around those three items and creating confusion. I fail to see the benefit of having d:Q9005 at all. — Yerpo Eh? 11:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
London and City of London has the same issue. I think in both cases the actual city limits don't really contain the reason that the location is in the list. --MarsRover 20:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Now the Wikidata user d:User:Tsuchiya Hikaru removed even the link to en:Brussels from d:Q240 and added it to d:Q9005. In my opinion, this is a further proof that distinguishing between articles about "just the region" and "combined" articles doesn't make any sense, but I propose we change the listing to d:Q9005 until this mess is resolved. — Yerpo Eh? 09:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. "Brussels" should link to "Q9005" in the list. --MarsRover 02:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts#Brussels. It would be fine to express that there. --JaviP96 talk me 06:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I did, but it's been ignored since and the issue remains unresolved. Do we make the change? — Yerpo Eh? 16:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, the object d:Q9005 seems to have been de facto abolished. d:Q240 should stay. — Yerpo Eh? 07:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Composers and musicians again

There are too many german and austrian composers listed. I think only Bach (baroque), Mozart (classical) and Beethoven (romantics) should be in the Top1000, Brahms, Händel, Haydn, Mahler, Schubert and Wagner are also important, but not as much. Maybe you can add The Rolling Stones, ABBA, Madonna or Michael Jackson instead.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure any of those has stood the test of time; indeed, I'm not sure even en:The Beatles belong here. In 200 years will people still be talking about late-20th-century popular music? Probably not much of it. A. Mahoney (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nekropole von Gizeh vs Pyramiden von Gizeh

We have one more issue on Wikidata with items d:Q12508 (Giza Piramids) and d:Q13217298 (Giza Necropolis). Based on the logic on the user talk page d:User talk:Sinuhe20, first item is related only to pyramids as three objects actually, while second item is about whole archeological complex. I really could not understand why some people decided to split these articles in some languages, but we should decide which one should be in 1000 by content not by the name. About pyramids only or about full complex(es)? --Zanka (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the original philosophy what to be more specific than less specific. You can see that in the similar case of Angkor Wat is in the list but not Angkor. Interesting that the broad article in the cases of Giza Necropolis and Angkor is the one that is the World Heritage site so there is an argument to include that one instead. In looking at just this pyramid issue, I see people always having the Necropolis article as at least a list of the structures. And then either having an article about the main pyramids or an article about each pyramid. But if a wiki has the necropolis article and the individual pyramids (ie. english wp) then selecting that 'Giza Pyramids' for this list is forcing them to create article just to fulfill this list. We should just have either choice as an option. --MarsRover 20:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting to note that initially, before the list was switched to Wikidata items, the corresponding entry was called "Giza pyramid complex", but linked to Giza Necropolis - I think mostly because of the fact that the two notions were not separated in terms of interwikis. Now that they are distinguished from each other, it would be natural to associate this entry with the pyramids, and not the necropolis. --Andiorahn (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I think in this case every language version should decide to have (at least) one of both articles (the logic is: choose one of both). But this does not mean, every language version must have the same data item (unless you also connect redirect links)--Sinuhe20 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Indian Music in Music

To give a international representation I propose adding "Tansen" who is regarded as the greatest figure in Indian Music. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree but you have to mention who should be removed to make room for him. --MarsRover 19:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Just Indian music would be better choice. One of the two, either Hendel or Haydn, should stay. They are too close. And Choir is better than Palestrina. -- 02:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't think that Tansan is important, it has only 13 iw, and it shouldn't be in the list only for be Indian. --JaviP96 talk me 13:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Why should only German musicians be there? No Indian, Chinese or Japanese. Tansen is semi legendary figure in Indian music, the contemporary greatest name is probably Ravi Shankar. Just because he is Indian is probably not a good reason to not include him. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
And Please elaborate your comment that I don't think that Tansan is important. It is a very serious statement and I do not think it is supported by any wikipedia guideline. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I said: "I don't think that Tansan is important", because he has only 13 iw, the number of iw of an article is a good form to know the importance of the topic. Nobody should be in the list only for be Indian, Portuguese or English, they should be in the list if they are important, and if German musicians are much more important that Indian, Chinese or Japanese, this musicians should not be included. --JaviP96 talk me 16:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of some Wikipedia policies:

  • It is a work in progress, today he has no article, tommorow he may have.
  • There is a thing called "Systematic Bias".
  • "I don't think that Tansan is important" is a very insulting statement and is not supported by any wikipedia guideline.
  • Tansen is the greatest figure (classical because he was contemporary of Akbar) of "Indian Classical Music" comparable to what Bach or Mozart is to Western Music.
  • And Please learn "Civility" first. I will at least expect that you refrain from making comments like "I don't think that xxxx is important" Solomon7968 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:When you are looking to German Composers you are defining western Music. "Indian Classical Music" is a separate form of Music. This does not make it less important. This is like saying "Canada is more important than Rwanda". Importance is not measured by wikipedia entries. I will expect as an fellow wikipedian that you change your bias. Every culture is important in its own right. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Man, he has only 13 iw, Wikipedia has more than 10 years, if in this time only has this iw, should be for something. Maybe you don't know that this is an universal list, not only a "Indian Classical Music" list, here should be more important musicians and if Indian Classical Music doesn't have an universal importance shouldn't be in the list.
And yes, Canada is more important that Rwanda, Rwanda is a little country which has a population of 10,000,000 people, and it doesn't have almost history. Canada is a big country with an important history. For this reason Canada is in the list and Rwanda not. --JaviP96 talk me 18:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I very clearly know it is an universal list. Do not jump to any conclusions with my red link status of User page and few edits. And an universal list is supposed to contain universal figures. Indian classical Music is an integral part of World Music. And Tansen is the greatest legend in it. He lived 400 years before my birth so I am not arguing for any COI reason. Also German Musicians are not essential to Asian cultures. You do not seem to understand that each culture is actually of the whole of mankind. As a fellow wikipedian I will ask you to see each culture with the diversity it adds to world culture. That is all I have to say. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Your statement And yes, Canada is more important that Rwanda seems very much racist to me. Are you a historian to judge that and it doesn't have almost history?
We have only 21 composers and musicians, and in the world are more than 200 countries, we can't include composers of all this countries. There are a lot of composers like Manuel de Falla, Alban Berg, Jean Sibelius, or more recent musicians which have a strong influence in the music world, and are not in the list, if this list had 10,000 probably some Indian compose should be included, but this list have only 1,000 articles, there are not space for all. Tange is a legend in India, ok, but only in India, as I said before there are a lot of musicians which are "legend" in a lot of countries, not only in their country, and they are not in the list.
Racist! if you call me that again I will have to ask someone to block you, I don't want that at all, so please change your attitude. Canada is more important than Rwanda is not a personal opinion, is a reality. Rwanda has only 50 years of history, and is the 91st country by population, the 139th by GDP, the 148th by area and the 166th by Human Development Index. --JaviP96 talk me 19:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not calling of modern legends like Justin Bieber. He was born 400 years ago my birth and he defined what Indian classical music is now today. Added not many countries India, Japan and only a few countries have all together different music system than of the Western System. This list only have German or Austrian entries. So why do we need *21 German composers. The *21 German composers have influence only in the western world. They have *zero influence away. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Threatening me of block is not going to change the comments you make. I agree that "Rwanda has only 50 years of history, and is the 91st country by population, the 139th by GDP, the 148th by area and the 166th by Human Development Index" but the way you said that is very wrong. Do not forget the Europeans who used the Rwandans as slaves. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Evidently Europeans did much damage and exploit whole Africa, but the most important problem in Rwanda were not Europeans, were themselves, with things like the Rwandan Genocide or the Rwandan Civil War, but that is not beside the point. I don't threatening you of block, I only said that you can't call people racist, and if you continue the block will be necessary. Tange only influence in India, but other composers have a strongly influence even today all around the world, from New York to Tokyo. --JaviP96 talk me 20:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not Tange it is Tansen, but I cannot understand your point of not including him. Are you then implying that "Indian Classical Music" is not notable? There are many contemporary figures in

