Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2022

Vote on guidelines of maintaining the list

I have noted that, some editors here is trying to implement a guideline proposed last year and use that to reject community-approved change. As the guideline was never voted for/against, I would like to formally let editors vote on each items on the proposed guideline, in order to establish legitimacy for items that people agree on, and reject those items that do not have consensus. C933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

1. diversity in all dimensions is purpose of the list

Proposal Rejected

Support Oppose  Oppose. For this list, we are picking the most important 1000 topics that new Wikipedia should start writing on. It is more important for articles that readers actually interest in, and for topics that are essential to the foundation of a Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, to be included into the list. More diversity is important and I do propose changes based on need of more diversified list, but I don't think it should be the purpose of the list.C933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose To me, this list is intended to help wikipedias to create a basis allowing to build a encyclopedia. if diversity is not to be rejected, it could not be the main purpose of the list. --Toku (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose If the list is well done, I think that diversity will be present in a natural way. But I don't believe that diversity is the very purpose of the list. --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose List diversity is important, but it's not the most important purpose.--Opqr (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

2. a change of the list needs more support than opposition

Proposal Accepted

Support  Support C933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support It looks like obvious. --Toku (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support --Opqr (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Support --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose Discuss Note that, this condition imply 50% agreement threshold is all that is needed to make changes. As opposed to e.g. 55% on similar English Wikipedia list, or 66% on some other decisions that require supermajority. C933103 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC) It's not just "50% agreement threshold": it's "50% + one support". In a case with, for example, six "Support" vs six "Oppose", there is no more support than opposition. --Toku (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC) You are right. C933103 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

3. a change needs at least 5 supporters on the discussion page

Proposal Accepted

Support  Support Any change on this list could have an important impact of others wikipedias, especially the smallest ones. I think we need to have a chorum to accept any change. If it's not the case, anyone could come, propose 20-30 swaps in one day and impacts several projects. Regarding the chorum, 5 supporters is not so simple to reach but it's not uncommon. --Toku (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support How to pretend making a decision with effects on more than 300 Wikipedias without being able to gather at least 5 suppports ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Support I have worked with this list in the past. It's not motivating to know that it can change overnight on the decision of a single person. --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with Toku. --Orchendor (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)  Support, at least (per previous supporters). — Yerpo Eh? 11:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Most discussions here can't reach 5 participants even after months of discussions.C933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per above Dawid2009 (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose, per above. SadAttorney613 (talk) Discuss

4. swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)

Proposal Accepted

Support  Support This rule was instaured because some categories will probably disappear without it. For example, actors, artists or musicians have very few possibilities to resist a proposal like "Important religious branch" VS "artist". So, the respect of categories is a way to keep an equilibrium in the list. --Toku (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support But when the current problem will be solved, we'll need a process to periodically and lightly modificate the balance between categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Support I vote Support but I will add a nuance. I am against massive changes like those proposed in recent days. But I think it will be necessary to study a way to vary the size of the categories. Maybe set a minimum for each (for example: 90% of the current number). This will keep a conservative approach (the current list has been running for more than 10 years and is therefore "good" for project purposes) and a reforming approach (the list can be further improved; in my opinion, the approach of C933103 n is not entirely unfounded). --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with Toku. --Orchendor (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)  Support, category quotas can be discussed separately - in such a special case, the proposal could include a larger list of swaps. That will help to prevent adjusting quotas for trivial reasons (i.e. a pet topic of some editor) and force broader discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 11:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This rule would make it impossible to adjust balance between different topics. And given the list is currently having this much biographies yet missing basic concepts like "Home" or "Freedom", I don't think the current balance is a right balance that we should maintain status quo. Also, even when switching "like for like", the sub-condition that limits cross-category switching would make it even more difficult to swap in more important and related entries, for example switching a Chinese philosopher for a Chinese philosophy, since one is a person and another is a philosophy.C933103 (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Strong oppose There are fields which are hiperbolically underrepresented and hiperbolically overrepresented. Suggest to we have strick rule "like for like" is awful or that we would decide that we can make massive removals an massive additions in some fields separatly by wp:bold, and that the list does not need be at 1000 generally whole time but we can say remove 10 articles from overrepresented literature and later for long time wonder what replace in that. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Category quotas can be discussed separately, but WP:BOLD doesn't apply if the rule is to discuss any change beforehand. Also, even temporary fluctuations of the total count would create problems in calculation of the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles. This list should be as stable as possible to fulfill its purpose. — Yerpo Eh? 12:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss In response to @Toku:'s point, I would just say this reflect the problem of the current list. This 1000 article list is meant for people to start their own Wikipedia is, and of course most artists would be less significant than "important religious branch". Yet the list contain so many artists, and so few religious branches even if they have hundreds of million followings. That even Sunni and Shia Muslim have to compete for a single seat as per replacement made last year (And I would say given the replacement vote back then, there were most likely favorism in play that some voted just because they are more affiliated with one branch over another), despite the topic Sunni and Shia Islam are centric to the Islamic world and the two fractions' differences are often the cause of dispute and conflicts in the Middle East area and beyond, and have worldwide consequences. Which is definitely much more worthwhile than some artist that are only famous in specific region for specific period of time. But when you get to truly important artists, for examples like Beethoven against Orthodox Church, then I believe most people will make the decision to keep Beethoven, and in my opinion that is the proper balance that this list should aim for. However, if it is still desired to keep more e.g. artist over other topics for the creation of starting Wikipedias, no matter reasons behind, it would be possible to copy English Wikipedia lower level vital article list's example, introducing a quota system, so that each specific fields can be guaranteed to have at least some forms of representations. C933103 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC) @C933103: In my opinion, this point of view is very contemptuous of the arts. I don't share it. --Toku (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I could also tell you to start your own list. After all, that's how the list of 1000 fundamental articles came about: by a disagreement with the English list. --Toku (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC) The English list is for English wiki, with the goal of achieving Feature Articles status for all entries on them, unlike this list which is for all Wikipedia, and is for all of them to start their Wikipedia with.C933103 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Also, I think your statement isn't really factually correct, as when this list was created back in May 2004, while the English Wikipedia list was created on 2004 August. C933103 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) The two lists were very, very close at the start. Final autonomy was only acquired shortly before 2010. --Toku (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

5. single swaps (no mass changes)

Proposal Accepted

Support  Support To me, this is a consequence of "Proposals should be provided with a reason". Indeed, in a case of a double swap, for example A-B VS C-D, I would like to understand if a point suggested by the proposer is linked to the removal of articles A or B and, symetrically, to the introduction of articles C or D. --Toku (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support The current page is a good example to explain why single swaps are à necessity. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Reading the discussions, we see that an A/B type proposition for C/D is read A/C and B/D. So users separate multiple swap into single swap. So I think the multiple swaps are unclear. A good example is the "Karate/Judo - Swimming/Spices" proposal which even resulted in a vote from the same user for and against. --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support If you do a mass changes, it is very unlikely that your proposal will work. It's simply a waste of effort.--Opqr (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with Toku. --Orchendor (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)  Support; it facilitates discussion. We could tolerate double proposals in special circumstances (like mentioned below by C933103) but not more. — Yerpo Eh? 12:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Some swaps come in pairs, like the swap out of monotheism and polytheism proposed above, it wouldn't make sense to separate the two proposals. C933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Strong oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Strong oppose SadAttorney613 (talk) Discuss

6. no living persons biographies

Proposal Rejected

Support Support Obviously we need important bigraphies just as Jesus, Einstein etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Excuse me, I don't understand. No one seems to be against the presence of Jesus or Einstein in the list ? --Toku (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) It is terrible to list living people next to most important people in history like Jesus or Muhammad, they belongs to expanded list. Frankly we coould even arguably remove all those not important people for more important articles related with history. There were such discussions on the English Wikipedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose While BLP concern is understandable, it would also prevent putting articles like "Neil Armstrong" onto the list before year 2012, despite his notability for inclusion onto the list is well-established even before year 2012. C933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose I think this rule is useless. The possibility to integrate someone in the list can be evaluated by discussion. --Toku (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose This list was established in 2006, when Nelson Mandela was still alive and included in this list. If you don't want to include a living person in this list, for example, when Mandela dies, you might say, "It's hard, Mandela is dead! I have to revise the list right away." It's very ridiculous. Biography of great men, whether alive or dead, should be posted.--Opqr (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku and Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Neutral Neutre I think that we often lack perspective on living people but it's probably my "historian" side that speaks. --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

7. proposals should be provided with a reason

Proposal Accepted

Support  SupportC933103 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Ironically, there is no need to explain why. --Toku (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support --Algovia (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support --Opqr (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Support But, as Blaise Pascal said « Vérité en-deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà ». --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose Discuss

A series of swap proposal

I think it would be more raional if the following entires in the list are swapped as stated as follow: C933103 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Summary response to @Toku:'s comments below: Yes, it is indeed intention to swap out a number of countries/cities/biography articles from the list, as I agree with others observation that the list currently have too much of them. And compared to past swapping record, such inter-category swap have been done before, isn't anything new. C933103 (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note that, many of the proposed swaps, despite crossing topics, are not without relationship.C933103 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Change for the sake of change is not always helpful. In my opinion, your proposals often confuse the ideas of fundamental articles and articles about basic techniques. But discussion can solve that. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What I am thinking about is, if a user enter a new, small wikipedia of their home language, spoken only in the villages around themselves, and see it only get a thousand or so articles, what sort of articles can make the reader think, "Ah, this is meaningful and that it is a useful website.", ? And that's the idea behind the proposal. There are also some ideology aspects like the proposal for including article on freedom, or free content, which might not be the most important 1000 entries, but those are articles that can help explain to readers that what Wikipedia exactly is, just like the "Encyclopedia" article currently on the list now. (Wikipedia should avoid self reference, but when picking articles on what to write first before other articles, I think it can be up to individual preference [There are no way to write Wikipedia articles without individual preference on what topic to cover anyway].) And since most new/small Wikipedia tends to be from different underdeveloped countries, or really small communities in more developed countries, I think it is important that the articles being listed are general enough, and wouldn't make reader question "Why is this article being selected to write on instead of all the other possible things?". C933103 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I worked on the list a few years ago, especially on the countries (Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, RDC). I think a significant number of countries is a good thing. Indeed, they make it possible to quickly map the planet and make it possible to introduce elements of geography, history and culture (geography/history/culture map) or even politics, economics and science. I will therefore oppose a reduction in the number of countries. On the other hand, there are many cities (44 I think). Many are there because they are large centers but their history is recent and, apart from their demographic weight, they have, in my opinion, little interest in a basic list. I am therefore in favor of studying a reduction in the number of cities. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Zhu Xi for Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

Withdrawn

Zhu Xi is not insignificant, as he is the person who defined the study of Confucianism in Song dynasty of China and his influence subsequently extended to Ming dynasty. However, he was just building based on Confucianism, which in my opinion make the entry less important to Chinese history than another prominent school of thought left out by the list, aka Legalism, which have profound influence on how different Chinese dynasties govern their population, especially in the Qin dynasty. C933103 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose I agree the Legalism Chinese philosophy school was important and I hope it is part of 10,000 most important articles. But the influence of Confucianism seems to be greater. --Toku (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC) But like Zhu Xi isn't even the second most significant Confucianism academic. He have high influence on Confucianism study during Song dynasty with a bit influence remaining in Ming dynasty and beyond, but that's about it. The second most important person in Confucianism would be Mencius, but even then I don't think he is more important than the other school of thought in Chinese philosophical history. C933103 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Both are of the subject of Chinese philosophy. C933103 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Chinese philosophy is not a category of the list... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Are we limiting "swapping like for like" to only those categories listed in the list, even if the relevant part of proposal below passed? C933103 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Marxism for Free market

Withdrawn.

Currently, the list contain articles including Socialism, Communism, and Marxism. While I agree each of them have huge influence on humanity in the past century and half, I think there are some overlaps between them that doesn't need to take up 3 spots, especially that Marxism is a specific subset of Communism idea. Hence, I think the Marxism entry should be replaced to allow the addition of the entry Free market. C933103 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose Discuss I am not sure about this swap but I agree about the initial statement : Socialism, Comunism and Marxism could be reduced at Socialism and Comunism in the list. But I prefer a more general concept as "Free Market" can be integrated in "Capitalism". --Toku (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Free Market is a concept more general than capitalism. C933103 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC) It is but, currently, it is not really the case. So, capitalism looks like more important. Moreover, it is an important notion in history. For example, it is not easy to describe the Cold War era without using the concept of capitalism. It is the same for the crisis of 1929, the colonialism... --Toku (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC) How? Cold war was Liberal Democracy vs Communism. The w:en:Causes of the Great Depression was either attributed to demand or to monetary policy of the government. And Colonialism is a consequence of Imperialism, not sure why you would link that to "Capitalism". Your argument further highlighted the irrelevancy of the concept of Capitalism as a topic in the course of human history. Perhaps even Mercantilism is more relevant. C933103 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) If I remember correctly from my youth, the camp of the liberal democracies had a certain tendency towards capitalism... --Toku (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC) "And Colonialism is a consequence of Imperialism" : I think this is a mistake as the second existed well before the first one. For example: Akkad Empire, Ur Empire, Persian Empire... And there are examples of colonialism without imperialism too : Denmark, Curlandia... Throughout history, the two notions are often linked but they remain distinct. --Toku (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Commonwealth of Nations for Mariana Trench

Withdrawn.

