Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2024

Can we swap smth/smone for Discrimination?

Swapped with Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Discrimination is the general concept that can include racism (that we already have in the list), sexism, ageism, ableism, religious discrimination etc.; it also includes individual discrimination, structural discrimination, instututional discrimination... so it's the one of the core concepts. And, when we look in the relevant academic literature, we can see the importance of the topic only grows.--Reprarina (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Discrimination can be introducced in "Human rights". And it's necessary to explain more your proposal : "Smth" and "Smone" don't us give the possibility to understand it.--Toku (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)  Support I'm not sure what should be swapped but I agree it's a pretty fundamental category of human interaction. AsimovtheCat (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Swap Vienna for Toronto

Not swapped (support : 1, opposition : 7)

We list both Vienna and Austria on the list and I think one of the two should be removed. Vienna seems to be redundant to Austria. Toronto should be added because there is no Canadian city on this list and at the very least, would add Toronto since it is the powerhouse of the Canadian economy. I would also be interested in knowing what the significance of Bogota, Brussels, Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro, and Tehran are to this list. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose Vienna is not only the capital of Austria but also is the city where many people from the list were born/lived/died (Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, Schubert, Freud, Schrödinger, Wittgenstein), also it was one of the most important cities in Holy Roman Empire.--Reprarina (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Toku (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. --ThomasPusch (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. -Theklan (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)  Oppose: Vienna and Austria are actually important for different reasons. While Austria has mostly historical importance as the core of the eponymous empire that was a major player in the European politics for well over a century, Vienna has been (and, I daresay, stays) one of the foremost cultural capitals of the world. As a Canadian, I would certainly like to see Toronto included, but objectively it is of less economic importance than some U.S. cities that haven't actually made it to the list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina and Deinocheirus. Also will add that Vienna has a large impact on international events with a large UN presence. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Weak oppose per above, and I’d consider taking Toronto’s high GaWC ranking into account. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Added Kyoto, Japan and Taipei, Taiwan

Both Kyoto in Japan and Taipei in Taiwan are important historical cities in Asia. can't you add? Amkjmltpsjmej (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you propose to remove to make place? I also think they do not have so much importance outside their respective countries. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather see Osaka get added than Kyoto, as it is the main city in the Kansai region. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove Venezuela, Add Colombia

Swapped with enough support (support : 5, opposition : 0)

Colombia has a much higher population and GDP than Venezuela. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Support per nom. Colombia also beats Venezuela in land area and oil production, and Colombia supplies around 70% of the world's cocaine. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Support --Thi (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC) OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Support per nom. J947: 00:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC) As nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Animism, Remove Fundamentalism

Animism is a term coined by anthropologists to describe the basic spiritual beliefs of indigenous cultures. This to me seems more "fundamental" than Fundamentalism, the theory of following religious texts literally.

Support

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3.  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
4.  Support Add Animism, but move Religious Fundamentalism to Social Sciences: Politics Ideology section. If space needed in Social Science section, vote to swap Fundamentalism for Nobel Prize from the International Organisation section (Nobel is not an Intl Org, it's just a Swedish private-corporate, non governmental award). --AntekVeganova (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Fundamentalism is not religiously important. But fundamentalism is politically important. The spread of fundamentalism has caused widespread political turmoil and religious intolerance in both Christian and Muslim countries. Fundamentalism is a very important keyword to explain the current chaos in the world.--Opqr (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   I suggest in this case we move Religious fundamentalism to Social Sciences: Politics in the Ideology section, what do you think? Can vote to swap the space with Nobel prize in International Organisations in same section (as Nobel prize is not an Intl Organization, just a Swedish private, non gov. award) AntekVeganova (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2.  Oppose per Opqr.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Animism is not universally accepted term in anthropology, it has received some criticism. Fundamentalism is important religious topic. --Thi (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

