Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2025

Add Protestantism, Remove Trimurti

Swapped (support : 6, opposition : 1)

I don't think the concept of Trimurti belongs here, because I don't think it is that critical a concept to Hinduism: 1. It only appears twice on the entire English Wikipedia's entry on Hinduism: once in a caption, and once in a reference's notes. So not even in the main text of the article. 2. It doesn't appear at all on Hindi Wikipedia's article on Hinduism. 3. It is listed under "Specific religions", where everything else listed is a religion or its denomination. For Hinduism , the major denominations are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism. Two of these denominations consider one of the gods of the Trimurti to be the supreme one, but the third considers a goddess to be the supreme ruler of all. So, the concept of Trimurti doesn't even align with the major Hindu denominations. I think Protestantism belongs instead. Christianity is the world's largest religion. The second-largest, Islam, has its two main denominations listed: Sunni and Shia Islam. So, it makes sense Christianity should also have is two largest denominations listed. (To elaborate, ~36% of Christians are Protestants, while 10% of Muslims are Shia. There are around 1 billion Protestants in the world, and around 200 million Shia Muslims.) Support  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)  Support Okay, I've come to the conclusion that adding Protestantism wouldn't be too much of a Christianization of this list and that Protestantism is important enough to be in the list. It seems to me that Protestantism is important at least because it played a large role in the formation of the state with the most powerful economy in the world. Perhaps without Trimurti the list would be a bit lacking in Hindu presentation, but the article Trimurti is clearly not the article about Hinduism that should be on the list, since even in the languages of India people are not very keen to write about the concept.--Reprarina (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)  Support Indeed, Trimurti doesn't seem more important than Protestantism. --Algovia (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)  Support Per proposal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)  Support more influential--向史公哲曰 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose albeit weakly. I feel like Protestantism is already represented to some extent by Martin Luther in the list. I agree that Trimurti seems to have a relatively weak justification and could well be replaced, though. I would prefer Animism or something like that that would be not under "Specific religions", to replace it. --whym (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Discussion I think the Trimurti can probably be excluded. In the Hindi language (and most other languages in India) this article is a micro-stub. Perhaps the importance of this concept in Hinduism was exaggerated when the list was created. I am not sure if Protestantism and Shia Islam are important enough for this list, as I think the Bible and the Quran are a bit more important. I am also totally not sure that the Bible and the Quran are less important than The Tale of Genji, for example. On the other hand, Hinduism is still a very large religion, is it enough for it to have only the article Hinduism? --Reprarina (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. Trimurti has 105 language sections, Brahma has 110, Vishnu has 119, Shiva has 130.--Reprarina (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughts. I agree the Bible could be swapped in, but I think it should be for Iliad, since Homer is listed. I don't think a proposal to swap out Shia Islam for the Quran would pass. I feel while Hinduism is a major religion, there isn't a particular second article related to it that stands out that I would propose we swap in. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC) By this logic, both theories of relativity can be excluded because Einstein is on the list. I am categorically against excluding both the Iliad and Homer. The Iliad is one of the most important poems in history. Homer is one of the most important poets in history. Reprarina (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC) You’ve stated your disagreement with reducing redundancy in the list before. I’m suggesting a swap with the Bible, which also is related to other articles on the list. You’d rather replace Tale of Genji with the Bible? Feel free to make a proposal, but nothing you are saying is against my proposal here, unless you’re suggesting we swap Trimurti out for Bible, but I don’t think such a proposal will pass, since they are in separate sections. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Library, remove Mass media

Swapped (support : 5, opposition : 1)