Indian Classical Music most notable among them being Ravi Shankar but Tansen is regarded as a Godly figure (*true fact). Now does this is not notable enough to include him here. As far I know the 3 greatest figure in western music are Mozart, Beethoven, Bach. Tansen is of comparable stature. So how can you claim he is not notable as you did above? Solomon7968 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, the musicians who are now in the list have an important influence all around the world, but Tansen (excuse me for the mistake) have a strongly influence, but only in Hindustani classical music, not all around the world. --JaviP96 talk me 21:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not get how "the musicians who are now in the list have an important influence all around the world" but the list is an universal list and should have at least one representative of each of the broad Music categories of the world. I belief each distinct culture adds to the diversity of world culture and skewness only reduces the majesty of Pluralism. I guess that you will understand it. Re: Please wait until a third person interrupts. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
That's impossible, with 21 articles we can't cover all cultures. Is an universal list, so should contain articles about items which are important in as many places as possible. Of course it would be much better to add people and items of all cultures and places, but if we add for example the article about Tansen, another people could wants to include other personalities who are very important in their areas. --JaviP96 talk me 21:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not think any of your comments is valid with wikipedia arguments. In English wikipedia atleast people try to represent the Good of every culture of humanity. But your policy but if we add for example the article about Tansen, another people could wants to include other personalities who are very important in their areas seems to directly contradict that. I will be happy if I am proven wrong. Re: It is useless if only two of us argue. Please wait for any third person to intervene. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I will do another comment and then I stopped until someone else comment that. This list is very short, with only 1,000 articles we can't cover "the Good of every culture of humanity", we can only cover most important topics. There are a expanded version of this list, which can cover more topics and more cultures. --JaviP96 talk me 21:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Absence of Aryabhatta, Inventor of Zero

The only representatives of Pre Industrial revolution scientists are:

  • Archimedes
  • Avicenna
  • al-Khwarizmi, Muhammad ibn Musa
  • Euclid

I propose removing someone from Rutherford, Ernest and Faraday, Michael to make space of Aryabhatta the Inventor of Zero. Re: It will make space for Pre Industrial revolution scientists and will be the only Indian candidate. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

His coverage in languages that I understand (English, German, Slovene) doesn't indicate that he was that much important. According to what I read, he didn't really invent the modern concept of zero. His publication is merely the oldest preserved work in which zero is clearly used (if I understand it correcly). His work in astronomy is more notable, but also not so much to warrant inclusion in this list. — Yerpo Eh? 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you elaborate "modern concept of zero"? It is not my original research or India bias you can see the documentary The Story of Maths which was done by BBC. Aside this argument the list has fewer entries in Maths than physics. The entry on Euler should be bolded. He is far more important than Rutherford or Faraday Solomon7968 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
See en:0 (number)#History. The symbol for zero was already used by the ancient Egyptians long before Aryabhata, but not as we think of it now. It was probably a longer period in which the modern concept of zero emerged, and it is traceable to India, but naming Aryabhata as "the inventor" is stretching it, I think. Britannica article about him doesn't mention anything like that, deeming him notable for other developments. One would expect that his invention of the number 0 would feature prominently in any biography were it true. — Yerpo Eh? 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no clear answer to the question “who invented the zero?”. However, I have added Brahmagupta. He is also related to the invention of zero and one of the most important medieval indian mathematicians. If you have a good reason why Aryabhata should be more important, tell me. I think they are of similar importance. --Chricho (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed additions

The rationales are written in brief. Please see the linked Wikipedia articles for details. Add your comments below every nomination.
General comment: as explained at the top of the page, this list is full. So you need to propose some entries to remove when suggesting additions. People will take you more seriously if/when you do. — Yerpo Eh? 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda

The most prominent/one of the most prominent figures of India. India celebrates National Youth Day on his birthday. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Any propose to remove. In my opinion Vivekananda can't be compare with any of the "religious figures and theologians" who are now in the list. --JaviP96 talk me 13:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mother Tersa

A world famous social worker and nun. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mother Teresa can't be compare with any of actual religious figures, her legacy is much less important. --JaviP96 talk me 14:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
She was a social worker. "Religion figure" was not her identity. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
But there isn't a section named "social workers", "religious figures" is the only one in which she could be placed. --JaviP96 talk me 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
disagree, not one of the 1000 most important topics of history--Barcelona (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Maxim Gorky

One of the most popular Russian novelists. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Popular != important. You'll have to provide a better rationale. — Yerpo Eh? 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, he has a minor importance in literature. --JaviP96 talk me 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
He represents Soviet Union, Marxism but we already have Alexander Pushkin. Russians have more love for Pushkin. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Four great men for Russian literature is enough (Pouchkine, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov). And he does not represent Soviet Umion. He was already old when USSR was created. He does represent a working class movement to some extent, but, as for Russians, most people know him as a neoromantic. Very beautiful poetry in prose he wrote. -- 05:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm Russian and I don't think Gorky is comparable to Pouchkine, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov: he was praised under the Soviet regime but after the end of the Soviet Union he is half-forgotten. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking

Renowned scientist. Especially the works he has been doing despite his physical disadvantages has made him a legend. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. He is a celebrity but far from a Newton. I will name just a few Indians that made much more significant breakthroughs in physics: Bose, Chandrasekhar, Raman. And the number of places for physicists is so limited that even Newtons like Boltzmann and Bohr have to wait. -- 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly S. N. Bose did much greater work i.e half universe is named after him. Solomon7968 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


A very strong belief and practice which influenced every sphere of life: Politics— Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.; Religion: Gautama Buddha, Mahavira; Arts: Henry David Thoreau, Tolstoy etc. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the most useful idea among your suggestions, IMO, but I don't know what to remove to make place for it. — Yerpo Eh? 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Nonviolence is important, but what do you remove? --JaviP96 talk me 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if Mahavira falls into Non violence, Buddha OK, Gandhi OK, Martin Luther King Jr Ok. Confused about the others. If Tolstoy belong their then many others like Bertrand Russel, other philosophers will come first. My list will be Politics— Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.; Religion: Gautama Buddha. That is all. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Possible. Instead of Peace, which is a totally negative and therefore dull. At least this has a number of religions attached. -- 05:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Peace is viable in its own right, but it's more of a politics topic while nonviolence refers more to society and the like. They can easily be both in the list. -- Liliana 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
it could be a possible entry, but instead of?--Barcelona (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Web giants

I can see almost nothing has been added from web. So, the best five (in my opinion) suggestions: Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter [end]. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Oppose - too specific. We have entries abou Internet, Email, and World Wide Web which cover general concepts. Actual companies are of secondary importance. — Yerpo Eh? 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, this list should not have any enterprise. --JaviP96 talk me 14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
We should at least have Google in the list of Internet. Microsoft should not be there and if Twitter comes then Myspace, Blogger, ... list will continue to grow. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Too specific— good point! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose No enterprises, please, otherwise we should include banks, petrol companies etc. as well. --Chricho (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose strongly; we've already got too much computer/net stuff as it is. A. Mahoney (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


The most important member of the 16th-century Venetian school. In 1532, after painting a portrait of the emperor Charles V in Bologna he was made a Count Palatine and knight of the Golden Spur.

Titian could replace Francisco Goya. In my opinion Francisco Goya can't be compared with the importance of Titian for art. Oursana (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
disagree, Goya has more variety and quality, he made not only portraits as Tizian but many innovations--Barcelona (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Titian made not only portraits:
Recognized by his contemporaries as "The Sun Amidst Small Stars" (recalling the famous final line of Dante's Paradiso), Titian was one of the most versatile of Italian painters, equally adept with portraits, landscape backgrounds, and mythological and religious subjects. His painting methods, particularly in the application and use of color, would exercise a profound influence not only on painters of the Italian Renaissance, but on future generations of Western art.(en WP)
Titian could replace as well wikipedia:Rubens or wikipedia:Velázquez--Oursana (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrea Palladio

One of the most famous architects of the world with influence from England to America even on nowadays architecture. Perhaps we could remove Frida Kahlo whose influence and importance was small (Mexiko). --Oursana (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What to remove

This is a list of suggestion on what entries we should remove. Note, one ore more suggestion may be incomplete and suggestions may contradict each other. you are welcome to expand/modify those.. Write your comments below every nomination.

Remove most common words

As you surely know, there a rule in En Wikipedia which suggests not to link the most common words and terms like "Book", "Dinner" etc. These words need no explanation or linking. Similarly, we can remove the most common words from the list like "Book", "Money", "Food", "Milk", "Toy", "House", "Bridge". See also next point. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)su

Strongly oppose. This is an Encyclopaedia and not Who's who. Most important entries. -- 05:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, we did remove or decided against inclusion in the past for some concepts that are really too general (such as "wall"), but those that you list aren't. Except maybe "house", that one I could support removing. — Yerpo Eh? 11:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
oppose, general concepts must be in a list called "list of articled every Wikipedia should have"--Barcelona (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
They should not get linked if the article is not particularly related to it. In an article about printing, literature etc. of course you also link the article about books, which is very important. Oppose Oppose --Chricho (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Use plain links for most common words

Where removal will not be possible, we can use plain links (if necessary we can use a different font colour too) Example:

    1. Complex number
    2. Number theory

Here Number has been unlinked as a common word! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Same as above. Unlinking is more or less the same as removing. — Yerpo Eh? 11:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove general priority 31 countries from countries list

Remove all general priority entries from List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have#Countries. The hatnote is doing its job perfectly: Eventually, there should be articles on most or all of the 243 countries listed at List of countries. However, for the smaller Wikipedias, some of the more high-priority countries to have articles on are: --Tito Dutta (Talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I find this suggestion hard to disagree with. Most of the non-bold countries aren't really any important anyway (like en:Algeria). -- Liliana 14:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


Was suggested before, but without anything to add. This is a bad concept for an article and in most Wikipedias it's just a stub. -- Liliana 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended list. Score

What about computing score for the extended list? Just for those chapter which have 50+ (70+, 90+) score with 1000 articles. The Russians and Catalonians are close to the perfect score, and I am sure they'd enjoy more competition. -- 08:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The extended list still needs a lot of work before it's useful for such purposes, IMO. — Yerpo Eh? 12:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I did that 3 years ago --> User:MarsRover/Sandbox/Expanded Score. But like Yerpo says, the list needs a lot of TLC. I think there are way too many people and seems like mostly western topics are expanded (13 horse types, 6 bean types, etc) --MarsRover 00:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I know that the list is ghastly. 10K is, probably too much. I'd suggest the Next 1000. Yet, as there is a score, people would work on it. And there'd be an incentive to join the fray as well. -- 14:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
instead of expanding the list from here (meta) I think that would be a quantum leap if it is proposed that each project proposed their "own" 1000 article. This would provide a complete and diverse macro-list where each project establishes the 1000 "particular" articles considered most vital to have in the corpus of all Wikipedias.
The list is huge and possibly unattainable in the short term, but do not forget we have all the time in the world ... In order to do this list more "tractable" in establishing some kind of ranking, could be established that only computes the "particular"-articles in each list that were distinguished in the "native" Wikipedia (this could be an incentive to improve those articles in the "native" project and facilitate the translation on the basis of good articles).--Mafoso (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know... it's a fresh idea, to be sure, but it sounds terribly complicated. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it not sounds sounds terribly complicated, is terribly complicated if we try to manage it in a "hardcoded" form. But it's amagazing and terribly enriching transferring responsibility to projects, certainly it gains in different points of view, on completeness and participation.
Take the concept of WLM, reducing it to the minimum (or maximize the KISS principle) allow WikiProject articulated around a list of 1000 articles around a theme (many lists as publishers want to have and hold). Specifying (simply) that:
* Each wikiproject should have a thematic criterion and 1000 articles
* All of these articles WikiProject only be taken into account in global count those articles that are distinguished in the local encyclopedia.
then we will have:
* An army of Wikipedians generating thematic lists
* An army of Wikipedians improving articles on Local
* An army of Wikipedians translating quality articles
And, of course, a computing headedge --Mafoso (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
For information, Chinese Wikipedia already have its own 1000 articles. 12:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
MarsRover, it amused me greatly to look at the extended stats from 3 years ago, see the Interlingua wikipedia in 91st place, check this month's live 1000 articles status... to see that after all our hard work, sweat, and toil, we have held steady in 91st place. Almafeta (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, 3 years ago Interlingua score with the 1000 list was 6.42 and today it's 9.32 so if you didn't do the work your rank would have dropped 20 places. -MarsRover 08:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As MarsRover indicated, the way to increase rank is not to be sweaty, but to be more sweaty than those other bastards. ;) — Yerpo Eh? 10:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Richard Feynman