In my opinion, despite Commonwealth of Nations being a currently existing entity, its prominence and its impact have been very limited. I think it would be more useful to have Mariana Trench, where the deepest point on earth locate, and also the only of the four extremes on earth that haven't made its way onto the list yet, as part of the 1000-article list, than such relatively inconsequential international alliance. C933103 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC) withdrawn. C933103 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, I am not sure "Mariana Trench" is so important to figure in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Except the fact Mariana Trench is the deepest point of the oceans, there are few things to write about it. The Commonwealth is an important international organisation. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Capitalism, Japanese Yen for Bank, Investment

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Capitalism is often used by people to describe and criticize the current economic system around the world, however, this would be an more in-depth concept and cannot be facilitated without understanding the activity of banking, which would be described in the article of bank, and that's something missing from the current article list. Japanese Yen being the world's third reserve currency enjoy an important status in the world we are in now, however I don't think it is possible to explain the importance of Japanese Yen being a reserve currency without first describing the act of investment. C933103 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, "Capitalism" is currently the dominant economic system and "Japanese" is one of the spoken language in the current world. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC) The proposal call for switching out Japanese Yen, not Japanese language. Also, as the article Capitalism explain, "No country's economic system is completely or purely capitalist", thus I think it is incorrect to claim "Capitalism is currently the dominant economic system". C933103 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Indeed, you are right about this point. I think "Japanese Yen" is not very interesting in the current fondamental list. But the proposal remains unclear to me: is "Japanese Yen" to be swaped with "Bank" or "Investment" ? --Toku (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC) It is a double swap proposal, pending the approval/rejection of the previously proposed rule, as both Bank and Investment are very important topic, that I picked Japanese Yen and Capitalism to swap out, in order to keep the list at 1000 entries. C933103 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose I think Capitalism should be in the 200 most important articles of the 1000 articles every wikipedia should have so I can't understand why it's proposed here. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose We can't remove capitalism. It is the currently dominant economic system in the world. It is also at the origin of many social, political and cultural phenomena since the 18th century. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) I find this claim hard to believe. C933103 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Tin for Alloy

Yes, Tin is an important element that have many industrial use in modern society, but most of those uses are in the form of Alloy. The concept of Aloy, in my opinion, is boarder and more significant than just Tin itself. C933103 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Tin is becoming every day a more and more important metal. So, I think its presence is necessary in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Tin is one of the most important metal in history and in modern world.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Pewter has been used since ancient times, usually in the form of an alloy. However, despite the rarity of pure pewter objects, he had an important role in establishing the first trade routes. It is also used today for many applications. So I'm more for keeping it on the list. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Disagree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Nevertheless, "Alloy" could be interesting in the list. If we consider metallurgy is mainly a chemical discipline, we could swap "Base" and "Alloy". But, it could cause a problem as "Metal" is in Physics category... --Toku (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Vatican City for Holy See

The reason why Vatican City is important is not because of the tiny patch of land it's located on. But rather, it is because of the Holy See which have jurisdiction over not just the city, but more importantly, on the entire Catholic Church. Thus I think it would make more sense to have an article on the Holy See on the list instead of the geographical Vatican City. C933103 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Holly See is too close to Catholicism. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

   Vatican City is not? C933103 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

   In the same way, we should swap the expression La Sublime Porte and Ottoman Empire. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

   More comparable would probably be w:en:Caliphate. C933103 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose My idea is the other way around, and I think the Vatican City, one of the sovereign states, is more important than the Holy See, which is just a religious concept.--Opqr (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose I think "Vatican" is more important thah "Holy See". --Toku (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

In my language, "Vatican City" and "Holy See" are synonyms. --Toku (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Vatican City is the physical city while Holy See is the authority reigning over the city and the Catholic Church. C933103 (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Ming Dynasty for East India Company

Opposed.

Ming Dynasty, among all the Chinese dynasties on the list, is in my opinion relatively insignificant. Its regime is mostly restricted to Han area and its influence outside the country is not that big, except maybe Zheng He which already had his own article on the list. In contrast, (the British) East India Company symbolized a new way for European colonialist to conquer and extract resources from rest of the world, and have also influenced other European countries in establishing various East India Company and West India Company, greatly changing the course of history across a wide part of the world. Hence, in my opinion, East India Company is an article that have much higher significance than Ming Dynasty. C933103 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose Ming Empire was one of the most important State of its era while East India Company can be integrated in "Colonialism" and "British Empire". Moreover, the Company was quite a part of the British government. So, I don't think it has such an importance to be swaped with "Ming Dynasty". --Toku (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC) The unique type of business governance model in area they control is not coverable by the like of "British Empire" C933103 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Ming Empire was the most powerful empire of its era. It's also important in Chinese history. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The Ming Empire ruled China from 1368 to 1644. They probably had the most powerful navy and army of the period. They also carried out major works (Grand Canal, Great Wall, Imperial City...).--Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Currently, there are four items on the list in the Chinese dynasty: Han, Tang, Ming, and Qing. Given the length of China's history and its importance, this number of items is reasonable and there is no need to remove the Ming dynasty.--Opqr (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Ah I missed the Qing entry. I think Han and Tang are already sufficiently representative of Chinese articles, and Chinese history have no needs for 4 articles representing 4 different dynasties (5 if you count Qin Shi Huang as representing Qin dynasty). Out of a total of 100, for all subjects I guess I will make another replacement proposal later concerning the Qing dynasty. If a third article for Chinese history is desired, I would propose the Warring state period instead, the foundation of many Chinese believes and philosophy with impact lasting till now. C933103 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC) edit for clarification and additional explanation. C933103 (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss There is a point I don't understand in the proposal. If we see below, "Zheng He" article is also proposed to be swaped (with "Silk Road" if I remember well) but it is mentionned here to support the swap "Ming Dynasty". So, is the swap of both "Zheng He" and "Ming Dynasty" considered or is it just one of them ? This is not clear. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC) They are two separate proposals. That I consider Zheng He's expedition being most remarkable/notable thing from Ming dynasty and that Ming Dynasty itself have little else to influence the world, and then the topic of Zheng He himself is also something cover under the Silk Road topic. C933103 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Washington D.C. for Fertile Crescent

Opposed

Compares to other cities on the article list, the significance of Washington D.C. just by being the capital of the most important country on earth fell short, especially when it in itself wasn't this large. Conversely, the Fertile Crescent area, being the root of Western civilization as we know nowadays, should in my opinion receive more attention. C933103 (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, "Fertile Crescent" can be integrated in "Mesopotamy" and "Ancien Egypt". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Both are geographic area, how are they different categories? C933103 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Both are more historical than geographical. --Toku (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to a change between two articles coming from different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) How are they different categories, both are geographical locations. C933103 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The concept of Fertile Crescent can be completely replaced by the two items currently on the list, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, and there is no need to add new items.--Opqr (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Infrared, Ultraviolet for Prion, Concrete

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Infrared, and Ultraviolet, are both important topic. But they are all part of light, even when they are not visible. And their unique characteristic is helpful to a lot of applications, but I think there are more important scientific/engineering topics that needs to be covered. For example, Concrete as an material is widely used in construction everywhere across the world nowadays, from buildings to roads to dams to everything, and Prion is the only type of disease-causing mechanism besides other pathogen currently in the list that still haven't make it onto the list yet, despite one type of Prion disease aka the Alzheimer's disease have already been listed as an important topic and that I agree with the importance of such disease. Thus, I believe such swap should be made. C933103 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, IR and UV are important in a lot of current technologies. --Toku (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to changes between articles coming from three (!) different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous reviews. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss But I agree "Concrete" should be added in the list. maybe thanks to a swap with an article from "Technology" section ? --Toku (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq for soil, fertilizer, crop rotation

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

It is hard to pick what articles should replace what others, but in my opinion, soil, fertilizer, and crop rotation have much more impact on human civilization in general, boosting productivity and enabling the further development of human civilization, compared to the three mentioned countries which for their most period of history only have limited regional influence beyond their national boundary. C933103 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, these countries have some importance in the current world. --Toku (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to triple changes: the proposal is quite impossible to discuss. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous reviews and opposed to a decrease in the number of countries. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss To me, "Fertilizer" and "Crop rotation" are very close concepts in Agricultura. Then, I am not it will be stable modification of the list as one of these articles will be a interesting candidate for a future swap. --Toku (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC) They are part of agriculture, but with agriculture being so important to human civilization, I can definitely see more articles being put under agriculture category. This replacement suggestion have the explicit goal of reducing the share of countries in the list while raising the share of agricultural article in the list. C933103 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Madrid for Mekong River

Madrid is an important city, but when compares to Mekong River, which is essential to the civilization and food production in Southeast Asia from ancient prehistory time to even the modern time in 21st century, and have also become some source of international disputes, I think Mekong River is more significant than Madrid to be on the list of articles for Wikipedias to have. C933103 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Not against a reduction in the number of cities, but Madrid has been an important center for almost five centuries for the arts, religion, science and European politics. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Mekong River is important, but Madrid is also important.--Opqr (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Monotheism, Polytheism for Shia Islam, Bat

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

I think Monotheism and Polytheism are simply are rough classification whether there are one gods or multiple gods, and the basis of such concept should be covered by a grand article for religion and other articles for individual religions, hence I don't see these two being needed for the most important 1000 articles. On the other hand, Shia Islam as a long time competitor as Sunni Islam, and both of them have their own sphere of influence across a wide area of civilization, I think it seems strange that only one of them are listed on this list, hence I think Shia Islam should be added to the list together with Sunni Islam. Meanwhile, with less relation, amid the current ongoing pandemic, it give us a review on uniqueness of the animal Bat. As a rare flying mammal, and also origin of many deadly pathogen to humanity across the world and across the history, I think it deserve an article on the list. C933103 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support Per nom. Polytheism and Monotheism are covered by other articles on the list. We can not have "buildings from Vatican", "Vatican", and "Catholicism" put together ahead of say Shia Islam, Orthdox Church and I am saying that as Catholic. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC) We don't have "Buildings from Vatican" and no one required that... --Toku (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC) So what is St. Peter's Basilica? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. And double swap is not usually considered as a good way to introduce new articles in the list. --Toku (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose A double swap, different categories and Shia Islam was removed few years ago... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Polytheism and monotheism are really two fundamental articles, especially the first. Indeed, they are portal articles that allow to direct towards the different polytheistic religions. For monotheism, it also makes it possible to explain the appearance of this phenomenon which was, at the start, nothing obvious. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Lemon for Citrus

Swapped with enough support

Citrus, which also includes oranges, grapefruit, limes, and such, in addition to lemon, is much more significant than just lemon in itself. C933103 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support Per C933103. --Toku (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Support OK. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support I think it is more appropriate to include the entire citrus, including lemons, in the list rather than a single lemon.--Opqr (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose Discuss

swap Reggae music for Drama

Drama, including thearetical drama, TV Drama and radio drama, seems to occupy a much more significant role and much longer impact as well as much wider geographical influence on entertainment of humanity, than the specific music genre type of Reggae. C933103 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support Drama are a central part of modern television (and the internet too). Reggae is also important because this current had a great influence. But I think it has now dissolved and evolved into something else. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support Per C933103 and Algovia. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
4.  Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose In my opinion, in the absence of "Cinema", it is to see the point of adding "Drama" to the list. And regarding "Reggae", Bob Marley is still an artistic with major influence in the world. So I think this musical genre still has its place in the list. --Toku (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

   If Reggae music is notable for Bob Marley then wouldn't it make more sense to just have an article on Bob Marley in the list? C933103 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose I don't really understand the difference between drama and theater. "Theatre"theatre (Q11635) is already on this list, how is the drama different?　By the way, in the item of "drama" in Japanese, it is written that "drama is a Theatre".--Opqr (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   d:Q11635 only cover live performance, while d:Q25372 also include various other forms of drama performance, including TV drama and Radio drama. C933103 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Does anyone know why cinema is not in the list? Probably it is replaced by "Film". But in this case, does anyone know why "Film" and not the more general article "Cinema"? --Toku (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"Cinema" is not even an article on English Wikipedia, just an disambiguation page. Of course English Wikipedia is but just one of the many Wikipedias, but Simple English Wikipedia also redirected "Cinema" to the narrowly defined "Movie theater". Thus, I don't believe "Cinema" is more board a concept than "Drama". C933103 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Rio de Janeiro for Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and New Zealand Poland for Austronesian peoples

Withdrawn.