If we remove both Zen and Yoga, there will be no more "Spiritual practices". I think Meditation is vital, but I'm not sure what to propose to swap out. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think "Spiritual practices" are important at all, so it's perfectly fine to remove them all from this list.--Opqr (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Meditation and Yoga can be moved to Art and Recreation, Sport section. If place is needed to keep them, I suggest one of the less significant German biographies could be taken out, such as Social Science section Max Weber or Heidegger (that section seems unfavourably dominated by German philosophers that did not prove globally significant). AntekVeganova (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying! I support your suggestion, AntekVeganova :) LightProof1995 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Mandarin Chinese, Remove Chinese language

The fact is that "Chinese language" is actually not a language but a group of languages. The Chinese language on the list is almost as if there were Indo-Aryan languages on the list instead of Hindustani. It's even the definition in the article Chinese language: Chinese is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China. Mandarin Chinese is more accurate analogue of other big languages in this list.

Support

1.  Support as nom--Reprarina (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   Is it allowed to vote for your own suggestion? It seems like cheating by adding a fake vote in support, to be honest. It is a given that you support your own suggestion. AntekVeganova (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yes it's common here. Reprarina (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

2.  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose In other words, are you saying that Mandarin is the official language of China, and that Mandarin is also designated as the official language of the United Nations?　It is different.　Chinese is designated as the official language.　Even if it is actually Mandarin, the international community treats it as "Chinese."　Don't underestimate generic terms.　If I follow your suggestion, Arabic would have to be changed to Modern Standard Arabic, and English would have to be changed to American or British English. That's so ridiculous.--Opqr (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   Even if it is actually Mandarin, the international community treats it as "Chinese." But not the linguistic RSs. Linguistic RSs view Chinese language as a group of non-mutually intelligible languages. The article Chinese language physically can't be an article which say many enough things about Mandarin Chinese. I won’t say anything about the Arabic language, but the situation with the English language is completely different. Reprarina (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose There are more Chinese languages than just Mandarin, for example Cantonese. Chinese is a general group that covers all the dialects and groups of Chinese. Seems the suggesting user doesn't quite understand linguistics and is unfairly in favour of just Mandarin. Also the user votes in favour of his own suggestion, which is dishonest. AntekVeganova (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   "There are more Chinese languages than just Mandarin, for example Cantonese. Chinese is a general group that covers all the dialects and groups of Chinese." And the same can be said about other groups of languages. We have no articles in the list about groups of languages, only about languages. Should we make an exception for Chinese group to be included in the list, and for Mandarin (a big language) not to be included? Why should we? Reprarina (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

3.  Oppose per Opqr. --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose Most of Chinese languages that are locally spoken in much part of the world—especially in Southeast Asia—aren't Mandarin (see Language Atlas of China). Also Mandarin already included in Chinese languages. Mbee-wiki (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

   Quite the same can be said about, for example, Japanese language and Japonic languages. Should we exclude Japanese language for Japonic languages?--Reprarina (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

5.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
6.  OpposePer Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would support swapping Hindustani with Indo-Aryan languages, and listing Chinese languages and Indo-Aryan languages under a new header called "Language families" LightProof1995 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Chinese (d:Q7850) is listed under "Specific languages". It sounds like the nomination rationale for removal is that it doesn't fit into the section because it is a group of languages rather than a language. I think a group of languages can fit. If necessary, we could rename the section name as "Specific languages and groups of languages". whym (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Prison, Remove Capital punishment

Is the capital punishment actually a more important topic than prison? Prisons are everywhere (terms are diverse, but the concept is quite international), the death penalty is not everywhere. Imprisonment affects much more people than the death penalty.

Support

1.  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom.--Ideophagous (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose The death penalty is a very important element in the history of justice. It is still present in many societies. Personally, I think "Prison" should replace "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Again, the rationale is understandable but I feel that capital punishment is more prominent instance of legal penalty. --Deinocheirus (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
3.  Oppose To answer your question about whether capital punishment is or is not more important than prison, we can consider the objective measure of views in the past 30 days, because they are similar articles. Prison has 27,102 and Incarceration has 7,209 views on English Wikipedia, totaling 34,311 views, while Capital punishment has 98,195. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Warsaw, remove Brussels