I suggest to add Richard Feynman. He was probably the most influential physicists for quantum field theory. We have physicists who developed eletrodynamics, quantum mechanics and relativity, but there are no proponents of quantum field theory—the framework of the most fundamental widely accepted modern theories. Tesla, Fermi or Faraday could be dropped. --Chricho (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Faraday maybe (as already proposed above), definitely not Tesla. — Yerpo Eh? 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Mathematics, especially logarithm → topology

I suggest to replace the entry logarithm by topology. Why are logarithms bad? The logarithm is just an unimportant numeric operation, it is not even a particularly important one (addition and multiplication are much more important—and the logarithm is certainly not more important than powers and roots). Topology is a fundamental subfield of mathematics, like algebra, it is used everywhere in modern mathematics—it can bee seen as a counterpart to algebra: Algebra deals with operations/formulas in an abstract sense, topology deals with continuity/shapes in an abstract sense. --Chricho (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I also question the entry number theory—this field of mathematics is neither particularly important, nor fundamental. Suggestion: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, their impact is quite unique among theorems. --Chricho (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Support replacing en:logarithm with en:topology, though in fact logarithms are vitally important both to calculation and to the history of mathematics. But topology is more important. I like the idea of adding Gödel’s theorems somewhere but I'd keep number theory; perhaps this could replace the Pythagorean theorem? A. Mahoney (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
“Unimportant” was exaggerated. I retract my suggestion to remove number theory. Number theory has a long history and is obviously more important than for example the Pythagorean theorem. I am unsure about the Pythagorean theorem, it is not particularly important, there are many theorems in elementary geometry, but it is especially popular among laymen. Let me describe the geometry articles in the list (I think there are too many geometry-related entries): “Area” and “symmetry” are quite general concepts in geometry with generalisations which are essential even in modern mathematics. Pi and the Pythagorean theorem are particularly popular (my subjective view, maybe it is not a universal phenomenon but biased: laymen regard π as “the” (interesting) number and the Pythagorean theorem as “the” theorem). There are also “angle” and “trigonometry”. I think at least one of them should leave the list. Both are closely related (“angle”: a fundamental geometric figure; “trigonometry”: study of another fundamental geometric figure, namely triangles, angles are particularly important here). Since trigonometry needs angles I suggest to replace trigonometry by Gödel’s theorems.
Another objection: Why is there “area” – why do we emphasize the two-dimensional case? “Length” or “volume” would work as-well. I favour to have such a link, since such notions of “size” are essential in mathematics, even historically. But it is bad to choose arbitrarily the two-dimensional case. Is there any idea how to choose an article? (and I do not think that “measure theory” would be a good idea, that is a modern, abstract subject, the general idea of “size” does not depend on it) --Chricho (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "area" is pretty marginal. Symmetry is important beyond mathematics (e.g. in visual arts) so I'd keep that. For me, what matters about the Pythagorean theorem is Fermat/Wiles; neither the Pythagorean theorem nor "Fermat's Last Theorem" is all that important on its own, but the idea of trying to generalize this simple, ancient fact about triangles, and the fact that it took 400 years to prove that the obvious conjecture is in fact true, is a nice story about how mathematics really works. Although the Wiles proof is not at all accessible to non-specialists, the theorems and the history are -- so I'd keep this. In short, I agree with you about adding topology and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems; I would drop area and angle. A. Mahoney (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I have replaced the logarithm by the incompleteness theorem and trigonometry by topology (I have choosen trigonometry, since angles are a fundamental concept, while trigonometry is just the elementary treatise of some aspects of angles).
Area is still a candidate to get replaced. Maybe volume is more appropriate?
Do you argue for adding FLT? Of course it is famous, but I do not think it is important enough. What is about the Poincaré conjecture? Riemann hypothesis? Shanuel conjecture? Maybe Langlands program? That would be too much. Just because of some publicity I would not prefer it to fundamental concepts or entire fields. --Chricho (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, two users alone do not constitute a quorum for changes to such an important list. Did you ask other Wikimedians with expertise in mathematics to participate in the debate? If not, why not? At the very least, you should have waited until after the next ranking update before implementing the changes, in order to give Wikiprojects focusing on this list sufficient time to react.--Leptictidium (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Leptictidium. Not by the topic decission, but for decissions and implementation procedures. Do not make the changes without discuss and plannify them, please.--Amadalvarez (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the proposal was from weeks ago, I think this should be discussed again.--Arnaugir (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What especially worries me about this case is that there wasn't even a true consensus between the two only participants in this debate: both of them agreed on which articles should be added, but A. Mahoney wanted to drop "area" and "angle" while Chricho wanted to drop "logarithm" and "trigonometry" instead. Since there was no real consensus whatsoever, I'm reverting the changes until such time a consensus has emerged.Leptictidium (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I had the old statement “Support replacing en:logarithm with en:topology” by Amahoney in mind, but his most recent suggestion was different. --Chricho (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I'm sure it wasn't done in bad faith. :-) But I really think we need to reach a consensus not just on what articles to add, but also on what articles to remove.--Leptictidium (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

19th century composers

Out of 21 composers/musicians/bands, 9 composers (Brahms, Chopin, Dvořák, Mahler, Puccini, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Wagner, not including Beethoven) are from the 19th century. That is too much in my opinion. The only real modern classical composer in the list is Stravinsky, maybe he is even the most famous composer in new music, but I doubt his influence: Arnold Schönberg invented dodecaphony, Olivier Messiaen founded serialism, and en:Karlheinz Stockhausen might be the most influential composer for electronic music, many important composers worked in his studio. Any objections or suggestions? --Chricho (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe?