Rio de Janeiro is a significant city, and New ZealandPoland is also a geographically rather important country. However, they only have limited influence outside their national boundary and they do not have very much historical impact from the viewpoint of entire civilization of humanity. By contrast, the Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Austronesian peoples each represent their own unique culture and history, marking their own unique tracks in the evolution of Human civilization, that I think are much more significant for the purpose of top 1000 articles in a Wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is not usually considerad as a right way to introduce new articles in this list. --Toku (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to changes between articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Rio de Janeiro is probably the most important urban center in South America. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Not Sao Paulo? C933103 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Currently, this list does not contain any items in "Ethnicity". It is replaced by similar concepts such as "nation" and "language". I think that's the right thing to do. The concept of "ethnicity" should not be brought into this list.--Opqr (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Except there is no representative nation or representative language for native people of American or Oceanian C933103 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC) We have "Aztec", "Mayan Civilization" and "Inca" which represent the three main regions of Amerindians people in America. Today, the descendents of these civilizacions are numerically still the most important Amerindians populations (25 millions in Mexic, 25 millions in Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador and mora than 10 millions in Central America). Native Amerindians tribes in USA are very famous but they just represent 5 millions of inhabitants. It's also possible to speak about Amerindian peoples in "Cortés, Hernán", "North America", "South America" and the different countries of America included in the list ("USA", "Canada", "Mexic", "Brasil"...). --Toku (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss I think, regarding the results of "Swap: Remove New Zealand, Add Philippines" section of this page that "New Zealand" could be swap with "Philippines". So, this proposal is now not possible. --Toku (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Updated the list and replaced article proposed for replacement.C933103 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Still not convinced, Poland is the one of the important countries in European Union e is important for European and world history. --Toku (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) The list currently include 46 countries out of the entire world's 200 for this essential article list of 1000. Eight of the listed countries are in EU, in addition to UK, Switzerland, Vatican City, Ukraine, and the non-European country of Canada, which all share similar values and have not too distinct historical-cultural background. Indeed Europe have an outsized influence on the world, but does that warrant this much outsized representation? And there are also four more historically-politically-culturally-economically closely related Mediterranean countries, aka Turkey, Israel, Egypt, and Algeria on the list. C933103 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Most middle powers are concentrated in this region. But we also note the presence in the list of comparable countries located in America, Asia and Africa. It is not for us to judge: we can only observe. --Toku (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Regarding the Mediterranean Sea, this is not surprising. It was one of the "centers of the world" from Antiquity to the Industrial Revolution. And, even today, it is a major economic artery. --Toku (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) But was Poland ever such power? C933103 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Poland was unified at the end of the 10th century. It then experienced two peaks: one during the Middle Ages, the other towards the Renaissance. Then, a long decline where it remained an important power in Eastern Europe until the 18th century. During the 19th century, it was one of the "questions" that agitated continental diplomacy. Finally, in the 20th century, it was once again a regional power (partly subject to the USSR but also sufficiently autonomous to avoid direct repression by the Soviet army in the 1980s). Its importance could be compared to that of Korea or Thailand in Asia. It is not the main power of the continent because it is surrounded by more powerful neighbors. But it remains a notable country.--Toku (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Right I guess I would cross this part out. C933103 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Marx, Karl for Property

Withdrawn.

Marx, Kral is, according to my understanding, uniquely notable just for his work on Marxism, which is part of the Communism and Socialism. There would be many overlaps and not really that important in describing the personal life of Karl Marx behind his creation of Marxism which in turns became Communism. On the other hand, more detailed describing the concept of Property can help reader better understand the classifying criteria of Marxism and Communism, in addition to lying the groundwork for describing the concept of Intellectual property being a type of property, and only then would allow the explanation of the concept of "Free" in Wikipedia in relation to such intellectual property right. C933103 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, Karl Marx remains one of the most important philosof in human history. --Toku (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The logic behind some proposals is curious : remove Karl Marx and Marxism to add Free trade and Property is quite understandle. But why remove Capitalism ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose I even think that Karl Marx is more important than Friedrich Nietzsche.--Reprarina (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Anarchism for Libertarianism

Withdrawn.

As an political ideology, Anarchism is apparently much more fringe of an idea compared to Libertarianism. And thus I think it would be more important to have an article for Libertarianism than an article for Anarchism on the list. C933103 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn.C933103 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose I disagree. Anarchism is a more general concept and, in history, it has a more important influence than Libertarianism. --Toku (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC) What are the influence of Anarchism, compared to Libertarianism which help shaped our modern world? C933103 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Except maybe in some US States, Libertarianism doesn't seem to have great influence. There are organisations which describe themselves as anarchist in lots of countries but it doesn't seem to be the case for Libertarianism. --Toku (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Political parties like Germany's FDP are Libertarian and they are now part of the ruling coalition. Parties like Japan's Ishin or UK's Libdem didn't claim to be a Libertarian party but are also heavily influenced by it. Which anarchism movement have gained such level of power and voter support?C933103 (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC) In Germany, the libertarian party is the "Partei der Vernunft" (550 members in 2015 according to the party itself). The "Freie Demokratische Partei" (FDP) is liberal. Liberalism and libertarianism are not exactly the same thing. The first is very influential (and already in the list); the second is marginal. --Toku (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I am aware of differences between Liberalism and Libertarianism and that is why I propose adding Libertarianism onto the list. C933103 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Breast for Taste

Accepted.

Breast, being an organ of reproductive system of mammals including human, have its significant role. However, compares to some other missing content on the list, for example taste, which is one of the five main sensory system in human body as well as most other animal, I think breast is less important. The sensory system part of the anatomy section currently listed three out of five sense, also missing are tactile, however the list have the article Skin which should also cover the tactile sensory system. on the other hand, the list have no article regarding mouth or tongue either. The list also feature quite a large number of articles regarding different foods, but what's the meaning of foods without taste? Hence I think taste would a more important article needed to be added to the list. C933103 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support Agree with C933103. The addition of Taste seems logical. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Makes sense to me. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Oppose Discuss Results 5 Support, 0 Oppose ; same categories ; single swap —> Accepted. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

swap Hard Disk Drive for Table salt

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Due to popularity of more portable device and innovation in storage technology, HDD have reduced its importance as a data storage device, and in many consumer computational devices, they are now being replaced by the like of NAND Flash Memory or SSD storages, hence HDD might no longer justify being 1 of the 1000 most important article on the list. On the other hand, Table salt have always been an important additive in food, providing necessary sodium to people in their diet, and they have also been an important tool for trade and revenue generation for historical powers that have obtained their right to product sodium chloride. However, more common nowadays is the over-consumption of sodium via Table salt, which would result in quite a number of chronic disease affecting the health of many people around the world, and thus I think it is a subject important enough to be one of the most significant 1000 for wikipedias. C933103 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support This mineral, which is mainly composed of sodium chloride, is indispensable for life activities and plays a major role in the history, economy and culture of the world. However, I think it's better to replace the salt with food-related items than to remove the hard disk from this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is not usually considerad as a right way to introduce new articles in this list. --Toku (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Swapping "HDD" for "Table salt" would not be a double swap C933103 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss But we could swap "Table swap" and "Base" ? They are in the same category and I think "Base" can be integrated in "Acid". --Toku (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Base is chemically important just as acid. C933103 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC) I can only nod. But is it so important as to be included in the list of fundamental articles? --Toku (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I can only say the list have much more less significant articles. Like the biography section. But many of the entry in the biography sections are too obscure that I have never heard about them and thus cannot properly say who should be excluded, and can only work on people that I at least have heard about before. C933103 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) The salt itself, not the table salt, should be added to the 1000 item list.--Opqr (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC) The chemical salt is already on the 1000 list. C933103 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Apparently I made a mistake. Is it correct that you want to register with table salt (Q11254)? If so, I agree. In the Japanese version, this item is just "salt", not "table salt", so it seems to be wrong.This mineral, which is mainly composed of sodium chloride, is indispensable for life activities and plays a major role in the history, economy and culture of the world.--Opqr (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Yes. C933103 (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Machine gun for Chemical weapon

Withdrawn.

Machine gun appears to be a too specific type of weapon to be the basic 1000 among all the different types of weapons, especially when the article firearms is also in the list. I think it would be better to have an article for chemical weapon, which characteristic is quite different from other weapon on the list, and its usage also have huge negative and lasting impact on people around the site of usage, thus probably being one of the more needed article on Wikipedia, compares to the specific type of firearm of machine gun. C933103 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn C933103 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose Machine gun is still an important weapon in modern warfare. --Toku (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose On one hand, chemical warfare is and old and important part of war. But on the other, MG is the symbol of industrial warfare, a major change in war. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Turkish language for Malay language

As indicated by relevant Wikidata entry, Turkish is now mainly spoken by ~90 million people (L1+L2 combined) around Turkey mainly of Turkish descend.

Given such data, it seems the language's notability is less than Malay, being an language of commerce in Southeast Asia, with L1+L2 speakers combined approaching 300 million users, used in countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and such C933103 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support addition, but strongly oppose removal. I'd rather swap it with Greek or Hebrew as they're only wide spoken in their origin countries just as turkish, but they're also a looot less talked (8 M hebrew, 11-12 M greek) than Turkish is. Maybe greek importancy resides at its historical importancy? I don't know, but at the moment Turkish is certainly more important Nadie4000010 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre Not really convinced but also not against... --Toku (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Turkish language is the main representative of the Turkic languages. - Coagulans (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

swap Canada for Freedom

Withdrawn.

Canada is a country with not much geopolitical influence owning to its relatively isolated position surrounded by the much more powerful United States of America. On the other hand, "Freedom" is a common concept among human beings, and I think it would be beneficial for it to have higher priority among those who create new Wikipedia edition to explain this concept to their local population in their own language. C933103 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn C933103 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Even if we consider adding such an abstract term as Freedom to the list, Canada is a G7 economy and 2nd largest country in the world, so pretty important in both geographic and geopolitical senses. The Geography list includes a bunch of less consequential countries. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Deinocheirus. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss I think the absence of "Freedom" in the list is surprising. But maybe, the concept is integrated inside "Human rights" ? Best regards, — The preceding unsigned comment was added by

swap Submarine for Map Navigation

Submarine is not really a common mean of transportation. On the other hand, wherever one is traveling to, map navigation is a necessity to any such person, thus is most likely a much more common and important topic, and creation and presentation of map as evolve over time also deeply reflected the technological advance of humanity across the time.

Submarines' main use nowadays are still weapon, but in the weapon article list, it probably need a lot more articles before submarine become priority. C933103 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Submarines are important weapons in modern world, especially regarding naval and nuclear warfares. Moreover, I think, "navigation" could be integrated in "Ship" and "Plane". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

   We don't even have "missile" on the list. C933103 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, but "missile" and "ballistic missil" are present in the 10000 articles list. It seems to be currently sufficient. --Toku (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

   Should "Submarine" be relisted under "weapon" instead of "transportation", if your argument to list it is that submarine is an important weapon? C933103 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   Also, the recent war have cleared proved that missile is a much more important weapon than submarine nowadays. C933103 (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Pakistan for Caucasus

Proposal failed

From the history of past 30 years, we can deduce that Caucasus is much more likely to have significant events that cause the world's attention than Pakistan, and thus I think Caucasus should be prioritized in establishing an article over Pakistan. C933103 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, Pakistan is one the most inhabited country of the world and an important military (including nuclear) power. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Pakistan is one of the great powers of South Asia and has a larger population than the three Caucasus countries combined.--Opqr (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC) The three Caucasian countries are not the entire Caucasus C933103 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Disagree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Golf for South China Sea Poker

Alternative proposal raised

Among the sports in the current list, Golf is one of the item with fewer participants, as can be seen by its exclusion from the Olympics nowadays. As an replacement, I propose adding South China Sea to the list of article, which is a body of water between China, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Philippines, and have been having high military tension in recent years, drawing attention from countries both near and further away. C933103 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Compared to Golf, I think Poker as a type of game and a type of playing card have a much more international audience and much wider reaches, and also have quite a number of external uses, like in magic or in presenting mathematical problems and such. C933103 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose I don't think this proposal is a good idea because Golf is an Olympic Game. It is also a sport knowing an important growth in all continents, especially in Asia. --Toku (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Being an Olympic game mean it's important in attracting audience and does not represent it have high participation among citizens across countries. And that it's "knowing an important growth", in my opinion, is still far from the long established role of poker, across the world especially in Asia. C933103 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Saint Petersburg for Quaternary extinction

Withdrawn.

Saint Petersburg is a quite important city, but is it important enough to have this in place of other more important topics for starting a new Wikipedia, for example on the ongoing mass extinction events? C933103 (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn. C933103 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Quaternary mass extinctions are not as important as listing 1000 items.--Opqr (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku and Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Mahler, Gustav for Osamu Tezuka

Compared to the moderately noteworthy composer Mahler, Gustav, I think Osamu Tezuka who can be said as creating and shaping the modern Japanese manga industry is a more important artist to be included for encyclopedic purpose. C933103 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support In accordance with the proposal. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced by the importance of Osamu Tezuka outside of Japan. --Toku (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Toku and Opqr.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Osamu Tezuka is regarded in Japan as a great man who pioneered one art field called manga. But is this achievement affecting the world? Isn't it important only in Japan? I cannot judge the importance of Osamu Tezuka outside Japan.--Opqr (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Opqr: It depend on which target numver for biographies we should have. We do not have target number for people yet. Here we have + 210 people, on English Wikipedia there is only about 115 and there are no people like James Watt. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

His works, and the field created by his works, have great impact and large audience across national boundary. His impact on the world's entertainment is certainly greater than some of the many musicians in the list. So, with the principle of keeping the number of people in the list same, I think this swap is appropriate. But if the number of people on the list is to be reduced as I have proposed and as the other user have mentioned, then his importance will need to be re-evaluated in the future. C933103 (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Atheism for Secularity

Withdrawn.