The topics of Journalism and Mass media are very close, and mass media have relatively few language sections for this list. (I know: some people associate mass media with propaganda rather than journalism, but Propaganda is also on the list). Meanwhile, despite some disdainful attitude towards libraries among ordinary people, Library is actually one of the key concepts in the discipline of Library and information science. Libraries have been existing for several thousand years, many libraries, particularly national libraries of large countries, are very significant subjects in their own right, with a huge number of language sections in Wikipedia. Library and information science is actually a very serious science, with a large number of academic articles focusing on libraries. Library has 156 language sections in Wikipedia, which is significantly more than the mass media, and even more than journalism.--Reprarina (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Support As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)  Support LightProof1995 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)  Support Throwaway23523 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)  Support 向史公哲曰 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Although journalism and mass media have a lot in common, they are not completely identical, and both concepts are very important so I would disagree with leaving them out of this list.In the technology field, I think "encyclopedia" are the least important, so I would be in favor of replacing them with Library.--Opqr (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Discussion I'm not sure everyone would agree, but I think Mass media is the broader topic than Journalism. If so, an arrangement like this also makes sense: Mass media Journalism Newspaper And if that's the case, I'd prefer a swap of Newspaper for Library. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC) However, Newspaper is in fact perceived by speakers of various languages ​​as an article that should be in Wikipedia ahead of Journalism and Mass media. Newspaper has 166 langauge sections, Journalism has 127, Mass media has 120. Perhaps because Newspaper is a material thing, and Mass media is no more than a relatively new academic umbrella concept. And it is unlikely that any native speakers of a small language will write Wikipedia without an article about a newspaper, but with an article about a young umbrella academic concept. In general, I am for the principle of preference of the general over the particular, but I do not think that it should be absolutized. Let's take biology. On the one hand, we excluded Lemon and added Citrus. On the other hand, we have Ant and Bee, but no Hymenoptera. Or, for example, we have Spider, but no Arachnid. It seems to me that the question of "general or particular" should be decided in each individual case, and there should be a balance. Reprarina (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC) I'm unconvinced, Reprarina. While I agree with your argument's substance, it overlooks we're directing Wikipedias like Assamese Wikipedia, who are missing Mass media, to not get started. Still, if you insist Book, Journalism, Newspaper, and Propaganda are all more deserved to be on the list than Mass media , which encompasses them all, I'm inclined to support. The idea of adding "Library" to the list is too good to pass up. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Result Done--Reprarina (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Too many international organizations

We currently list 12 international organizations, along with 4 subsidiaries of the United Nations. The concept of international organizations, as it is understood today, is relatively recent and only emerged in the 19th century. Of the ones we list, two date back to the 19th century, while the rest are from the 20th century. This means we are using 16 slots, which reflects a very recentist bias! For comparison, we list only 5 concepts related to war and the military. The Blue Rider 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove Commonwealth of Nations, add Siege

I was torn between the African Union and the Commonwealth of Nations but ultimately chose the latter due to concerns about losing Africa’s representation. The Commonwealth of Nations holds little real value beyond serving as a means for the UK to maintain a connection to its former colonies. It’s largely symbolic, with its primary function being to recognize the monarch as the head of a couple of countries, many of which are small island nations.

Siege, on the other hand, is a common and significant tactic in warfare. Numerous famous sieges have occurred throughout history, such as the Siege of Leningrad, the Siege of Carthage, and the Sieges of Ceuta, among many others. In fact, if you name a major city in the Old World, there’s a good chance it was besieged at some point in its history. The Blue Rider 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nominator. The Blue Rider 04:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
2.  Strong support per nom. Siege is an integral component of warfare. While it can be considered a military tactic, it's more than that, as it's also a combat method. The "Military Strategy" article isn't always the larger or more viewed one across Wikipedias than "Siege". For English and French Wikipedias, "Siege" is larger and more viewed than "Military Strategy". "Commonwealth of Nations" is so anglo-centric, it's basically a duplicate of "British Empire" LightProof1995 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose to a swap between two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

   Nicolas Eynaud both articles are part of the Social Sciences category... The Blue Rider 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose In my opinion, siege is a topic for the expanded list. Not that important for being in the general list.--Reprarina (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud and per Reprarina. The swap is between two different categories and it is too specific for the list ("tactics" or "strategy" are not included in this, although these are broader than "siege"). --Toku (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I agree that there are too many international organizations, but that doesn’t make them too important in “Siege.”--Opqr (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud and per Reprarina.--Kani (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
6.  Oppose As I voted against swap between different categories. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add idealism

Materialism is added, but there is no idealism. Idealism has played a major role in the development of philosophy. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33442 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Idealism Gnom icona (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Instead of what should it be included? — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Phosphorus, remove Analytical chemistry

The list contains too many specialized sections of chemistry, which is not typical for other sections, where the lists of different areas of one science are not so branched. Analytical chemistry is a very specialized section, and I do not think that it should be present in such a general list as 1000 most important articles. I propose adding phosphorus due to the fact that this element is one of the most important in all known forms of life, being part of DNA and ATP. The question of finding life in the Universe is associated with the question of finding phosphorus.