There is some Western European bias on this list, and Belgium has less than a third of the population of Poland. Brussels doesn't have much going for it other than the EU and NATO. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "other than EU and NATO"? I hope you're joking. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Brussels is the capital of the European Union. Until Poland becomes a big player within it, no to Warsaw. The Blue Rider 00:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Yerpo and The Blue Rider. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per Yerpo. --Algovia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Hildegard of Bingen, remove Antonín Dvořák

Aside from the problematic European bias in the composers section, Dvořák is not really influential enough to be on this list. He was certainly an important composer, but there are already many romantic era composers on the list who had more influence on the direction of classical music as a whole. Hildegard of Bingen, on the other hand, has had more of her work survive to the modern era than any other medieval era composer, and was also an influential philosopher and polymath. AsimovtheCat (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support per nom. She's a notable female polymath, and this helps with gender bias. She also beats Dvorak in page views. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Is Hildegard of Bingen really important enough to be on this list? She doesn't seem to have done anything significant enough in the fields of music, natural history, or medicine to be included on this list. As a religious figure,she does not seem to have left as important a footprint as Thomas Aquinas or Augustine.I don't think she's more important than Dvorak at all.--Opqr (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

   I guess I'm in agreement with that. I just don't feel like Dvorak is important enough to the trajectory of classical music to warrant an entry here. I'll spend some time thinking about a more suitable proposed replacement I guess. Or I will just leave it. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose. As for composers, I would rather agree to exclude Stravinsky (who is definitely not as important as Chaikovsky and maybe not even more important than Glinka, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich and Rachmaninoff) than Dvořák. Hildegard of Bingen would unproportionally increased the presence of Chistian religious figures in the list, and we cannot put her on a par with Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, Aurelius Augustine and Martin Luther. It's better to add Bible than Hildegard of Bingen, after all. Reprarina (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity what do you feel Dvořák has done to merit inclusion on this list? I'm not trying to just wage war against Dvořák to be clear, I just don't feel like he was very influential overall. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Support for removal. --Thi (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Incorrect proposal, Hildegard of Bingen is not really a musician. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud, the proposal is not valid. --Algovia (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Hildegard of Bingen is not really a composer or a musician. I think this proposal doesn't respect the guidelines for changes in the list ("swapping like for like (category switch only with reason"). A valid proposal should propose a swap in the "Religious figures and theologians" category (?) or in "Philosophers and social scientists" (?). Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not support adding Hildegard of Bingen, but is there some metric that can be used to determine composer influence? I feel like composers like Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich, or Stravinsky could be more appropriate to include here rathan than Dvořák, but I don't really know the best metric to determine that. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is views. From English Wikipedia's Vital page FAQ:

"In order to see a page's view counts (in the past 30 days), one can click on "Page information" on the right of the page. In theory, the amount of views a page receives points to it being critical to Wikipedia's structure. However, this is hardly the case. View counts are by no means a definitive marker of vitality and should be approached with caution. In general, view counts should only be compared across similar articles. Recent events and popular celebrities tend to receive views that aren't necessarily "critical to Wikipedia's structure views" as the popularity of these pages is temporary and often irrelevant to Wikipedia's other articles."

We can compare views across the composers you list because they are all "similar articles" in that they are all composers:

Rachmaninoff views: (English: ~50,000. Russian: ~37,000.) Avg 43,500 views

Debussy views: (English: ~49,000. French: ~10,000.) Avg 29,500 views

Schumann views: (English: ~40,000. German: ~14,000.) Avg 27,000 views

Shostakovich views: (English: ~47,000. Russian: ~44,000.) Avg 45,500 views

Stravinsky views: (English: ~36,000. Russian: ~14,000.) Avg 25,000 views

Dvorak views: (English: ~33,000. Czech: ~11,000.) Avg 22,000 views

Hildegard views: (English: ~37,000. German: ~18,000.) Avg 27,500 views

One could average/sum across even more Wikipedias of different languages to get even more feel of their global importance. Looks like Shostakovich and Rachmaninoff stand out the most in this initial analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I would personally support replacing Dvořák with either Rachmaninoff or Shostakovich (I'd lean towards Shostakovich as a composer representing a different style from Rachmaninoff and the other Romantics). Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Sociology, Remove Thought