Atheism is important against religion, but I think more important is the secularization of the society which dissociate the entire society from religion, no matter one have personal religious believes or not.C933103 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Eastern Orthodox Church for Secularism

I think Eastern Orthodox Church is not too significantly notable as an article to warrant inclusion in the top 1000 articles, and would rather have an article on secularism, which is the form of life of many people that are not less than religious-adhering population in the world, when there are already so many religious articles in the list.C933103 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "Eastern Orthodox Church" is not a current article of the list. So, this swap is not possible. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose First, add Eastern Church in the list. Then, propose to swap Atheism and Secularism. Then, change your mind and cancel this proposal to remove Eastern Church to add Secularism. At first, I thought it was à joke. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Toku.--Opqr (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

swap Neptune, Uranus for Hunting, Mining

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

While Neptune and Uranus are important planets in out solar system, they are not visible to out naked eyes and are only discovered by observers through telescopes, and their relatively faraway position also make them relatively inconsequential to humanity as we live on the earth. I think to an encyclopedia documenting knowledge of humanity, it would be more important to include stages and types of economic activities that enabled and still enabling the survival and development of human civilization into the list, aka hunting and mining.C933103 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is not considered as a right way to introduce new articles in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Double changes, different categories, personnal opinion of what is an encyclopedia... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Agree with Toku. --Orchendor (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap WTO for Trade

Alternative proposal raised

World Trade Organization is an important organization but I don't think it's anywhere as important as the act of trade itself. C933103 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. But I agree "Trade" could be considered as a potential fondamental article. --Toku (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Trade is important but WTO too. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Zheng He for Silk Road

I think it is much more important to document Silk Road, the system of trade network established between Asia, Arabia, India, and Europe, over the course of two millennia and more, than the single person who lead Chinese ship down the route. C933103 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list.--Toku (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Of the explorers, Zheng He is the only East Asian on the 1000 list. The voyage is also a great one for listing.--Opqr (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

   The maritime part of Silk Road covers his voyage. C933103 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

The proposal is very unclear to me. Indeed, keeping "Zheng He" in the list is considered as a point to swap "Ming Dynasty" and "East Indian Company" (see above). So, shall we keep "Zheng He" if "Ming Dynasty" is swaped ? --Toku (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

swap ASEAN for South China Sea

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

ASEAN as an organization for country groups lack influential power and have limited impact on development of its member countries. In exchange, I would like to replace it with South China Sea, which is a body of water surrounded by many ASEAN countries as well as China, and in addition to that also serve as a key trade route from rest of Eurasia to Northeast Asia, in addition to it being subjected to many international conflicts and disputes in recent years, and have received global interest and attention.C933103 (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss I think we should be able to find a swap with another article on bodies of water, right? This is one of the categories with the most questionable articles. Examples: "Baltic Sea", "Lake Tanganyika", "Caspian Sea", 'Caribean Sea". --Toku (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Karate, Judo for Swimming, Spice

Accepted.

Among all the different types of martial arts in the world, I think it is difficult to say Karate and Judo is the most significant martial arts in the world. Adding onto that martial art isn't that much popular of a sport in the world, I don't think it's worthwhile for three different martial art articles to be covered in the list. Instead, I would suggest swapping one of them Karate with "Swimming", the most fundamental and most popular water sports in the world. And as for another spot, I would suggest adding "Spice", the key ingredient added to food to give them flavouring, which also triggered global spice trade and have profond impact on human civilization. C933103 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Reworded the proposal to remove the less popular parts, as according to discussion, to increase the chance of successful partial swap. C933103 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support only replacing Karate with Swimming: the later is much more notable as a recreational topic. As for the argument in the "Oppose" section, I believe it is essentially the same category in this case. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Support only à swap between Karate and Natation (but oppose to the removal of Judo). Per Deinocheirus regarding the reasons. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Support See discussions in this section. --Toku (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)  Support In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose #  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. Moreover, double swap is usually not considered as a right way to introduce new articles in the list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to a swap Judo/Spices. But support Karate/Natation swap. Per discussion regarding the reasons. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss Maybe a swap "Karate" for "Swimming" ? "Swimming" is a Olympic game. --Toku (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC) So, to clarify the discussion a little, we split the proposal in two (or cancel Judo/Spices which does not arouse great enthusiasm) and we leave Karate/Swimming to the votes? --Toku (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I would be OK with this solution. Deinocheirus (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Conclusion Today, if we suppose C933103 is in favour of the swap ― @C933103: ― the proposition of swap between "Karate" and "Swimming" is clearly accepted by 5 "Support" against no opposition. I think we can wait a few more days to be sure. Let's say one week ? And then we do the swap of March 1st ? --Toku (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Yes sure, I think it have been said that it's bad to have switch by the end of month? Also, do we need to have rules that how long must discussions be open before being closed? C933103 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Grape for Seafood Fishing

Withdrawn

I think Grape is a less important food source, than seafood food acquired from fishing, to many people, especially those who live along coast. C933103 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with the proposal. --Orchendor (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose For "Seafood", we have already "Fish", "Mollusca", "Marine mammals"... --Toku (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC) I have already changed the replacement target to the industry of "Fishing" in response to the comment. C933103 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss But I agree "Grape" could be removed as there is "Wine" in the list. --Toku (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Berners-Lee, Tim for Telecommunications

I think it is more important for Wikipedias to have an article on Telecommunications, the field that involve various means of remote communications, including everything from telegraph to telegram to telephone to internet to satellite communication, than Berners-Lee, Tim, the inventor of the very important but singular HTML standard for the use on the web.C933103 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support In agreement with comments (for Berers-Lee/Telecommunications). --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Counter proposal: swap Communication with Telecommunications (leaving Berners-Lee intact for now). "Telecommunications" seems like a more established concept that we can meaningfully describe. "Communication" seems more like something about which different disciplines talk past each other. (Not trying to discredit en:Communication studies, but it still seems like an emerging discipline than an established one.) whym (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  counter-counter proposal: still swap Berners-Lee, Tim for Telecommunications, but then move "Communication" to social science category. C933103 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  (Just to follow up my previous comment, mostly for clarification purposes.) I wouldn't want both Communication and Telecommunications to be included, because of the high degree of overlap in what would be written in the two articles. Having one of the two is good, but not both. (Hence my counter proposal above.) Moving Communication to a different category would somewhat lessen the problem, but won't fundamentally solve it, I think. whym (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  The current "Communication" article on enwp focus on social and interpersonal ways of communication, while "Telecommunications" is almost strictly technical. Those technical means of telecommunications are essentially absent from the "Communication" article on enwp either, so I don't think there are big overlaps. C933103 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. I concede that technical aspects are more central to one article and human-centered aspects in the other, at least in English Wikipedia currently. However, I still see closeness and continuity between the two concepts and that still bothers me. Other languages, especially smaller Wikipedia editions, may not (want to) mirror the distinction made in the English versions exactly, and may want to have one larger article. whym (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Actual examples shows otherwise.... For example, based on my limited understanding on the language, Min Nan Wikipedia article on Communication say something along the line of "Communication is an act of one subject or group covey meaning to another subject or group through notions that both sides can understand", while The Wikipedia's article on Telecommunication say something along the line of "Telecommunication is a technology to send information through elecromagnetic system". The two articles have minimal overlaps.... In fact even their article names are unrelated, unlike how English Wikipedia which use English language use same root word for both. The Wikidata entry for both also indicated clearly the different in nature of the two subject. C933103 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding Min Nan Wikipedia article on Communication,[1] isn't that a translation of English Wikipedia's first sentence at the time? Two linked words ('signs' and 'semiotic') seem to match. whym (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is what smaller Wikipedia tend to do when establishing articles. So is for example Vietnamese Wikipedia or Simple English Wikipedia. That still reflect "Communication" and "Telecommunication" are pretty distinct concepts. C933103 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@C933103: So, now, what is the situation regarding this proposal ? --Toku (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toku: All the cross-category proposal in this list will be put on hold for now albeit people can still read and vote on it, until the proposed guideline being officially accepted or rejected. Then, proposal that are deemed qualified according to whatever guideline being passed will proceed, others will be reformatted and resubmitted according to new guidelines. If inter-category swap is to be ruled out under the new guideline, then I would have to first propose changes in categorization/category quota before proceeding with most of my suggestions. C933103 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

swap Baghdad for Babylon

Opposed.

I found the historical city of Babylon carries a more significant role to the modern human civilization than the modern city of Baghdad. Hence I suggest the Baghdad article be swapped for Babylon. C933103 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose Babylon is currently integrated in "Mesopotamia" article. And Baghdad was the main cultural and scientific center of the world during Islam Golden Age. Therefore, I don't think this swap is a good idea. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Both Babylon and Baghdad were once important cities. However, Baghdad is the capital of Iraq and is more important than Babylon as it remains important today.--Opqr (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Toku and Opqr.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Sudan for Village

Withdrawn.

Among the number of African countries on the list, especially when compared to its neighboring Egypt and Ethiopia, Sudan doesn't appears to be particularly significant country that warrant its inclusion in top 1000 articles in the list. Instead, I would recommend including the article village, which represent the place where 45% of the world's population still living in villages [2], and it deserve an article describing their form of living, especially when compared to the 40+ articles about different cities around the world.C933103 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose to a change between two articles coming from two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Sudan corresponds to ancient Nubia. It is an important space in Africa. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Compared to Egypt or Ethiopia? C933103 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Egypt, Nubia (today Sudan) and Aksum (today Ethiopia) form an important subregion of Africa. While Egypt and Ethipia are more famous, Sudan/Nubia is not a marginal place between two centers of civilization. For example, Nubia ruled Egypt around 750 BCE and stopped Muslim conquests to the South from 652 to 1504. --Algovia (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Luxemburg, Rosa for Black Death

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

I am very certain Black Death have greater significance to Europe and to the world than Luxemburg, Rosa. C933103 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support It's not the deadliest epidemic in the world (contrary to what many people think) but it has had almost unparalleled consequences. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposition of swap regards two articles from different categorias. I don't think it's a good idea because it will change the equilibrium of the current list. --Toku (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Olympic Games for Home

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

Olympic Games, as it current stand, have see a number of scandal in different forms and different games across the past decade, and also the consequential reduction in attractiveness as well as viewership, and with the expanding entertainment landscape and development of professional league in different form, as well as rising importance of developing countries audience that the Olympic lack coverage in these markets, I think the Olympic Games are no longer so important that it can be the sport competition event to stay on the list. Hence. I recommend removing the entry, and adding another entry into the list, which is home, aka the type of facility inhabited by most people across the world, which I don't think it's necessary to explain how important it is.C933103 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose This proposal wants to swap two articles from different categories. And there is already "House" in the current list. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose "the Olympic Games are no longer so important" : then why China (in 2008 and 2022) or Russia (in 2014) or UK (in 2012) or France (for 2024) or many others spent or spend billions of dollars to organize it ? Maybe because Olympic Games remain the most important sport event ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose As long as "house" is already included in the list, I don't think it is necessary to include "home" in the list.--Opqr (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC) As an apartment resident, I don't understand how house can replace home. C933103 (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Operating system for Cooking

Proposal Closed for not comply with new guideline

More and more computer applications being made available to people have become cross-platform program, or even web-based program that doesn't need to change according to the use of different OS. Hence, even with OS being the most foundation software in computer, I think their importance in the general world have decreased that no longer warrant inclusion in the top 1000 articles. In contrast, I think what is more worthwhile to include would be Cooking, the act, art and technology that prepare foods for human consumption, potentially helping the development of human civilization. C933103 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Too much propositions about food or agriculture. OS are part of software and computer history and there are still important. And when I read cooking potentially helped the development of human civilization, I ask myself why Prehistory lasted so long : men didn't know how to cook animals they hunted ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The operating system is a major element in the development of modern computers. It remains today. It should therefore, in my opinion, remain in the list. --Toku (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose In agreement with previous comments. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss

swap Netherlands for Greece

Withdrawn.

Both in term of influence on Europe and influence on the world, Greece seems to be bigger and more profound than Netherlands, no matter historically or currently.C933103 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn C933103 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose The Netherlands is an cultural, intellectual and economoic centre of Europe since Middle Ages. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose There is already "Ancient Greece" in the list. After the Roman conquest of the region, Greece remained a intellectual centre until the Invasions. Then, it was mainly a province of Byzantine and Ottoman Empire until its independance. Then, I think this proposal is wrong. --Toku (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Discuss There is already "Ancient Greece" in the list. There is a mistake in the proposal, isn't it ?--Toku (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Ah yes I missed it.C933103 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Other possible additions without replacement target for the time being

• Secularism - Significant topic but swap proposal opposed on various different considerations.
• Freedom - Recognized as important in discussion but cannot beat replacement target
• Spice - Important not just as an ingredient of meals, but also as an historical driver for long distance international trade and war.
• 1970s energy crisis/oil shock - Forever changed the world's energy consumption and economic growth outlook since then. Also have profound political and diplomatic impact.
• September 11 attacks - Yet another world changing event in more recent history, turned world attention toward terrorism, make people feeling less safe in the world they live in, and created more hassles and invasive surveillance by governments
• Copyright - A type of intellectual property, such article would be required to explain how Wikipedia are free
• Free content - What Wikipedia provides.
• Balkans - A historically unstable region in term of politics.
• Big History - While not a super popular topic, the framework of such article can help editors further develop their wiki content from this.
• Proxima Centauri - The nearest star, and nearest solar system, to us other than the Sun.
• Parasports - Sports participated by people with disability.

C933103 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Swap Venezuela for Colombia

I don't understand why Venezuela is on this list. It does not have a large economy, a large population, it is not a super power, it has no soft power, and it is not even a tourist power like Cuba, which is also on the list. Maybe Venezuela under Chavez could be important because of the wave of socialism he unleashed in Latin America and for being the third largest economy in South America, but today the only issue related to Venezuela that can be considered important is the migratory crisis and the issue with the US.