Due to the fact that phosphorus is very actively used in agriculture, there is a threat of depletion of its reserves. A phosphorus crisis could cause catastrophic changes for humanity.--Reprarina (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Reprarina (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support I think basic, more commonly used and understood, as well as more influential concepts should have more priority over specialized concepts/areas of knowledge. --Ideophagous (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support Per nom and Ideophagous. While Analytical Chemistry is indeed important (I took an Analytical Chemistry class in college), Phosphorus seems more important. (Consider pageviews: ~6,000 for Analytical Chem vs. ~34,000 for Phosphorus in past 30 days on English Wikipedia) LightProof1995 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "The list contains too many specialized sections of chemistry, which is not typical for other sections" : it's also the case for physics. Moreover, these different sections are important in the organization of chemistry itself: a chemist is more often specialized in chemical engineering, electrochemistry or physical chemistry than in nitrogen or phosphorus chemistry. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud. --Algovia (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud.--Kani (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose I think the different domains of Physics and Chemistry are more important. But, the proposal is not wrong : Phosphorus is an important element for organic chemistry, biology and ecology : we should find a solution to integrate it. --Toku (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we could keep one of Inorganic chemistry, or Physical chemistry. "Physical" and "Inorganic" can be seen as synonyms. If we did the swap you suggest here, do you think one of those could be swapped out with another element? Which one? LightProof1995 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

According to English wikipedia : Physical chemistry is the study of macroscopic and microscopic phenomena in chemical systems in terms of the principles, practices, and concepts of physics such as motion, energy, force, time, thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, statistical mechanics, analytical dynamics and chemical equilibria ; inorganic chemistry deals with synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. They are two completely different branches of chemistry. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's true. I was making an observation that the word "physical" is synonymous with "material" or "inanimate", and therefore is synonymous with "inorganic", but they are different fields. "Physical", relating to ***SEX***, is actually more synonymous with "animate" or "organic", so my connection of "physical" to "inorganic" makes even less sense when scrutinized. There is also overlap between "organic chemistry" and "inorganic chemistry", as they tend to be used together. That's why I'm wondering which Reprarina would choose to remove, if either, and for what element, if the proposed swap passed. (Vital-3 lists Physical, Organic, and Inorganic chemistry; along with Phosphorus, Silicon, and Sulfur. It does not list Tin, which is listed here.) LightProof1995 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

After writing out more of my thoughts here, I'm now supporting the proposal. I assume this is the only chemistry-field-for-element swap Reprarina wants to make, and I think that's okay. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove "swap like for like" rule

Here is a breakdown on the advantages and disadvantages of the "swap like for like rule":

Advantages:

• Helps maintain balanced quotas across categories (though were the current quotas even agreed upon?);
• Easier to compare the vitality of each proposal within its category.

Disadvantage

• Hinders efforts to reduce bloated categories.
• Prevents unilateral additions or removals of articles without an equivalent swap.
• Rejects potentially beneficial proposals solely due to category constraints.
• Forces proposals to focus on finding direct replacements within the same category rather than evaluating their individual merits as a whole.
• Discourages continuous updates to reflect shifts in importance across fields and disciplines.
• Introduces unnecessary complexity, potentially discouraging contributors from suggesting valuable changes.

Support

•  Support as nominator. The Blue Rider 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
•  Support The list should be balanced, but as it stands this rule is being abused. The proposal above to "remove rugby and add tourism" is a perfect example. Even after it was shown that tourism is in the recreation category and not industry, not a single vote against the proposal on the grounds of "no exchanges between different categories" was withdrawn. This shows that opponents were using "no exchanges between different categories" as an excuse to vote against it. Did you notice?　Furthermore, if you apply the rule that "exchanges between different categories are prohibited," you should do so based on the largest category, i.e., "biography" or "geography." For example, some people may object to exchanges between "countries" and "cities," which are subcategories within the field of geography, based on the rules, but exchanges within the larger category should be allowed.--Opqr (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Support per others, however I agree with Reprarina that even if this rule is abolished, swaps between categories should still be expected to be stated with a reason. I see no reason otherwise to hold onto these quotas that clearly are random and not agreed upon through consensus. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
•  SupportToo many great man. --向史公哲曰 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Rule needed to keep the list balanced. --Toku (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Rule does not actually prohibit to switch categories, but it allows it only if there is a reason. So it's not a hard and fast rule. I'm not sure if each category has the right number of articles (for example, I don't really know why there are 18 articles about artists and architects and 21 articles about musicians and composers), but it feels okay so far.
3.  Oppose Per Toku. I don't think the list needs a continuous update. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I think the advantages are more important than the disadvantages. I also think more advantage can be found like helping small projects to organise the redaction of articles, encouraging the participacion of new users, limiting proposals in the same areas and keeping diversity in the fondamental parts of the encyclopedia. --Algovia (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Stability is a good thing for this list. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