There are very few africans in the list (Kwame Nkrumah and Nelson Mandela I think). We could add Chinua Achebe. He died recently (thus it is no longer an argument against him that he is dead) and he has written the most successful novel by an african author (maybe except of Camus). But it is really hard to choose an author who could be replaced (four Russians seem to be quite a lot). --Chricho (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Support In June 2007, Achebe was awarded the Man Booker International Prize. (en WP)--Oursana (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

see Support Support Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have#African authors --Oursana (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


I propose that we include Nematodes (d:Q5185) in this list, as arguably one of the most important groups of multicellular animals, in terms of ecology, economy and medicine. To make room for it, we could remove Anurans (d:Q53636) which are important for conservation biology and to a lesser extent ecology, and not much else. Besides, there is the entry for Amphibians (d:Q10908) which is the parent taxon and should suffice. Thoughts? — Yerpo Eh? 09:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Support to include Nematodes and remove Anurans. --JaviP96 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, we want to replace "Frogs" with "Roundworms"? --MarsRover 09:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That's the idea, yes. — Yerpo Eh? 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems logical.--Arnaugir (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneYerpo Eh? 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion about item changes

I think that it should be considered about if Hangul replaced by ISO 15924, Devanagari, Abugida, Syllabary or featural alphabet and should Cyrillic script, Greek alphabet, Latin script be replaced by alphabet, and whethere it is suitable to add fable and include Aesop's Fables, as well as adding Religious text like bible, Quran, Buddhist texts into the list. C933103 (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? — Yerpo Eh? 09:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
For the suggestions of replacing Hangul away with those others listed is because I think they are more significant than Hangul.
The reason of replacing the three scripts with Q9779 is because all of these scripts are just kinds of alphabet.
And the reason that I suggest to add religious text or fable is because I think they are important kind of literature. C933103 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
"Religious text" is hopelessly vague and not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. A. Mahoney (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Cologne Cathedrale

Remove: Hector Berlioz
Add: Cologne Cathedrale

Cologne Cathedrale: World Heritage Site, Germany's most visited landmark (20,000 visitors a day), seat of the Archbishop of Cologne and the administration of the Archdiocese of Cologne, the largest Gothic church in Northern Europe, the third-tallest church on the world, the largest facade of a church in the world, the choir has the largest height to width ratio of any medieval church, reliquary of the Three Kings, tallest building in the the world from 1880 to 1884, one of the most important collections of ecclesiastical art...-- 09:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this reads like a collection of trivia, not reasons for inclusion on this list. — Yerpo Eh? 20:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It has one of the longest construction times in history: from about 1410 to 1880, too :-)
--18:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Good afternoon. I have just found this interesting list about the most important articles of the Wikipedia project. I noticed the presence of the article "anime" (in other words, japanese animation). I propose the addition of the article "manga" to this list, since

  • it is an important part of the Japanese culture and literature
  • it is the main influence of anime
  • it has strong historical roots
  • it is well-known around the world

Tell me what you think about it. Have a very good day!

KiwiNeko14 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe anime is more influential globally, so it's a better representation of the modern Japanese culture. Manga just seems redundant if you look at it broadly. In any case, some entry would need to be removed to make place and I don't see anything so unimportant to justify removing in favour of having two closely related terms in this list. — Yerpo Eh? 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The list is too small to have both articles. We should have one of the two articles. I'm leaning towards anime as it is more globally popular than manga. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


This month there were big moves from elephant (included here) to Elephantidae (not included). Some of the moves were reverted. Maybe we should reconsider which one to include here? Boivie (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily: there are lots of good-faith moves in Wikidata that don't always get things right (which generally means being able to read a lot of languages and knowing what-all articles a given version has chosen to write), and that almost never take this list into account (not that that matters very much in the scheme of things). We should make sure we have the ideas we want on this list. In the particular case surely we want the several existing species known familiarly as "elephants" (genera Elephas and Loxodonta) but not "mammoths" or other extinct species. I think d:Q7378 is right. A. Mahoney (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


I was surprised not to find this article on the list. Together with chordates and arthropods, molluscs are one of the most popular and known animal phyla on the earth. To find a place for molluscs on the list I propose to exclude "insect", since their parent taxon, "arthropod" is also present. Thanks for consideration, Sir Shurf (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Insects are a far more known and important taxon than molluscs. Both insects and arthropods are crucial for this list, IMO, while molluscs not so much. — Yerpo Eh? 19:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The list is supposed to lean toward the more specific articles. So if 80% of all known mollusc species are gastropods (snails and slugs) I would rather have that instead. But insect is too important to remove, IMO. --MarsRover 01:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
May be I don't undestand the principle. Some sections above it was considered logical to exchange the popular and well known frogs with arguably important, but not well known nematods. So what is the guiding principle? Popularity, usefullness or what? Thanks, Sir Shurf (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a combination of popularity and importance. For example, Nematodes are both important and very well known as a health problem. — Yerpo Eh? 15:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. So lets consider the triangle Arthropods - Insects - Molluscs. Molluscs are important as food source (e.g. clams), luxury materials source (e.g. pearles), pathogens (e.g. shistosoma) and popular as spectacular animals (octopuses, calmars, tridacnas). Separately arthropods and insects are very important, but does their mutual presence on the list outweights the importance of molluscs? Overall, currently on the list there 6 articles from the arthropod phyla and 0 articles from mollusca phyla. Somewhat unbalanced, IMHO. Can something be done in this regard? Thanks, Sir Shurf (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe arthropods and insects outweigh the importance of molluscs. Both arthropods and insects are by far the largest taxa on their respective taxonomic rank, and, well, their importance can't be overstated. Groups such as spiders, mites and crustaceans would be completely unrepresented were it not for inclusion of their parent taxon, which would make no sense.
As luxury materials source and pathogens, the role of Molluscs is negligible (at most a few species each), so what remains is use as a food source and "popularity". Bluntly put, Bivalves are semi-important as food and Cephalopods are popular, but not nearly as important (or popular) as Insects by themselves, nor are they together as important as Arthropods or Insects. Instead, I could possibly support Mollusca replacing Chordata which is an undoubtedly important (in biological sense), but not very widely recognizable grouping. However, I'd like to hear another opinion first. — Yerpo Eh? 09:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Chordata article seems too broad to be a good scientific article and too obscure to just be a popular article. I agree it can go. There are other articles that have less qualifications. The completely unscientific topic of Juice can go first, IMO. --MarsRover 16:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think of that possibility, but it seems logical to exchange mostly biological term chordates with popular term molluscs. Sir Shurf (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Nobody objected about exchanging chordata with mollusca after a month waiting time. How the change is being made? Thanks, Sir Shurf (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I have made the change. — Yerpo Eh? 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