Colombia on the other hand is the third largest economy in South America (both in nominal GDP and PPP), has the second largest population and according to the BrandFinance report of 2021, has the fourth largest soft power in Latin America only behind the traditional Latin American powers (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico), and it also has the fourth biggest latin american army. It is part of the CIVETS, the six most important emerging markets, of the OECD, and is considered a consolidated middle power. If we have to have more Latin American countries on the list, I think it makes more sense to have Colombia than Venezuela. Nadie4000010 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support, per above, tough Venezuela has also fairly good hard power. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support [nom] Nadie4000010 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Venezuela is a notable country because of its crude oil reserves, its political revolution and its history. --Algovia (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   Algovia, Colombia produces more oil than Venezuela but okay. Also, Venezuela gained his independence from Gran Colombia. So I don't think Venezuela political instability is sufficient for it to be listed instead of Colombia. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Algovia. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Comment: Lets swap Bogota for Colombia. Bogota is city in the Colombia. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it makes more sense, good catch. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 13:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How about reducing wuota of cities? Is really Vienna more vital than whole Peru what cover Lima? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board we should remove some cities, there's way too many. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 09:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if I don't like a swap between two articles from different categories, I can support a swap Bogota/Colombia. --Algovia (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Reduce the number of biography in the list to 100

Failed to reach consensus on how to determine a target number
{{{1}}}

Swap Oat for Table salt

Swapped

Currently, there are seven grains in this list: Barley, Maize, Oat, Rice, Rye, Sorghum bicolor, Wheat. Grains are important, but there are too many seven in this list. On the other hand, although table salt (Q11254) is a historically and economically important substance, it is not included in this list. Therefore, you should replace the salt with one of the grains. Of the grains, wheat, rice and maize are very important and cannot be removed. Barley and Sorghum bicolor are also high in production and should not be removed.　Although rye is low in production, it is a staple food of Eastern European countries and is very culturally important. Oats, on the other hand, were important as feed for horses, but production has plummeted. Oats are not a staple food and are not culturally important.　 I think you should replace the salt with oats.--Opqr (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Support  Support per nom C933103 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Vote in favor as a proposer.--Opqr (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Indeed, table salt was very important in history as trade roads were built upon its production and its sales. Today, it remains important for health issues. --Algovia (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose Discuss

Swap: Remove Sufism, Add Shia Islam

Swapped

Shia Islam being one of the two main sect of Islam is much more important topic to explore than Sufism. It is also needed to give view of the Islamic world's long-lasting conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslim. C933103 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Support  Support [nom]C933103 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Sufism is important as it has inspired some branches of Shia and Sunni Islam. But to me, Shia Islam is more important in history. --Toku (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Sufism is very important and I think it shouldn't be removed, but when comparing Shia Islam and Sufism, Shia Islam are more important.--Opqr (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree. --Algovia (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support per nom --Nadie4000010 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Oppose Neutre Neutre Sufism is important in Islam as it inspired lots of schools of thought. It's also useful to explain and describe all the heterodox branches of Islam (Alevism, Alawites, Druzes...). But that's right Shia Islam is also important. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap: Remove Backgammon, Add Poker

Backgammon have much less worldwide popularity (both in geographical distribution and number of people who play it) than poker. Also, the list now have 3 board games against 0 card games, this swap will help balance the list. C933103 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "Backgammon" is still a popular game and it's the only pure board game of the list as "Go" and "Chess" are more strategy game. Moreover, backgammon is a very old game. --Toku (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Backgammon is one of the oldest game still popular in our society. --Algovia (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   I have not seen anyone played backgammon in the 21st century in all the countries I have visited... But pokers are played everywhere. C933103 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   Maybe, you visit inappropriate countries for check backgammon popularity, or maybe pocker is in scope of your interest. Tucvbif (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap: Remove Berners-Lee, Tim, Add Friedman, Milton

Withdrawn.

As one of the most influential economist and statistician in the modern era, I find it surprising that he is not on the current list of 200 people we have, especially with how many social scientists and statisticians we list. To make place for this addition, I would suggest removing Berners-Lee, Tim, an entry that many different users already expressed them feeling its inclusion in the list of 1000 articles that every wikipedia should have is out of place. C933103 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Support  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose I don't think Tim Berners-Lee is that important, but Milton Friedman isn't as important as it is on this list either.--Opqr (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Agree with Opqr. In addition, I say Schumpeter (or maybe Hayek ?) looks to be more important in economy than Friedman.--Toku (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap: Remove Zhu Xi, Add Han Fei

Han Fei have more influence on Chinese history and philosophy than Zhu Xi, and Han Fei's school of thought also represent a more distinct idea than Zhu Xi's Confucianism, which already have multiple other articles in the list. C933103 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Suggestion: Single criteria for countries

The following criteria which should be meets by the country are:

1. Every country with en:Regional power, regardless of small population.
2. Every country which had ever been considered as Middle power AND has at least 20 mln population today.

On that basis, the following countries are removed:

1. Afghanistan
2. Cuba
3. Demographic Republic of Congo
4. Sudan
5. Tanzania
6. Vatican City
7. Venezuela
8. Austria
9. Netherlands
10. Portugal
11. Switzerland

And the following countries are added:

1. Angola
2. Colombia
3. Malyasia
4. Morocco

#New Zealand (perhaps no regional power, middle power with smaller population, see: [3],[4])

1. North Korea
2. Peru
3. Sri Lanka
4. Taiwan

Due to that, after removing 11 countries and adding 9 ones, we are under quota (not 1000/1000), we can eventually make slight correction. For example resign from addition one of these 9 countries and resign from removal three of those 11 countries. Just mere suggestion, any ideas are welcome! :) Dawid2009 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

•  Support but only the first criteria, I think the second clause need to be reformulated. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by SadAttorney613 (talk)

Oppose

•  Oppose Against multiple swap as we voted last month. And the proposition is very bad, especially removing Afghanistan (which has some importance in Asia...), Cuba (which has some importance in history), Sudan (a regional power in the North of Africa), Tanzania (a regional power in the East of Africa), Venezuela (a country with some importance in America for its politic revolution and its crude oil reserves), Austria (a very old country with an important culture), Netherlands (a very surprising proposition), Portugal (idem Netherlands) and Switzerland (idem Netherlands and Portugal). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sudan and Tanzania aren't regional powers nor middle powers. Is Afghanistan's "some importance in Asia" the enough for it to be on the list? I do admit that these criteria neglects historical factors, but are those sufficient to hold countries like Austria and Portugal (and I'm portuguese)? I think there should be concrete guidelines for which articles are added, because right now this list is extremely subjective and we need more objectivity on it. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 11:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia we reached to the consensus that countries like Mongolia, Portugal, Greece are not needed if we have separate section for articles related with history, culture and such (a ka Magellan, Portuguese language, Mongol Empire, Ancient Greece, European Colonisation of Americas (could cover Cuba, Netherlands and Portugal) etc.) and we have agreed each other on English Wikipedia to list few more countries from South East Asia if we have many cities from Europe and SO SO plenty Europeans. Here people apparently agreed each other that diversity is NOT purpose of that list (see: [5]) but I am not sure what does it mean. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan was at the service of the Spanish Crown, but yes I agree if the history, culture and such are covered then it's probably not worthy to have Greece, Mongolia and Portugal (unless Portugal makes a breakthrough with en:CPLP) listed. Cuba might have had some historical importance during the Cold War period, but I don't think it's enough for it to be listed. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 13:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I won't say defining criterias count as mass swap. C933103 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose What count as "Regional power" or "Middle power" is very, very, subjective. For example, in your list of removal, Netherlands and Austria and Portugal and Sudan and DR Congo and Tanzania, are what I would consider as at least middle power in at least some parts of their history. C933103 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Netherlands, Austria and Portugal are listed as middle powers. The modern state of Sudan has been in civil war even before it's creation in 1956, until 2005 with a 11 years cooldown between 1972-1983, the country was never a middle power. See this comparison of the GDP nominal between some Northeast Africa countries [6]. They also only have a mere $4.1 billion on exports, that's not a middle power number. Regarding DR Congo, more than half of it's exports are to China, while almost 25% are to Zambia, any country that has their economy this dependent cannot be considered a middle power. I also fail to see how Tanzania is a middle power. Just because these countries have an enormous demographical potencial and consequential economical and militarily, doesn't mean they are regional or middle powers, sure in 50 years a lot of African countries will become middle or even great powers, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Not to mention that this is not about what two trifling internet users think which countries are or are not middle powers, the article was built on the opinion of academics and scholars who know much more than we do about International Relations and Geopolitics. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

All these conditions you listed for different countries just prove my point that the classification is subjective. C933103 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed they were not subjective, all social sciences are, but at least they follow a methodology. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 07:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not convinced by now. --Toku (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with some suggestions, but disagree with most others.　First, I strongly oppose the removal of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the addition of Angola.　The Democratic Republic of the Congo was unable to reach its full potential due to continued political turmoil, but with a population of 92 million, it is one of Africa's largest powers. It is by far the largest of its neighbors in Central Africa, and due to its large population, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the political center of the region.　Angola, on the other hand, has a population of only 31 million and is no more important than the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even with the economic power of oil.　I also oppose the removal of Switzerland, the Vatican and the Netherlands.　Switzerland is truly one of the centers of the world economy and occupies a large political and economic position.　The Vatican City has a small land area, but has strong political and economic power against the backdrop of the Catholic sphere.　The Netherlands is a medium-sized nation, but its cultural and economic influence is not small.--Opqr (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not oppose the removal of Tanzania and Sudan. Because I feel that African countries are on the list rather than national power.--Opqr (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Angola is the second regional power in the region, not DR Congo. It has the best military in Southern Africa only competing with South Africa, see Namibian War of Independence. Also, Angola economy surpasses DR Congo's both on exports and imports, its GDP nominal is the double of DR Congo's. Not to mention that Angola is part of OPEC. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

DR Congo is Central Africa not Southern Africa? C933103 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Opqr: Would you choose Romania over Switzerland or Portugal by the same measure what you are choosing Democratic Republic of Congo over Angola? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Depends upon who ask, see Southern Africa. Even assuming Central and Southern Africa in a whole, Angola and South Africa would still be the two biggest forces. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That question is meaningless. Romania's population is less than 20 million, its economic power is weak, and it is insufficient to be on this list in terms of both the size and economic power of the country.　With a population of 92 million, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the 16th largest population in the world and is by far the largest in Central Africa.　Also, the GDP of Tanzania and Angola are about the same.　What is the reason for removing Tanzania from this list and adding Angola?　I don't think either Tanzania or Angola meet the criteria for this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose The evaluation of the power of a country is a very hard thing to do. I do't think it's possible to find a simple criteria to determine which countries should be integrated in the list. --Algovia (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose formal criteria like this for including articles in this list. Bigger counties can be covered by less proper sources to write article. --Tucvbif (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

• I like the idea of having a concrete criteria, but how do you define how much population is the right amount for it to be on the list? I think the 20 millions was just taken from a magic hat, if you increased it by 5, Sri Lanka and Taiwan would be off the list and if you decreased also by 5 the Netherlands would be added and undoubtedly the Netherlands is a more important player in the international community both presently and historically than Sri Lanka and Taiwan (it even as nuclear weapons as part of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program).

I also think that you should make an exception for New Zealand as I explained in my other post.

So with that into consideration I think that the population criteria should be substituted with being part of the G-20/G-33 or something similar. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 09:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, I think we should try to make quite easy "not complicated criteria" or eventually resign from any "criteria by stats" and reach to consensus that subjectivism is better than objective criteria. If we would include more than two/three fators (I suggested at least three: 1population 2power 3another criteria for regional power and another for middle), then criteria could be confusing and too complicated. Personally I think it would be good to have Sri Lanka instead so plenty countries from Europe. Sri Lanka was ranked ahead of Netherlands at the only "ranking of historical countries" which I found o the Internet, see: [7]. Or that we wan to continue "Eurocentrism"? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

G 20 and G 33 sound like simple criteria but I believe they are rather flawed, perhaps more focussed o politics and does not fit into determination which countries are the most worthy to describe. In "power measure" I find interesing that it gives bit "geographical diversity", and universal, while perhaps is very slightly biased against historical perspective then historical perspective can be covered in other articls (a ka Mozart, Vasco da Gama, Second World War etc.), what we are discussing here. At least some of these countries could be removed and some of these added IMHO. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should use power measures, AKA economic and military power and since demographics is intrinsically linked with those two I don't think it's worthy having a separated criterion just for it. I would also take that list of the U.S. News with a grain of salt, they put Lithuania, which as part of the Commonwealth with Poland at 66th place while the USA is at 28th. Eurocentric or most countries who had an overseas colonial empire were European, so it's not surprising that they had and still have a big influence in the world. If not power measures, which factors are you using to include Sri Lanka, the U.S. News ranking? We can't add countries just for the sake of diversity.

Take this into consideration. Percentage of represented countries in Asia and Europe on Meta-Wiki: Asia - 35.4% (17) and Europe - 29.5% (13). SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 09:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@SadAttorney613: Percentage of represented countries in Asia and Europe on Meta-Wiki: Asia - 35.4% (17) and Europe - 29.5% (13) Asia cover 59% World's populaion, meanwhile Europe only 9 of World popualtion. 40% of World population speaks indoeuropean languages but also thank to huge population in India. There is argument we should replace countries like Netherlands or at least Cuba for en:European Colonisation of the Americas.