We have too many concepts of psychology in the list, including those ones which can be problematic to translate on some languages, such as mind and thought (these words can be translated very differently into other languages). Concepts from psychology are chosen in an Anglophone-centric way - the list does not include consciousness, psyche and activity, but includes mind, behavior and thought. This is hardly an internationally recognized hierarchy. At the same time, sociology is not even on the list as such.--Reprarina (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "Thought" has 129 interwikis in wikidata. It doesn't seem to be an English or an American view. But I think you're right about sociology, it could be in the list. --Toku (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both are listed at English Wikipedia's Vital-3 list LightProof1995 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Manila, remove Bogota

South America is overrepresented on the list and the Philippines is the second most populous country in Southeast Asia. Even Lima would be better than Bogota. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

 Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support per nom, especially if we are adding Colombia LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

:  Oppose We have almost 20 Asian cities in the list already and just 4 South American cities. The ratio is as lopsided when we look at the countries subsection (16 to just 3). I don't think reducing South American representation in the list is a good idea. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Since we added Colombia, no need to keep both the country and its capital in the very limited list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You’ve got to be joking. South America has 5.5% of the world population and 8.9% of the cities on this list. Asia has 60% of the world population and 42% of the cities on this list. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Algae, remove Marine mammal

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, opposition : 0)

Both Algae and Marine mammal are hodgepodges from a cladistic point of view, but Algae is a more important, more ancient, more fundamental hodgepodge. It should be noted that users are not enthusiastic about writing the article "Marine mammal" - this article is written in only 73 languages. "Algae" is written on 115. There is a big field of science about algae - phycology (algology), which has a long history.--Reprarina (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Support  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Algae account for approximately 50% of global carbon fixation, and have a major impact on the world's ecosystems and climate. The large amounts of oxygen produced by cyanobacteria caused a dramatic change in the atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago, triggering the great prosperity of life that continues to this day. I agree because algae are very important in this way.--Opqr (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Per Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Makes sense. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom and Opqr. Marine mammal doesn't belong when we already list Cetacea. I was going to propose swapping Marine mammal with Elephant, but this work too. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Johannesburg, remove Cape Town

While it doesn't have the historical importance Cape Town has, the fourth-most populous and largest African city economically deserves a spot on this list. Johannesburg is ranked α- on GaWC, and Cape Town is ranked β. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support per nom, Johannesburg is the largest metro population in South Africa, and exceeds Cape Town's by ~10 million. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Soviet Union, remove Cultural Revolution

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, opposition : 0)

Is the Cultural Revolution in China 1966-1976 really so important that it should be included not only in the extended list, but also in this list?.. The absence of the Soviet Union in the list seems extremely strange to me. The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, launched the first human into space and was the main enemy of the United States in the Cold War which is included in the list. The Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world from the end of World War II until the mid 1980s. The extended list contains a lot of articles that are directly related to the Soviet Union (Great Purge, Holodomor, NKVD, Gulag, Population transfer in the Soviet Union, Chernobyl disaster, Dissolution of the Soviet Union), so I guess the core article should be included in this list. Support  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)  Support. One of the most important historical states. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Averroes, Remove Martin Heidegger

Islamic Golden Age is still underrepresented in the list. Thw article about Averroes was written in more Wikipedias than about Heidegger (Averroes has 107, Heidegger has 105). According to this indicator, Heidegger is an outsider among Western philosophers and humanists on the list. He has even less Wikipedias than Carl Jung (107), Baruh Spinoza (114), Friedrich Engels (125) and Noam Chomsky (138) who are not included. Averroes returned Aristotle to the Middle-Aged world. So I guess he is the missing link of the great philosophers on this list.--Reprarina (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

I support the removal, but I'd rather see Islamic Golden Age itself added. I don't think Averroes should be included over Avicenna or Alhazen. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Avicenna is in the list. Reprarina (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Thank you for correcting my error. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think adding the Islamic Golden Age is a good idea because it is just as important as the other golden ages. Reprarina (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any specific ones in mind? LightProof1995 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Murasaki Shikibu, Remove Geoffrey Chaucer

We have lack of Asian writers of post-classical period, we have lack of women, especially in post-classical period. Murasaki Shikibu is ahead of Geoffrey Chaucer in the number of Wikipedias (137 for Shikibu versus 134 for Chaucer). The Tale of Genji has much big number of Wikipedias than The Canterbury Tales (94 for The Tale of Genji versus 57 for The Canterbury Tales).