New entries suggestion

I suggest to add these topics about Physics:

  • Work
  • Heat
  • Power
  • Pressure
  • Volume
  • Wave
  • Particle
  • Electron
  • Proton
  • Neutron
  • Laboratory
  • Experiment
  • Theory

and these topics about Engineering:

  • Inclined plane
  • Pendulum
  • Lever
  • Spring

and these about Measurement and units:

  • Units of measurement
  • International System of Units

and this about Technology/Materials:

  • Material
  • Ceramic materials
  • Composite materials

and this about Chemistry:

  • Chemical reaction

Therefore I suggest to move Metal and Steel from Physics to Technology/Materials.

--Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A few of your items are already in the list. Also, sort of a bare minimum for people to discuss these is to say why the item should be included and what you would remove to make room for the item. --MarsRover 16:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that there is a maximum of 1000 items for this list. In this case, I simply suggest to move Metal and Steel from Physics to Technology/Materials. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Please, add Dietrich Buxtehude, the major german composer before Johann Sebastian Bach. --Vanzanten (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why and whom do you suggest removing to make place for him? — Yerpo Eh? 17:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Musically and historically, Edith Piaf is less important than Dietrich Buxtehude. Buxtehude was a leading figure in the history of western music, the major german composer in the generation before Bach. He can not miss in the list. --Vanzanten (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No one against? --Vanzanten (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure... there is also chronological balance to take into account, in general it would be better to consider replacing a contemporary composer. Edith Piaf as a 20-century singer isn't directly comparable, I would support removing her only if it's demonstrated that she is significantly less important than all the other figures in this list. — Yerpo Eh? 12:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The list is already heavily unbalanced: there is only one composer of "ancient music" (Palestina) and nine composers of the XIX century. Dietrich Buxtehude can't miss. Without Buxtehude, we would not have Bach. --Vanzanten (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we unbalance it even more? Can't say I support this line of reasoning, regardless of Buxtehude's importance. — Yerpo Eh? 07:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, indeed! Buxtehude is a pre-bachian composer, he was born in 1637, he would help to balance the list. Currently, it's really unbalanced to the XIX century's composers, and there aren't basilar leading figures of the ancient music. --Vanzanten (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So which XIX century's composer would you remove? — Yerpo Eh? 13:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
For example, Schubert isn't so fundamental. --Vanzanten (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I support removing Schubert to make place. I'm not so knowledgeable in classical music, but his removal has been proposed before. Some other opinion would be nice, though. — Yerpo Eh? 05:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, no one against? --Vanzanten (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if noone objects, please wait until the beginning of the next month before making the change - this way, Wikipedias have time to react so they don't lose score on the list of Wikipedias by sample of articles. — Yerpo Eh? 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I object. We should not decide upon our own taste. Schubert is much more popular: 13.458 entries at (against 914 for Buxtehude), 731 000 results at GoogleBooks (against 57 300 for Buxtehude). The entry for Schubert in the Grove Dictionary, the most reliable music encyclopedia of the world, consists of ca. 64.500 words (including 261 positions of bibliography) while the entry for Buxtehude consists of ca. 12.000 words with 57 positions of bibliography. In no way we can say that musicologists or record labels or listeners are interested in Buxtehude more than in Schubert. And, to tell the truth, in general all of them are much more interested in XIX century's music than in the music of any previous period (though this priority is not so crucial nowadays as it was 100 years ago). So that it is quite reasonable that we have mostly composers of XIX century in the list. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I support Andrei's position. Since Wikipedia does not restore any kind of historical fairness but rather reflects the objective situation, we should make choice between two classical composers based solely on their respective roles in professional literature. Without any doubt Schubert attracts much more attention of specialists and therefore replacing him with Buxtehude would be a deviation. --Deinocheirus (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is my 2 cents. Schubert is more notable as a first composer of Romantic time (as stated by lots of musicologists) and an author of more than 600 songs (an achievement that nobody has ever surpassed AFAIK). Therefore oppose. Absconditus (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

of course, changes must wait but I don't see many supporters... Surely the list is unbalanced but not only chronologically but also geographically, why add this name and not another non western or from another time?--Barcelona (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Giza Pyramids or Giza Necropolis?

In the past, this list contained Giza Pyramids (Q12508), but it was changed to Giza Necropolis (Q13217298) last month (without any discussion?). Besides, I notice that the description in both Wikidata page are the same! ("archaeological site on the Giza Plateau, on the outskirts of Cairo, Egypt") As the Q number of Giza Pyramids is smaller, I suggest this list should use Giza Pyramids (Q12508) instead of Giza Necropolis (Q13217298). --Romethus (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As nobody raised objection or any further comments, it has been fixed. --Romethus (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
First, Q12508 is just a subset of Q13217298 in which the latter one also include the Great Sphinx and some ithetlrs there, and it is Q13217298 not Q12508 listed in UN's world heritage, also the lower Q number might just represent it was in this list when wikidata launched so someone create corresponding wikidata linkage in batch for these entries. So I suggest to use Q13217298C933103 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I support C933103 in this.--Joopwiki (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

African authors

Went down to the Authors-section of the page to see the prevalence of African authors on the list. As indeed there are fewer world-known African authors that what comes from, e.g., Europe, I don't think there is room for more African authors than what's already there - that is, Naguib Mahfouz. However, I think that Naguib Mahfouz should be replaced by Chinua Achebe.

Indeed, Mahfouz won the Nobel Prize in litteraturs and Achebe didn't, but Achebe is widely seen as one of the 20th century's greatest authors, and Things Fall Apart has been called the most read literary work in African literature. So, my proposal is that Naguib Mahfouz is replaced with Chinua Achebe. Tanzania (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

see up [[Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have#Chinua Achebe ]] --Oursana (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Monumental Western-Centric bias

This article is not a list of what every language encyclopedia should have. IF it were it would have to strive for including a broad section of world history and global areas, and not just a parochial list of topics of special interest to 20th century Americans and Europeans. Get some women in there, get som Africans, get some Asians, some Latin Americans and some Native Americans and other Indigenous people in there and it may become a truly vital list of world topics. Right now it is just a crystallization of the systemic bias.--Maunus (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Including non-westerners just for the sake of it isn't a better approach than the current one. — Yerpo Eh? 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mythical or Historical

  • Remove Abraham and Moses (Not real, historical persons. Probably fictional characters.)
  • Add Zhuangzi and Du Fu (Two of the most important figures in East Asian history.)