If consensus is impossible to reach we can eventually swap cities for proposed countries Dawid2009 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Swap Japanese Yen for Trade

Swapped

Japanese Yen have its role in international trade, but I don't think it is essential enough to be listed when "Trade" isn't. C933103 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Support  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support It's a shame to remove the Japanese yen, but trade is more important when comparing trade to the Japanese yen.--Opqr (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support, per nom. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)  Support, per nom. --Algovia (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Per C933103. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose removal, the Japanese Yen is a G10 currency, there's probably a better article that can be removed other than the Yen. I just realized now that the Yen is the only currency listed, besides the USA Dollar and the Euro, the two most important currencies, so I fail to see why the Yen is the only one from the G10 to be listed. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap Kolkata for Bangalore

The list now have 3 Northern Indian cities but South India have no cities on the list, which seems unbalanced. Hence I suggest swapping in a South India city. C933103 (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I disagree. Calcutta is more important than Bangalore. It's the cultural and economical capital of Bengal even if Eastern Bengal is now Bangladesh. --Toku (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   There are already Dhaka for Bangladesh. Counting also cities of other countries in northern part of Indian subcontinents, the unbalance is even more obvious. C933103 (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Kolkata metropolitan area is the home of 15 million people, being the third biggest city in India. Is one of the cultural capitals of the country, and the financial center of east India with a big industry and trade, being also the city with third biggest economy in India, ranking 71st in the wntire world. Bangalore is the fourth most important city in India, and if we're having three then I think is pretty obvious that those should be the three most important. Nadie4000010 (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

   Being "Third of a country" isn't a convincing argument to keep a city on the list when the list only include ~40 cities from around the world. C933103 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Per Nadie4000010. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Amazon River for Amazon Rainforest

New proposal established amid disapproval against swap target
{{{1}}}

swap Lake Baikal for South China Sea

South China Sea have significant energy reserve, is key ocean area connecting East Asia to South/West Asia and Europe/Africa, and is also militarily significant not just to the dozen of Southeast Asian and Chinese countries surrounding it, but also to Japan and Korea due to it being their main logistic route to rest of Eurasia, to Australia due to history of invaders threatening from Asia through the occupation of South China Sea, to France which connect its mainland to French South Pacific territories, and to the United States and India for maintaining connection and cooperation through the region. Hence, it have gathered tons of attention over the past century and is expected to continue in near and mid term future, all of these significance that Lake Baikal didn't even come close in featuring. Hence I think South China Sea is a more appropriate entity to be listed on the list of 1000 most essential articles for every articles, than Lake Baikal. C933103 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Support removal Dawid2009 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Agree with the addition of "South China Sea" but not with the removal of "Lake Baikal". I think "Lake Tanganyika" or "Great Lakes" are less important (?). --Toku (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we should just swap Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria with African Great Lakes, just like we do with the Great Lakes, making 2 articles into 1, plus it would also include Lake Malawi. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I don't think the South China Sea is as important as it is on this list, but Lake Baikal is even less important. Physical geography has a high percentage of the least important items on this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's probably not one of the most important lakes presently nor historically, but it's worth noting that's the world's largest freshwater lake by volume. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Swap Arabic alphabet, d:Q8196, for Arabic Writing System, d:Q1828555

Arabic alphabet is currently listed as an essential article in the list under writing system section, but the Arabic writing system cover much more than just the alphabet of characters being used. For example the ligature, its right to left writing direction, its different writing directions and artistic style with cultural values, as well as Abjad nature of the writing system. Hence, I think Q1828555 can better represent the concept than Q8196, and propose a swap to be made accordingly. C933103 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Remember that this list is "List of articles every Wikipedia should have"?　In other words, we should prioritize the concepts that are simpler and adopted in many language versions.　Currently, d:Q8196 is created in 138 languages, while d:Q1828555 is only in 27 languages.　I think d: Q8196 is a more general concept and more appropriate for this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   "should have", not "already have". Also, a number of articles linked into Q8196 now, like Japanese Wikipedia entry, is actually describing Arabic text instead of just the alphabet, that those should be retargeted to proper wikidata entry, while some other articles on the list, like the Classical Chinese Wikipedia, have briefly covered characteristic of Arabic writing system yet while attaching a long table of Arabic character into the character to represent the characters instead of the writing system as a whole, thus left without any example of a full Arabic writing on the page. I would say part of the cause to such distorted representation to Arabic characters while they also want to talk a bit about other aspects of Arabic writing system is probably a result of long term inclusion of Q8196 in this list, where many Wikipedia take note of and started article from, and thus the list should be fixed to allow various Wikipedia to fix their local article on it correspondingly (Did the article already cover content more than just the alphabet? If yes, change the title and relink to the proper wikidata entry. If no, then time to start a new article about it. If it partially covered some characteristic of the writing system under the page for the alphabet, then time for either split or rewrite.) C933103 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Replace Marine mammals with Bat

Currently, the list have two entries for marine mammals. One for the informal categorization of marine mammals, and another for Q160 which cover main marine mammals including whales and dolphins and such.

As the article for Marine mammals on English Wikipedia mention, the classification of "marine mammals" is informal and they don't necessarily relate to each others more than their relations with other mammals, and are only grouped as such by their main living condition in maritime environment. Given such description, I think having Q160 for whales and dolphin, is already enough to represent maritime mammals.

In contrast, bats being probably the most significant airborne mammals, is not listed, thus flying mammals have no representation in the list. To have a fair representation of mammals living in different environments, bats should be added to the list instead.

In addition, the current ongoing pandemic, as well as a number of other epidemic in the past few decades, like Nipah virus and such, are also originating from bats, reflecting its significance as a disease carrier, and is also another reason why I think bats should be listed in the list. C933103 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose addition. There's only a mammal capable of flying, which is precisely the bat, so the argument of airborne mammals not being represented doesn't stand. What I don't understand is why the extra specific infraorder, Cetacea is distinguished from the others. I think we should either remove marine mammal or cetacean.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by
2.  Oppose The ongoing pandemic is just that, ongoing. In a couple of years we'll have another one, related to hedgegogs, so we'll have to swap bats for hedgehogs? This is no more than temporary peak of interest. Deinocheirus (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Ethanol for Pathogen

Ethanol, as an substance of addiction, duplicates with "Beer" and "Wine", causing alcoholic drinks to occupy 3 places out of this list of 1000 articles, which I think is an over-representation over other drinks and over other illness-causing materials. To rectify this situation, I propose swapping Ethanol which currently listed under Addiction, for pathogen, d:Q170065, which cause transmission of diseases to different people, and cover bacteria, virus, parasites, and prion. C933103 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
4.  Support Per nom. --Orchendor (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "which cause transmission of diseases to different people, and cover bacteria, virus, parasites, and prion" - and this is precisely what is wrong with the proposal. The existing developed articles (for instance, w:en:Pathogen) are in fact little more than lists of barely related topics without much general material. So the topic may be important but it is also so vague and abstract that writing a good article on it is nearly impossible. Thus adding it to the list won't do any good. --Deinocheirus (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

   That's just English Wikipedia being poorly written. Check out Japanese Wikipedia and French Wikipedia for what other content that could have been included in such an article. And I would also expect an article on Pathogen to at least briefly cover germ theory.C933103 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose per Deinocheirus.--Tucvbif (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria with African Great Lakes

Just like the Great Lakes are listed instead of Lake Michigan, Erie, Ontario...the African Great Lakes should also be listed instead of its individual lakes. Not only it would combine two articles into one, plus it would also include Lake Malawi, another very important lake and some other smaller ones! SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

•  Support per nom. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support in principal but I am thinking about whether d:Q1234397 that cover the region would be a better swap target or not. C933103 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not a single swap. Therefore, it's against the rules voted in February-March 2022. Moreover, if accepted, this swap will cause problem in the calculation of the score of the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles. --Toku (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

   It have a single swap target so that can meet the rule. Also, to make this 1000, It would be possible to wait for other addition proposals being vote into the list before ultimately making changes to the list, to keep the list constant at having 1000 articles. C933103 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose The Great Lakes are interrelated and very important as a water system. However, the African Great Lakes are not interconnected as a water system and have only geological significance. This means that the African Great Lakes are not as important as they are on this list.--Opqr (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
5.  OpposePer Opqr. --Orchendor (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Euro (currency) for Federation

Withdrawn

Federation is a form of government common in many countries around the world, like the United States, Germany, Russia, India, and such. It is a surprise that the list have quite a few different forms of governments, yet none are federation. C933103 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Support  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose The euro is the second largest reserve currency after the US dollar and is of great economic importance.--Opqr (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose per Whym's comment. --Thi (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss I would be okay with dropping 'Euro' as long as 'European Union' remains, because an article about European Union, even a short one, will cover Euro reasonably well. However, 'Federation' seems an even weaker proposal, perhaps because the federal states mentioned above are mostly new (historically speaking) and included in the list already. I might propose 'Nomad' instead, or something else from human culture that is underrepresented in the list. whym (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Swap United States Dollar for Theocracy

Withdrawn

Theocratic government is still common in many parts of the world, especially around West and South Asia, as well as North Africa. Yet it's missing from the types of governments being listed. C933103 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Support  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Dollar is the most important currency in the modern world and an important part of the world's economy. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC) But you think an article like sco:Unitit States dollar is one of the 1000 most important articles that a Wikipedia should start with? C933103 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The US dollar is the most powerful currency in the world and one of the pillars of the world economy.--Opqr (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Opqr. --Orchendor (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap ??? for Hungary

Opposed

Hungary was a core component of the Austro-Hungarian Empire - Coagulans (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Might as well just add Austro-Hungarian Empire in, if you can find a replacement target.C933103 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I would swap Vienna with that. Europe cover just 9% of World population and we have bias toward Austria over Hungary Dawid2009 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Vienna is one of the largest Germanic city. And is also historical, political, and cultural center of Europe. C933103 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC) There are 99 international organizations represented in Vienna. - Coagulans (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose "???" is not in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose This proposal is not correct. --Orchendor (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Waiting for more informations. --Toku (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap ??? for Budapest

Reopened

Budapest was the co-capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - Coagulans (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose "???" is not in the list. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose If you are talking about historical significance, then Babylon and Xi'an are more important. C933103 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose This proposal is not correct. --Orchendor (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap Pakistan for Sweden

Opposed

The Swedish kingdom, established by the early 12th century, was a great power of Europe over more than a century. Significant contribution in science and the overall progress of humankind. The Vikings are listed. The Dominion of Pakistan came into being in 1947, following the partitioning of India. - Coagulans (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose If I remember well, Pakistan is one of the most populated country, a nuclear power and an important regional power in Asia, isn't it ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose As you mentioned, Vikings are listed. C933103 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Indeed, the Nordic countries occupy an important position in modern society, and it is a good idea to add Sweden as a representative to this list.　But why is the exchange target Pakistan?Pakistan has a population of 210 million and is the fifth most populous regional power in the world and deserves this list.　　There are countries that deserve to be exchanged in closer areas.　Yes, I agree if you remove Austria and add Sweden!--Opqr (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Agree with Austria - Sweden exchange. If you got any reason why Pakistan should be removed and not only reasons why Sweden should be added... Nadie4000010 (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per previous comments. --Orchendor (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss The quality of being a major civilizing force should prevail over the mere number of inhabitants or the nuclear status. Austria, Israel and Switzerland are good examples. - Coagulans (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC) If this was true : Indus Valley Civilisation... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Again, it's about quality. See, for instance, List of Nobel laureates by country : Sweden has 32 laureates, Austria 22, Hungary 13, Ireland 11, Pakistan 2. - Coagulans (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Applying that criterion, there are 0 Nobel laureates in Sudan, 1 in Tanzania and 0 in Afghanistan.　Perhaps there are many other countries on this list that have few Nobel laureates.　I'm not sure if I can agree to remove other countries from this list, but at least Pakistan is not a country to remove.--Opqr (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Swap Austria for Sweden

As Sweden is the 23rd world's biggest economy, ranks 8 in soft power, 7th in HDI and IHDI, 11th in GDP per cápita, is a regional power, is one of the most historically relevant countries in Europe, and has considerable hard power as one of the most active NATO members. Also, we need nordic representation in the list as the region is cultural and socially very important. Nadie4000010 (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support This list includes both Austria and Vienna, either of which will need to be removed.　When it comes to which is more important in modern society, I think Vienna is more important than Austria.　The Nordic countries also have a clear influence on modern society, and it is advisable to list them on behalf of Sweden, the largest of them.--Opqr (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Austria can not be removed as long as we have (very wrongly, IMHO!) Vienna on this list. Also being 11-th per capita is so ridiculous argument if Europe covers only 9% of World popularion and Europe as whole is overrepresented. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Dawid 2009 + Austria is more important in European history than Sweden. --Orchendor (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per David2009 and Orchendor. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Dawid2009. --Toku (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap Washington DC for Texas

Withdrawn

Washington DC's notability is mostly being it is the capital of the United States, not much more. The importance of the United States should already be covered under the article of "United States". And there are also the article of "New York City" in the list, which can represent Northeast US cities better than the DC. In contrast, Texas is more culturally and economically different from other American cities being listed, and it also have its own unique history, thus I think is a more worthy topic to be included than DC. C933103 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Support  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose A country vs a geographical area/country : it's not the category. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Both are geographic units. Not to mention both of them function like a state.C933103 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose A nomination to replace Washington D.C. with something else (Fertile Crescent) has been closed only recently, and another one (to replace with Chicago) is in fact still open but pretty much doomed. I find it rather unconventional to keep opening nominations to replace the same item after each failure. --Deinocheirus (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) That Chicago vote have see more people supporting DC's removal than people wanting it to keep in the list, just that some of the voters are against the addition of Chicago while removing DC. Thus, here I propose a possibly better replacement target.C933103 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Deinocheirus.--Opqr (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose I don't see Texas as globally important to the same level as the US capital (or New York). — Yerpo Eh? 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap Vatican City for Scandinavia

Currently, the list have 14 European countries.