A middle ground might be to say that category swaps are discouraged not prohibited, that the proposer need to make a strong case for such a swap, and that others should argue why the proposal's merit outweighs the discouragement (or why it doesn't). --whym (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe just a rewrite of the rule is needed. Currently it states “Swapping is like for like (category switch only with a reason).”

It could be something like “Swaps between categories are allowed if stated with a reason.” It’s a subtle change, but the overall focus on allowing swaps instead of disallowing them could be key. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Lake Titicaca, Remove Lake Tanganyika

An alternative proposal was choosen ("South China Sea" / "Lake Tanganyika")

No need to list this African Great Lake when we have Lake Victoria listed, which is the largest one. Lake Titicaca, on the other hand, is the largest freshwater lake in South America, and therefore should be listed. It's been important for fishing for civilizations like the Tiwanaku and the Incas for centuries. It also was a sacred lake for these cultures, playing a significant part in Andean mythology. Support  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Neutral Neutral Why not, but I preferred the swap South China Sea for Lake Tanganyika. So, I don't support the proposal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Oppose  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap. Please see this proposal for more details. Moreover, Lake Titicaca is an interesting geological structure, but it's not a strategical area (compared to South China Sea or Baltic Sea). --Algovia (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap.--Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Discussion (Reasons for choosing Titicaca over Maracaibo): Lake Maracaibo is larger, but since it partially connected with the ocean during the last glacial period, it is debated if it still counts as a lake. Therefore, Lake Titicaca can be considered either South America's largest freshwater lake, or South America's largest lake. While Lake Maracaibo is important because of its oil reserves, Titicaca's cultural and ecological importance gives it more views: Lake Titicaca received ~30,000 views on English Wikipedia in the past 30 days, compared to Lake Maracaibo's ~9500 views and Lake Tanganyika's ~23,000 views. Lake Titicaca is also geographically unique as the world's highest navigable lake. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Add South China Sea, Remove Baltic Sea

An alternative proposal was choosen ("South China Sea" / "Lake Tanganyika")

The Baltic Sea is not as important as the the South China Sea for several reasons. First, the seclusion of the Baltic Sea makes it not a major trade area. The largest port in Russia, Novorossiysk, is on the Black Sea, and the largest port in Sweden, Gothenburg, is on the North Sea. Compare this to the South China Sea, which accounts for a third of all major shipping trade routes, giving it global geopolitical importance. Second, the Baltic Sea is relatively shallow, and ecologically simple: 90% of biomass in the Baltic Sea is the common mussel. Compare this to the South China Sea, which is able to host deep-sea creatures such as the Bull Shark, and is is home to the critically-endangered Giant Clam. Third, countries are in dispute over the natural resources of the South China Sea. The competition over fishing and oil and natural gas deposits in the area has given it regional geopolitical importance as well. Support  Strong support In honor of Brian Boru LightProof1995 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Neutral Oppose  Oppose Baltic Sea is an important historical region and a major geostrategic area of ​​the present-day world. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap. Please see this proposal for more details. --Algovia (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)  Oppose Baltic Sea has very high historical value in addition to strictly geographical/economic one. Prefer to add South China Sea instead of Lake Tanganyika. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap.c--Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Discussion

Add Vyasa, Remove St. Thomas Aquinas

After reading the Bhagavad Gita recently, I feel swapping Trimurti for Protestantism needs to be alleviated with the inclusion of another article on Hinduism.

The Bhagavad Gita is Vital-3 on English Wikipedia, as well as the Vedas, and the Bible.

Vyasa astonishingly wrote both the Mahbharata epic, of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of, AND he compiled the Vedas! I found my copy of The Bhagavad Gita at a music festival, when I went there to see Odesza, who I'd never seen before, and I used all my money to do so. This book was at a stand at the festival where you can "swap" an item for another, and so it is magical to me. The back of the book says, "The Bhagavad Gita is universally renowned as the jewel of India's spiritual wisdom".