--S0ch1 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You are joking right? There is no mythical or historical topic. And you are proposing to remove top-priority entries. ...Aurora... (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
We don't know if Abraham (or Moses) was real or just a legendary myth. Their biographies are not historical, but mythical.--S0ch1 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
While it's true that much of the material around Abraham and Moses is mythical, those stories are foundational to three of the great world religions (they are even called the "Abrahamic faiths") and, therefore, to much of Western culture and to much of Islam. Thus they surely belong on this list, whether or not they "existed" in history in the same way as, say, George Washington. A. Mahoney (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Biographies are true stories about real people. They are not mythologies.--S0ch1 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To be sure; therefore, I did not use the word "biography" but rather wrote of "stories" of Abraham and Moses. You are entirely correct that what matters about Abraham and Moses is not historical. But that doesn't mean they're not important figures. Indeed, to this day people are willing to die for their interpretations of the stories of Abraham and Moses: we call those interpretations "religion," as I observed earlier. "Myths" are stories that do important work for the cultures they come from; some myths are true (e.g. the story of how American colonists came together to become independent) and some are certainly not (e.g. the story of George Washington and the cherry tree). While it is useful to know which are which, understanding the fundamental stories of a culture and how they work is basic to understanding that culture. That is why Abraham and Moses are on this list. A. Mahoney (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

absolutely disagree with the proposal--Barcelona (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


I have noticed that there are at least three different articles about bees that apply to different scientific names (Apoidea, Anthophila, Apiformes). The commons category direct to Apoidea but many articles are about the other ranks of "bees". Could this be clarified to what bee refer to as many might be "wrong". I am not sure but suspect that the same problem apply to about most animals and plants.

The term "bee" is indeed slightly complicated, because Anthophila, which are most commonly referred to as "bees", are a grouping with uncertain taxonomic position within the parent taxon. However, it is still a natural grouping, defined by structures for transporting pollen and the nectar/pollen diet, that deserves a place in this list because of its importance for pollination.
Apoidea includes wasps, for example (which are less important), while Apiformes is simply a synonym for Anthophila (that's why it's a redirect on :enwiki). The problem arises where the common name doesn't fully reflect the natural situation in scope (even Anthophila, which includes bumblebees that are excluded from the term "bee" in common use), but in this particular case, I believe it's not too far off. — Yerpo Eh? 07:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a native English speaker so I have very limited knowledge of what is most commonly called a bee in English. In Swedish however I'd believe most people only refer to honeybees (Apis). When more precision is needed I think only scientific names are used. According to Catalogue of Life, Anthophila is a genus within Choreutidae! However Merriam Webster lists it as a synonym for Apoidea.
My suggestion is to only rely on well known scientific names when including forms of life on this list and not the common English term for a kind of group of living things. Since we have to rely on a term easily translated to other languages if it is supposed to be on this list we should use something with a clear definition. Then it is either the scientific name or some other well defined feature commonly used in many languages. The same problem applies to Elephant where enwiki have different articles for the term Elephant (Elephantidae excluding mammoths) and Elephantidae (including mammoths). Other wikis might have just one of them and might consider it weird not to consider mammoths a kind of elephant since they are in the same family. - Averater (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For my previous edit

My edit of removing Q8222 Hangul Q8209 Cryllic Q8216 Greek Q8229 Latin Q8196 Arabic and adding Q182133 Syllabary Q38592 Devanagari Q9779 alphabet Q179461 religious text Q693 fable are all mentioned above and no one oppose so I made those changes...anyway, let me raise the discussion again, anyone have a better idea over it or think that above changes should not be made or disagree with reasons that I given in previous discussions?C933103 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, these changes are precipitate and not enough reasoned in the entry Suggestion about item changes dated on 22 July 2013 in this discussion page. Two examples: at least religious text has one opinion against removing it (A. Mahoney) and none agree, except that of the one that suggests the change; secondly alphabet has been removed not long time ago: on 2012-09-02 it was replaced by writing system. Besides, I think articles like Greek, Latin and Arabic relates three of most important languages all along the history of human civilization and deserves to be in the list more than the suggested ones. In addition, changes must be showed in Recent changes table to general knowledge. For all these reasons, I suggest undo these changes. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Xosé Antonio. --JaviP96 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
As do I; I remind the group that our custom is not to make changes in the last few days or the first few days of a month, though, so as not to make trouble for the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles that refers to this list -- so let's not do anything until next week. A. Mahoney (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree the changes C933103 done and undo them all. (By the way, all the changes are done without shown in the "Recent changes") -- 15:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Not the first time our "custom" has been ignored. I'd suggest blocking the page on the last five days of a month and the first five of the next.Leptictidium (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Add video games

clearly seems like an important topic. 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Which game would you remove to make space for this? Since Wikipedia (in all its versions) is an on-line encyclopedia, topics related to computers and the internet are prominent in the minds of some editors, to an extent probably greater than their real importance in the broad sweep of history. I'm not sure we can say now that video games are more important than, say, chess or soccer -- but let's revisit the topic in 100 years! :-) I wouldn't say categorically that video games shouldn't be on this list, but I don't see what this article would displace. A. Mahoney (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I found one i'd like to remove, Auto racing. 01:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding video games to the list makes no sense. We have many Wikipedia projects for languages spoken by a small population in third world developing countries in Africa and Asia. I'm pretty sure it would be quite unnecessary for the Xhosa Wikipedia or the Zulu Wikipedia to have an article on Call of Duty 4. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 13:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

It seems to me that this list is being compiled as a list of what topics wikipedia editors think are the most important topics for an encyclopedia, but if the intention is to provide a list of articles that will help a wikipedia to get started and become an active useful project then it seems to me that a better approach might be to list articles that wikipedia READERS want to see. If the readers of a particular wiki project can find articles on what they want to know about when they search for them it seems likely that they will spend more time using the wiki and hence being more inclined to help contribute to it. A basic suggestion for how the wants of readers could be ascertained is either to use google analytics/trends to find out what people in a particular language are searching for when they include the terms wiki, wikipedia etc. Obviously using any data that is available about the actual search function within each wikipedia would be useful to. Anyway, it just seemed a little redundant to me to try and improve a wiki project by first improving articles that editors think are important if readers don't care about them. Loganrah (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall seeing the list of most searched topic for a Wikipedia somewhere, but I forgot where. However, the basic assumption is that the number of editors improving this page is large enough to give a meaningful approximation of what the readers might need, too. Additionally, the "currently the most popular topics" are something quite different than "most important topics". Do you really believe all Wikipedias should have an article about Kim Kardashian whom nobody will even remember in two years? I'm sure that she's being far more searched for right now than William Shakespeare (for example), but replacing him would make us laughing stock of pretty much everybody.
What you're suggesting would make sense for every Wikipedia separately - to help editors respond to trends, but not in a centralized way like this. So every local editor community would do this in their own project space. — Yerpo Eh? 08:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, found it: - the latest list is for the month 08/2009, but you can get the picture. Most visited pages list is at (updated yearly). — Yerpo Eh? 08:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that nobody uses (or very few people use) small wikis, like the Setswana Wikipedia, because they do not have any useful content. And what Yerpo said -- small wikis should prioritize things that will still be important in 5 years, not pop-culture stuff. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Trimurti -> Shinto