Of which, it includes:

• 4 Western European countries: France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Switzerland
• 3 Central European countries: Austria, Germany, Poland
• 5 Southern European countries: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Vatican City
• 2 Eastern European countries: Russia, Ukraine
• 0 Northern European countries.

Which, I think, is obviously unbalanced. Thus I think it would be a good idea to remove an entry from the over-represented Southern Europe group, and add the article "Scandinavia" to represent the entire Northern Europe, to balance the situation. C933103 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support [nom] C933103 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose A country vs a geographical area : it's not the category. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   Are you trying to tell me a country is not a geographical unit?C933103 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose There are eight regional names on this list, all of which are continents except the "Middle East".　In other words, this list can only list countries as large and cohesive as the "Middle East", prioritizing countries over wide-area place names.　Moreover, Scandinavia is not all of the Northern European countries.　Where have Finland and Iceland disappeared?--Opqr (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

   I have crossed out the word "entire" in my proposal, to convey that it doesn't represent all of Northern Europe. However, this region is indeed a closely connected area both culturally, economically, linguistically, ethnically, politically, and in many other aspects, that I think its cohesiveness can be compared to the like of regions like "Middle East".C933103 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud and Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Putting Turkey as a Southern European country when both politically, culturally and for the most part, geographically belongs to the Middle East and the Arab world, in order to make it seem like that there's an overrepresentation. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

   Taking away Turkey would still be 4-3-4-2 for West-Central-South-East Europe vs 0 for North. And whether Turkey belongs to Near East or Middle East is a rather Western-European-centric judgement call anyway. C933103 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

5.  Oppose Again, like with Washington DC, it is a third attempt in a short time period to remove the same article from the list after first two failed miserably. By any cost, swapping for anything at all. It's unsavoury. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. It may be more productive to discuss replacing Poland or Ukraine (or, yes, Vatican City) with Sweden, given this country's historical importance (Uppsala konungs, major player in Thirty Years' War) and economic uniqueness (home of the Nordic model). But Scandinavia as a geographic region is not that noteworthy. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Swap Mecca for Budapest

Budapest (the "Jewish Mecca") is one of the most important cities in Eastern Europe. It was the twin capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The religious dimension of Mecca is covered by islam and Muhammad. - Coagulans (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose "Jewish Mecca"？In other words, do you exchange a city that is "analogous" to Mecca for a real Mecca?　Nice joke.　In addition, Jerusalem, the most important city for Jews, is already on the list.　--Opqr (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

   I reformulated it (see below). Jerusalem is a different story. - Coagulans (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Is it a joke ? --Toku (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose "the jewish mecca" instead of actual Mecca? Islam is a much bigger religion than judaism, and judaism's sacred city is Jerusalem. Also, Budapest's importance as a city is debatable and we don't want more european cities in the list anyway. Nadie4000010 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
5.  Oppose. If something calls «Y-ish X», it often means that X is more important for all, sometimes except for Y.--Tucvbif (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Dawid2009 (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Discuss
Reformulated proposal:
Budapest is one of the most important cities in Eastern Europe. It was the twin capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The religious dimension of Mecca is covered by islam and Muhammad. - Coagulans (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Swap Baseball for Volleyball

Baseball is almost unknown in a great part of the world, whereas Volleyball is a global sport; just look at Sport#Popularity. --Llydawr (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Unconvinced. And here is meta, not wikipedia of any particular language edition, so if you want to reference any particular language wikipedia's article, you need to add corresponding prefixes. C933103 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per C933103. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per C933103. --Toku (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

I agree that baseball is not global-wide sport, but volleyball is not a proper replacement. Maybe Ice hockey, or auto racing will be suitable?--Tucvbif (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Both are even more niche than baseball C933103 (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Llydawr: I've corrected some links you created before in order to prevent red links from being produced.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the international encyclopedia. I really associate baseball with US...Reprarina (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Swap St. Peter's Basilica for Houses of Parliament

Alternative proposal raised

St. Peter's Basilica is covered by Catholic Church and Vatican City. - Coagulans (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC) The Palace of Westminster, Informally known as the Houses of Parliament, is an iconic constitutional institution. It includes Big Ben. - Coagulans (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Support Oppose  Oppose The reason to add Westminster is not explained. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss

Swap St. Peter's Basilica for Tunnel

So what I gathered from the discussion is that, people here generally agreed a specific church is a more important encyclopedian article to have for new Wikipedia, than the general concept of the structure of tunnel.

Currently, among the list of infrastructure included in the list of articles every Wikipedia should have, except specific infrastructures, there are: Arch, Bridge, Canal, Dam, Dom, House, Pyramid, and Tower. Somehow, the list is missing the infrastructure of Tunnel, which is part of many modern infrastructure projects, be it about the construction of road or rail or use in mining or military anti-air. Thus I think an article about Tunnel should be added into the list. In exchange, I think it would be better to remove St. Peter's Basilica, which I don't believe have achieved a degree of worldwide vitality that warrant its inclusion in the 1000 most essential article list. C933103 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Support  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)  Support adding Panama Canal. (already listed) Tunnel bears similarities to Canal. St. Peter's Basilica is covered by Catholic Church and Vatican City. Additionally, Hagia Sophia is included. - Coagulans (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC) What is the proposal now ? Swap St. Peter's Basilica for Tunnel or swap St. Peter's Basilica for Panama Canal. Moreover, if you read well the current list, I think you could find Panama Canal... --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose What is the proposal now ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) wdym? I did not endorse the other proposal that was out there. C933103 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose My opinion is the same as before. The tunnel is important, but St. Peter's Basilica is just as important and should not be deleted.--Opqr (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I think we should be careful not to fall for local minima instead of global minima when making the list of 1000 most needed articles. C933103 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose per Toku. Why that obsession with deleting St. Peter's Basilica or Vaticane City? --Nadie4000010 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Per Nadie4000010. --Orchendor (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Discuss Tunnel could be considered an internal Canal. Coagulans (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC) "could" --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Tunnel bears similarities to Canal. St. Peter's Basilica is covered by Catholic Church and Vatican City. Additionally, Hagia Sophia is included. - Coagulans (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC) LATEST NEWS: the Ottomans have taken the city of Constantinople and converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. We'll keep informing. Nadie4000010 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Swap Dome, Pyramid, Tower for ...

Dome, Pyramid, Tower are various geometrically-shaped structures that could be brought down to one single topic. - Coagulans (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose @Coagulans : I think you should read the guidelines regarding swap proposals. This proposal is currently invalid. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud. --Toku (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Move Panama Canal and Suez Canal from Bodies of water to Architecture and civil engineering (Canal)

Canals mixed up with naturally occurred bodies of water, that's quite a non-intuitive listing. - Coagulans (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support Suez and Panama Canal are man-made and bodies of water are naturally occurring. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Canals are important as links between oceans and seas. And there are bodies of water. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

   Bridges also can connect localities or countries, but they are not put together. - Coagulans (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Unconvinded. --Toku (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Very confusing association. If nothing else, Bodies of water should be split into "natural" and "artificial" (human-made) sections - Coagulans (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to change the item, but if you just want to move between sections, it's not worth discussing.--Opqr (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Undo Edith Piáf - Umm Kulthum and Noam Chomsky - Martin Heidegger swaps

Looking in Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2020 I found that both this and this don't look like consensus votations, not even votations. The Edith Piáf - Umm Kulthum swap was made with 1 support vote, and Noam Chomsky - Martin Heigegger with... 0 votes!, and it was just swapped because "Also add this one since there are no objections." Is this a consensus? I think them both should be undone in the page and re-made in the Talk page as new swap proposals to see how much real support they have. --Nadie4000010 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support I agree with Nadie4000010 but I think a vote will be necessary.--Toku (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support --Thi (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Even I am against these swaps, I agree with C933103. --Orchendor (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Retrospective application of rule. C933103 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The rule on number of votes needed to reach consensus was only put in place like last month. C933103 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I know. That's why I'm proposing this here instead of undoing the swaps directly. It's a "hey, this doesn't seem good. Should we undo it?". Even with other rules, this swaps weren't elected by "votation", so the proposal is to re-make the votation and see if it's now legitimately supported. --Nadie4000010 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case then you should list out why the proposed swap targets are better article for every wikipedia to include. C933103 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Swap Marlene Dietrich for Amazon rainforest

Per previous discussion at #Swap Marlene Dietrich for Eastern Orthodox Church, most users here agree with swapping out Marlene Dietrich, but opinion on swap target have been more diverse. On the other hand, per previous discussion at #Swap Amazon River for Amazon Rainforest, most users agreed that Amazon rainforest should be added to the list, but couldn't agree on replacement target.

Since there are currently no "rainforest" category in the list, it would be necessary to take an article from another category out to fit the article of Amazon Rainforest in no matter what, I hereby propose that, according to the discussion guidelines "4. swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)", by supplying the reason of having to add a new type of article into the list, an article from another category, aka the biography category, need to be switched out to make room for such addition, so as to allow for the addition of the Amazon rainforest articles. C933103 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom. C933103 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

# Very light  Support. Per nom. --Toku (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I don't want to create a precedent allowing to ignore the rules we voted (cf. comment from SpaceEconomist192 below). --Toku (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, the rule being voted and accepted now say "(category switch only with reason)", not "no category switch". C933103 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

1.  Support per nom. Some of the rules that were agreed on are too strict and borderline nonsensical, WP:IGNORE. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose The Amazon rainforest belongs to the category of physical geography.　Therefore, you need to change the "Mountains and Deserts" category, which controls the natural terrain of the land, to the "Land Topography" category to include the Amazon rainforest.　And the Amazon rainforest exchange should be done within the category of "Land Topography".　Personally, I don't think the Amazon rainforest should be on this list because it is similar to the Amazon River.--Opqr (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

   The rule now say "(category switch only with reason)", not "no category switch".C933103 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

   "4. swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)",What you say is correct.　You can change the category if you have a good reason.　Now consider your suggestion.　Amazon rainforests belong to the geographical category.　If you are exchanging an Amazon rainforest for something other than a geographic category, you must indicate that there are no items to exchange for in the geographic category.　OK?　C933103 is in favor of deleting Lake Baikal, Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Victoria from the previous proposal.　Why did you choose from the biography category instead of choosing items to remove from the same geography category?　What was the legitimate reason for this choice?　It's very interesting, so please tell us the good reason.--Opqr (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

   Number of agree/disagree from previous polls on relevant articles indicate, this specific biography article seems more likely to success in being removed than other articles on the list, when it come to creating a new subcategory. C933103 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

   So, as long as you don't create a new category, it's unlikely that this proposal will remove Marlene Dietrich.--Opqr (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Articles coming from two different categories. --Toku (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I can imagine adding Tropical rainforest in general as a very important ecosystem, "the lungs of the planet". But specifically Amazonian one? I am not convinced. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

   Adding Tropical rainforest is a good suggestion. This list already includes "Forest", but rainforests should be added separately.--Opqr (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Swap St. Peter's Basilica for Petra

What is the purpose of listing the Vatican City, to then also list St. Peter's Basilica, which is already represented by the former? Petra on the other hand, not only is one of the New Seven Wonders of the World and an UNESCO World Heritage Site, but would also do a nice job representing the Nabataean Kingdon, the Nabateans, Jordan and the overall representation of the Middle East. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "New Seven Wonders of the World" were a private initiative with possibilities to vote multiples times : 14 millions of votes came from Jordania for a total population of 7 millions (!). And Nabatean Kingdom was a minor power between Roman Empire and Persia. --Toku (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

   Where did you got that 14 million votes? The New7Wonders of the World Foundation never revealed any numbers about the campaign. Even the total number of votes varies wildly, some sources say 60 million, others 100 and even, 600. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

   [8] --Toku (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose "Why that obsession with deleting St. Peter's Basilica ?" (see above) --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

   What do you mean? Are you talking about C933103 proposals? SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am Catholic but I pretty understand why so plenty people disagree here with overlap among two articles: VatianCity and St. Peter's Bassilica not mention to other ones like Catholic Church and other ones like Chritianity and religion etc. It is far too specific. And if we need any term related speciffically with Catholicism then that should be of course en:Mary, Mother of Jesus because she s more vital and important than 90% biographies hre as she has also comparamble siginificance in Islam what in Catholicism. Best regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for swaps

I don't know if here is the apropiate place to write this, if not, please tell me where. In my opinion, the constant article swaping system is eroding efforts to improve the articles on the list itself. That massive swaping, some articles each month seems too much for +300 wikipedias to get the 1,000 (or 10,000...). Of course, it forces to improve more articles but it makes the ultimate goal, further, each month or article swap. I propose that the swaping articles coming in to be added to a temporary list, and the to be added to the oficial list later, let's say, 6 months or a year, that way the swaping proposals can mature and be reavaluated and let contributors more time to face the new articles, specially wikis near top, and even with large wikis like Spanish or English is difficult, for smaller wikis is really impossible because of fewer contributors. I'm not talking about a closed list, but the new ones to be placed there later--Manlleus (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

en:w:Wikipedia:There is no deadline C933103 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