I will try to counter the potential argument “We already have the Tale of Genji in the list, so we don’t need Murasaki Shikibu” - rather, on the contrary: if we have the Tale of Genji, but don’t have The Canterbury Tales, then maybe the author of The Tale of Genji is more important than author of The Canterbury Tales? By the way, The Canterbury Tales are not included in the expanded list. In addition, Murasaki Shikibu's creative heritage is not limited to writing The Tale of Genji. She wrote also 128 poems and The Diary of Lady Murasaki.

Other English-language writers in the list (Dickens, Austen, Byron, Joyce, Shakespeare, and Twain) have more Wikipedias than Chauser. Chaucer significantly increases the Anglocentrism on the list, being an English writer with relatively few Wikipedias.--Reprarina (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose “We already have the Tale of Genji in the list, so we don’t need Murasaki Shikibu” I oppose this proposal for this very reason. There are currently several literary greats on this list who are credited with only one great work.　Dante and Cervantes.　However, this list includes Dante, but not “The Divine Comedy“, and Cervantes, but not “Don Quixote“.　Only one work and author can be on the list. There are no duplicates. Why is Murasaki Shikibu the only one allowed to list both authors and works?　 Murasaki Shikibu is famous for both diary literature and waka poetry, but he was only one of dozens of writers who excelled in these two fields at the Japanese court at the time.　Murasaki Shikibu's achievements are basically all due to his writing of “The Tale of Genji”.--Opqr (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   Why “Dream in the Red Chamber” is on the list, but Cao Xueqin is not on the list, I understand perfectly well - the novel is significantly ahead of the author in the number of Wikipedias (97 for the novel, 47 for its author). I don’t understand why “The Tale of Genji” is on the list, but Murasaki Shikibu is not on the list - in this case, the author is significantly ahead of the novel in the number of Wikipedias (94 for the novel, 137 for its author). Reprarina (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   The reason you just gave is a reason to exchange The Tale of Genji and Murasaki Shikibu, not at all a reason to exchange Chaucer and Murasaki Shikibu. There is no reason to overlap Murasaki Shikibu and The Tale of Genji.--Opqr (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   Like for like rule. Reprarina (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   The main reason for removing Chaucer is that the list is Anglocentric. Reprarina (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose per Opqr, and per your initial argument, I agree we should only have either the artist or their work. So I'd support removal of the Iliad. I proposed swapping Murasaki Shikibu for Tale of Genji at Vital articles (English) and it failed; consensus at the time was to have no works of art at all and only the artists. I also oppose removing Chaucer, the father of English literature. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   I don’t see anything wrong with the presence of both Homer and the Iliad. The presence of Homer as a poet is not a reason to downgrade the status of the Iliad as a poem. Reprarina (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   It's not a downgrade; only an acknowledgement that with limited space for our encyclopedic list, we need to at least consider all aspects of a category before deciding we can have overlap on purpose. There wasn't even consensus to list Iliad over Odyssey in the archives. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   And I think this would be the wrong approach. And in this case, I believe that the presence of both Homer and the Iliad in the list and the absence of the Odyssey is completely fair. Although since ancient times there actually has been an ultra-elite opinion: Hesiod and Works and Days are more important.<> Reprarina (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   Precisely, Chaucer is important for English literature, but is he really a writer who is very well known outside of English-speaking countries? Reprarina (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   Well, if the other encyclopedias followed the recommendations of this list, he would be :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   In my opinion, there is a lot on the list that is considered important mainly by the English-speaking intelligentsia. And since the page is in English, this is difficult to avoid, but highly advisable to avoid. Reprarina (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)