I would suggest replacing en:Trimurti with en:Shinto. Right now there are two articles on Hinduism, which is an important religion for sure, but Trimurti as a concept is still relatively peripheral and not so known (more useful/popular topics would in fact be Shiva or Vishnu, I think). Shinto is usually considered a world religion, but now it's missing. Also, there are already actually four major religions practised in India in the list: Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism and Jainisim, and Yoga as well. Of course Japan would then in a way have Shinto, Buddhism and Zen, but I think the list would still be more balanced. --Epiq (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Trimurti replaced Shiva as a more general concept (see the archive section). I can't judge how much sense does that make, and there hasn't been much discussion about it, but I don't think that Shinto, as an almost exclusively Japanese religious practice, would be a better option. — Yerpo Eh? 13:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that reasoning is a bit strange. Jainism and Sikhism are also almost exclusively Indian practices, as is Trimurti as well. In any case Trimurti is not a good topic for this list, it's much too "technical" in the sense that it is rather a theological concept than something that is commonly used and easy to write about. According to one statistic (in Wikipedia) the largest religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, various folk religions, Taoism and Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism and Judaism. Jainism has much fewer followers and Zoroastrianism is a very small religion but they both have historical importance, so I do understand their inclusion, but Shinto is the only major singular religion currently missing from this list. It is for certain a much better choice for a topic than Trimurti. --Epiq (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your argument about numbers, but in my opinion, the solution would then be to replace Jainism and Sikhism with something more important. Or at least Sikhism, if people think that Jainism is historically important enough. But I'll let others judge, I'm no expert on religions. — Yerpo Eh? 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I do think Shiva is more important than Trimurti for our purposes, and I'm inclined to agree that there's a lot of Indian religion here (and I teach Sanskrit, so my prejudices, if any, are in favor of such articles!). I'd support replacing Jainism with Shinto (prefer) or replacing Trimurti with Shinto, but I don't have really strong feelings. Suppose we wait until early December, allowing more folks time to weigh in, then make a change if warranted? A. Mahoney (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggested Shiva->Trimurti in the first place, and I have no objection to this change. Almafeta (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What about sportswomen and sportmen?

I´ve just noticed that there isn´t any article in the list related with biographies of famous sportswomen and sportsmen. I think sport is a very important fact in our society and lot of people pay attention to it. It comes to my mind articles like:

*Sports: Athletics, Swimming, Football, Basketball...

Previous list is only a personal view, but firstly I´d encourage users to give their opinions about this idea. Is it convenient to introduce this subject in the list? If yes, which articles must be removed? And which articles must be added?

Waiting for your opinions, --Xosé Antonio (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a gig mistake about sport articles. There are some of them in the list, but I stand my suggestion about biographies, --Xosé Antonio (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with sportspersons is that they usually only are famous for a few decades, and only in parts of the world. When I look at the names you listed, I recognize less than half of them, and I consider myself about as knowledgeable in sports as an average person. On the other hand there are lots of names in this list that I also don't recognize. But I hope they have made a larger impact on the world than only being good at a sport and being famous for that. Boivie (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, sportspeople tend to be famous for very specific achievements (victories within their field) which exclusively benefit them, unlike achievements in arts or science. — Yerpo Eh? 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Boivie and Yerpo; certainly Pelé, Baron de Coubertin, or even Milo are important within sports history, but not important enough to be in the top 1000 pages. You might want to look at the expanded list of 10,000 pages, which does have some 200 sports figures on it. Are they the right ones? There's scope for discussion there: do join in! A. Mahoney (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is better to organize a separate competition in the framework of appropeiate projects. Niclaus and Longo are missing in my chapter from the above list and that is a usuful reminder. Though the interest of readers in these articles is unlikely, the encyclopedia is consulted for the things little known. -- 08:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Very yes, in fact, it would be quite easy to make separate lists with different focus and calculate ratings from them. List of Wikipedias by sample of sports articles etc., I believe that's well within the scope of Meta too. The script for calculating the ratings is also freely available at List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Source code. — Yerpo Eh? 09:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism -> Crime

I would like to suggest "Crime" to be added to the list, under the Law section. In addition to one of the most pressing concerns of most people, no matter where you go, defense versus crime is a primary purpose (and expense) of modern government. Although there is no concensus on what exactly is *considered* a crime, as well as what is considered a reasonable response to it, that debate in and of itself is encyclopedic due to its wide-reaching effects on the world's cultures.

For what to remove - the only notable candidate seems to be Terrorism, which would be a major subset of all crime in general, and a natural topic for the "crime" article to lead into. Almafeta (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objections, I'll make the change early next month (after the stats are run). We can change it back in February if any a notable problems come up. Almafeta (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I´ve just read your suggestion and I think it´s to early to make the change. I´m not agree with the change. Of course, Crime is a wider concept that includes Terrorism but, in my opinion, Terrorism deserves to be in the list because is an important fact in many countries, with important effects in its daily life. In addition to this, I must say that it would be convenient to set some rules about changes. I think it isn´t enough with only one personal proposal, it might have a minimum of votes to proceed with the change. --Xosé Antonio (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Although no objection was posted, the change was reverted without discussion, so I withdraw this suggestion. Almafeta (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There was one person that not agree with your change. In other hands, I think that if only a person do a proposal, that isn't a proposal with consensus. I agree with Xosé Antonio that this list should have a minimal control of changes. --Elisardojm (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that the proposal to add en:Crime is a good one, just perhaps not as a replacement for en:Terrorism. Perhaps en:Commonwealth of Independent States could be removed, as it is a largely symbolic organization? It's not a topic within the same subheading, but it still falls under "Social sciences", so the section balance would be preserved. — Yerpo Eh? 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)