A more vigorous approach to reverting changes without consensus such as these would go a long way.--Leptictidium (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, admitting that I neglected to check the page history before updating the score for June. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I think, there is no reason to chase to keep all articles of list in every wikis. Some of this terms can be language specific, some is not really notable, just widely known. There is no guarantee that really it covers by reliable sources. Just some people vote for include or exclude it. Tucvbif (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This list is named "List of articles every Wikipedia should have". In my opinion, entries that doesn't match this theme should be removed. C933103 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

But it's just an opinion of people, who pass by and choose to vote. There is no proper criteria for include or exclude. Tucvbif (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it is just opinion of people participating here, but its effectiveness depends on the attitude people are treating it. After all, this list is no more than a reference for people starting new wikipedia to reference on what articles might be useful for them to start working on. If people who passes by aren't keeping this purpose in mind when including or excluding articles, then this list will lose its value of existence and will simply be fell into disuse. C933103 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Swap Hangul for Korean language

Swap accepted

Although the native speaker of the Korean language is not enough for letting Korean get into the list, based on the influence on the economy and entertainment, Korean should be put on the list. Hangul is only a "modern official writing system for the Korean language", a sub-topic of Korean, I can not see it having more influence than Korean. Also, The entries that have Korean are more than hangul（d:Q9176 167 entries vs d:Q8222 123 entries) .Ghrenghren (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Support  SupportGhrenghren (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)  Support per nom. SpaceEconomist192 ✐  Support Given the relative significance. C933103 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Support Reasoning looks sound. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)  Support Per proposal. --Toku (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Conclusion More support than opposition + proposals with reason + at least 5 supporters + swapping like for like + single swaps = OK to change. --Toku (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Change done. --Toku (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories

I would like to know how the quantity of articles in each category was selected. Why shouldn't we swap articles with different categories? How many biographies in a list of 1000 is ideal? 100? 200? What are your thoughts? Interstellarity (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason why we don't swap articles with different categories is to keep balance between all the different categories. This rule was accepted after a vote last year (if I remember well). Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

But who determine the current balance is appropriate balance? Until two or so years ago articles are added or dropped from the list across catergories at arbitary will of random users that stumble upon this page. C933103 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bolded articles

I would like to know if there should a limit on what articles we bold and what criteria should we use to determine what we should do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There should be a limit if we want bolding to be meaningful, but nobody bothered thus far. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Biographies should be all unbolded and a lot of removed. Most people are obsure and inconsequential or overlaped with another ones. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Why we have to bold articles anyway? This list only contain 1000 articles. C933103 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Ingmar Bergman, Add Marlon Brando

Brando is one of the most significant actors of all time. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose removing Bergman, one of the most significant directors of all time. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

   Hi Yerpo, I would like to know if you were to add Brando, who would you remove? My possible candidates for removal would be Marlene Dietrich, Sergei Eisentein, Federico Fellini, and Satyajit Ray. What do you think? Interstellarity (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

   @Interstellarity: couldn't decide on any of these, I think they're quite equivalent in terms of importance. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Marlon Brando is a famous actor, but I doubt he was historically important enough to be on this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Yerpo + Opqr. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Cuba, Add United Arab Emirates

The UAE is by far a more influential country than Cuba. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose Cuba is an important country because of its influence in Latin America. Moreover, the UAE is only a secondary power (10 million inhabitants, 90% of whom are foreigners) between Saudi Arabia and Iran. --Toku (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Cuba is certainly not a very large country, but it is the largest of the Caribbean countries and has a unique political position, so it should be on this list as a representative of the Caribbean　countries. Also, the United Arab Emirates is not on the list, but the city of Dubai is on the list instead.--Opqr (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Toku and Oqpr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Vatican City, Add Myanmar

Myanmar is a more well-known country. Interstellarity (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose Agree to remove Vatican but not convinced by a swap with Myanmar. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Oh my god, this is the fifth time in a year and a half that the Vatican has been proposed to be removed! And the first two times are your suggestions. All four previous proposals have been rejected. My conclusion remains the same, the Vatican is a major player in world politics, an important state and should be on this list.--Opqr (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

   @Opqr: How VaticanCity (purely Catholic thing) culturally can be more significsnt thsn Mary, Mother of Jesus whichbis also central in Islam?! and I say that as someone who live in 88%-94% catholic country. We have also +50 countried on thr list and maybe something about three women Best regards.Dawid2009 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

   First, your proposal is not a Vatican-Mary exchange. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the Vatican and Mary will not be exchanged. Please see my answer above. "the Vatican is a major player in world politics". I do not attach any importance to the cultural values ​​of the Vatican. The Vatican is a sovereign state and a major force that has a great influence on world politics backed by the Catholic Church and its followers. In order to exchange Mary for the Vatican, the minimum requirement is that a "Marian religion" independent of both Christianity and Islam be established, and that religion become so large that it can possess a sovereign state. --Opqr (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

   It is the Holy See which is a major player in the world politics, not Vatican City. C933103 (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Per Opqr. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Austria, Add Colombia

We have too many European countries. We should have more South American countries and Colombia is a well known country. Interstellarity (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

Support Colombiais is huhely populated country with important cultural power, second to Brazil at South America ahead of Argentina and Venesuela which are listed. Austria has lack of population, not more important than other not listed countries like Hungary. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Austria remains an important cultural power. Not convinced by the proposal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Austria is a very important country in history: former great European power, major cultural center, important religious center, etc. --Toku (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose--Tucvbif (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Austria's cultural and historical weight is more than enough to compensate for lack of population. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove North Pole and South Pole, Add Country and Land

I'm surprised that these two items are not listed. North and South Pole are probably the weakest articles, but if you oppose the removals, I would ask that you suggest an article that could be removed. If they are added, I would bold them. Interstellarity (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose Both the North and South Poles are important geographic concepts. No nation not currently on the list is more important than the North Pole and South Pole.--Opqr (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Oqpr + multiple swap. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Multiple swaps : is it swapping North Pole and Country ? North Pole and Lannd ? South Pole and Country ? South Pole and Land ? Country and Land ?. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Remember this list's title is "List of articles every Wikipedia should have", not just importance. C933103 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Note: state (Q7275) is included. Which meaning of "country" did you have in mind and under which Wikidata object is it? — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Yerpo, The meaning I was thinking of is a distinct territorial body, a state, nation, or other political entity. It could a sovereign state or part of a larger state. Both country and state don't have a universally accepted definition. I would be open to considering a swap removing state and adding country. I think the primary meaning we should use if country is added is a sovereign state. Please let me know what your thoughts are and what possible additions are worth considering. Interstellarity (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

So country (Q6256)? This question was much debated (check archive), and I dont' think your argument is better. So I'm against changing back. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Swap: Remove American Civil War, Add American Revolution

I don't think it makes much sense to list the American Civil War when we are missing the American Revolution. The American Revolution is by far a more important event historically than the Civil War. Interstellarity (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Both are very important, but fist is more widely-known and represented in art and media, especially outside USA. --Tucvbif (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Tucvbif. Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Tucvbif. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Remove Roman Empire, Add Ancient Rome

Ancient Rome is a much broader topic than the Roman Empire. I would either do the swap, or add Roman Republic to it as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support Pre-Imperial Rome was already a world power of the 1st rank (think Punic wars, Mithridatic wars, Spartacus insurrection - in fact, think of all things Caesar did before even becoming a triumvir) and a significant cultural center (Plautus, Terentius, Cicero etc.). Roman mythology as an important aspect of world culture also pre-dates the Empire. So if we can cover the entire topic with one article, it is for the better. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced because, for a lot of people, Roman Empire is the main notion (even if "Ancien Rome" is more general). Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. To be honest, I think it's the case when both Roman Empire and Ancient Rome are very important and even simultaneously in the list would be okay for the balance. Because the balance should be based on academic literature. So many scholars analyze both these themes every year... I understand we shouldn't have so many Western themes in the list but we have really lots, lots, lots RSs about Ancient Rome. And yes, Spartacus, Cicero and Julius Caesar are the part of the history of the Roman Republic, not of the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire is also important, maybe more than other empires in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Art, Add Arts

Arts encompasses more than what art encompasses. It is a highly important article for this list. Interstellarity (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I don't think "Arts" is a more important concept than the general notion of "Art". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Toku. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Which Wikidata items are you referring to?C933103 (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This one. Interstellarity (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Augustine of Hippo; add Mary, Mother of Jesus

There is signifiant overlap beetwen Augutine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas who is already listed as both represent medieval philosophy related to hristianity.

We do not have figure which rerpesents women in religious sphere. The most important woman in either of Christianity and Islam most likely is the best choice to add first woman to this list. She has great results in Google trends as someone who is not living preson since over 2000 years. Source which says that Mary is the most important woman according to Quran and Muhammad so is the most influential woman in islam and one of the most important if not the most important woman in Islam: '[9]. Abrahamic Religion covers about 65% of World's population we list cities which cover say 1% of World's population. Religion isstill the mot important activity for plenty people around the world, woman too, not only for men as our list suggest. After swapping Auustine with Mary we have less bias in Christianity and bettter ballance beetwen Abrahamic religions and others. Mary is recognisable peron outside Abrahamc World. For example Fatima (city in Portugal) is place for pilgrimates from Abrahamic religion and for Buddhists, Our Lady of Fatima has 2,5 more pagewatchers than Hikaru Genji on Japanese Wikipedia @Opqr:, what do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Even if you ask me, "What do you think?", your argument is incoherent, and for this reason I cannot agree. Your argument has the following problems.

1. Swapping Augustine and Mary does not balance Abrahamic and other religions at all. It is only a change within a monotheistic religion.
2. I don't know how Augustine is treated within the Orthodox Church or within Protestantism, but I hear that in Protestantism Mary is not so important.
3. The importance of cities and religion cannot be equated. Each has a different kind of importance.
4. Hikaru Genji is just a fictional character, and far less important than the whole fiction of The Tale of Genji or the author Murasaki Shikibu. So Maria's Page Watchers are just a little more than Hikaru Genji, who is just a fictional character. It's not important at all.

That's my opinion.--Opqr (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I pinged you beause of you are Japanese and you recently supported addition swap Orthdox Church of with no important actress (which still stay BTW) so I believe you can see how religion is culturally important. Maybe you do not know but en:Our Lady of Fatima is just random example detailic example from eronomously wide spectrum en:Mary titles but even despite this fact gets 87 of pagewatchers at Japanese Wikipedia but that is not the most important. Mary gets better google trends than every single biography except maybe Jesus. Mary has de fecto the same significance in Islam what Jesus (if not slightly more as there are plenty men with more significane than Jesus in Islam). Either of Augustine and Aquinas have lack of influence on Islam so we should drop one of them. Protestantism already is represented by Martin Luther (even though numbr of Protestans is smaller than say number of Hindus on the World). I would swap one of them for Mary and I would swap another article for thing related with not monotheistic religon. Do you see my point now more? However what do you think to discuss quotas for women at religion? @Opqr: Dawid2009 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• So why haven't you yet submitted a proposal to exchange Aquinas for important figures of other religions? Well, I don't think there are any important people in the polytheistic world who should be on this list other than the current list, so I will refuse even if it is submitted. And I don't mind that women aren't on the list of religiously significant figures. List diversity is important, but diversity is not the goal. Forcing women to be on the list when there are no important people is wrong.

Actually, I am neither for nor against the exchange of Augustine and Mary. Or rather, since I am not a monotheist, I do not have the material to judge the priority within monotheism, so I do not have the material to show my approval or disapproval. I wasn't going to upvote or downvote if you didn't fly Ping. I pointed out that the reason you showed was too unreasonable, but I think that the exchange itself should proceed according to the procedure. However, I can't judge the superiority or inferiority, so I will refrain from voting.--Opqr (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Marxism or Civil war, Add Business

Business is not listed, but the title says Business and Economics. I think it make sense to list Business because it is such an important topic for every language to have since it is a part of every culture. I think the two weakest articles in that particular category are Marxism, which overlaps with communism and civil war, which overlaps with war. Interstellarity (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support only the Marxism-Business swap. Businesses are more important and something more essential to establishment of a new Wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose The proposal is about removing Marxism or Civil war ? --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. @Nicolas Eynaud: To be clear, I was suggesting two articles that could be removed, only removing one of them. This proposal is not to been replacing two articles with one article. I have struck one of the articles out. Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I think "Economics' is enough. Moreover, to me, "Business" is too vague as a concept.--Toku (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

   Moreover, when we have trade. Theklan (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Swap: Igor Stravinsky for Queen (band)

Igor Stravinsky is absolutely not as important as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Queen is as almost important as The Beatles. Even in Russian musical schools, Stravinsky is not perceived as more important composer than Glinka, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Mussorgsky.--Reprarina (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. --Reprarina (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Swap Elizabeth I for Henry VIII

Henry VIII is probably the most famous monarch in history, breaking England away from Catholicism. He is more significant than Elizabeth I. If you don't agree with this swap, please let me know your thoughts on swapping Elizabeth with William the Conqueror or Queen Victoria. Interstellarity (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Elizabeth I is extremely important.Reprarina (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Reprarina: Why? Isn’t Henry VIII extremely important as well? Interstellarity (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No, he isn't. Elizabethan era was called the Golden Age, it's the era of William Shakespeare and Francis Drake, it's the era when East India Company was born. Henry VIII is definitely less important.Reprarina (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Elizabeth I is clearly more important than Henry VIII.--Opqr (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Reprarina and Opqr. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Swap Tim Berners-Lee for Bill Gates

Gates has been more influential in the computer industry than Berners-Lee. He is one of the world's wealthiest people. Interstellarity (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)