Within this book, Krsna, an avatar of Vishnu, is described as the one who controls the Universe. The book delves into three types of yoga: Karma Yoga, the Path of Action; Bhakti Yoga, or the Path of Devotion; and Jnana Yoga, or the Path of Knowledge. It says these paths will fulfill one's Dharma, or sacred duty, and therefore one will break free of the cycle of Samsara, to become Divine in the next life (or something like that).

I feel we need to list the attributed author of 5/6 of Hinduism's major texts, especially when there are no other Hindu religious figures listed. I think among the Christian figures listed, St. Thomas Aquinas is the least known, and shouldn't be listed over St. Paul or St. Patrick.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Vyasa has 62 language sections. Despite the formal authorship of Mahabharata and formal compilation of Vedas, there is not too much interest to the personality of Vyasa in the world; he is too much legendary for that. For comparison, Kalidasa (he is on the list) has 137, because he is interesting to people in the world and as a person, although he also has a certain level of being legendary. Murasaki Shikibu (she is not the list), author of The Tale of Ganji, has 141. And yes, we already have Mahabharata (but we don’t have, for example, Ramayana and Vedas), so, in my opinion, Vyasa is definetely not the best choice.--Reprarina (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   I agree. I didn't realize he had so few language sections, nor that he is considered legendary. I thought he was a historical person? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose I don't think swapping Trimurti for Protestantism needs to be alleviated with the inclusion of another article on Hinduism as the list doesn't work like that. It's the list of the fundamental articles for every wikipedia. --Toku (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   I suppose I also wanted to counter my proposal to add the Bible to the list. That plus Protestantism, really did seem like "too much Christianization" with "De-Asianization" to me, like Reprarina suggests. In this regard, it seems you disagree with Reprarina. I think I am in agreement with you on this, Toku. My proposal to add the Bible seems more authentic and thought-out than my proposal here, which I mostly made to "counter" or "alleviate" my previous proposals. So, thank you for your insight here, as I find it a good and productive way to think about the list :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Why does the Religious Figures section have so few people in the first place, compared to other Biography sections? What about characters such as Noah, Mani, Guru Nanak, John the Baptist? Do we really need 21 "Composers and musicians", and 32 "Authors, playwrights and poets", AND 12 "Film directors, screenwriters and actors", yet only 10 religious figures?? Isn't that just way too many "Artists"?

Maybe we can re-evaluate some quotas so we're not floundering trying to make proposals within "one category" without some "reason" that is never seemingly good enough to justify the "switch between categories"? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the reason is that religious figures are often known only to a particular religious community, and the list is designed to include those who are known worldwide. Sikhs are ~0,4% of global human population, why should we have both Sikhism and Guru Nanak in the list? Reprarina (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

For the same reason you feel both "Homer" and "Iliad" should be listed. It's your own philosophy!! LightProof1995 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Add South China Sea, Remove Lake Tanganyika

Swapped with enough support (support : 7, no opposition)

No need to list this African Great Lake when we have Lake Victoria listed, which is the largest one. The South China Sea is important polticially for everyone that does trade in the region, which is everyone! Support  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)  Support South China Sea has been an important maritime area for world trade since (at least) the Middle Ages. Today, it is an area of ​​major geopolitical tensions. Lake Tanganyika doesn't seem to be so important. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Novaria85 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)  Support Per above. --Algovia (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)  Support Sound most reasonable among 3 proposed body-of-water swaps. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Oppose Neutral Neutre This is not a bad idea because the South China Sea is indeed a major element of global geopolitics (and of the "Asian Mediterranean"). But the weakness of the arguments (supposed bias to be corrected) does not convince me. --Algovia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) - Agreed. I’ve removed the sentence on bias LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC) When I see the new proposals, I find this swap is a good idea. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Discussion Now I am wondering if I should've made a swap of Lake Tanganyika for Lake Titicaca, and Baltic Sea for South China Sea. Thoughts? LightProof1995 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Now, the proposal could be adopted, but I think it will be better to wait some time before integrating the swap in the list as the two new proposals – Titicaca/Tanganyika and South China Sea/Baltic Sea are very recent. We should take time to see the developments of these discussions. --Algovia (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Conclusion @ Algovia, LightProof1995 : I think the result of the discussion is quite clear. The swap South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika is supported by a majority and the two alternative proposals are contested. If no new point and no opposition, we will be able to do the swap in the next days. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Lung, remove Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

It seems to me unreasonable to include an article on lung disease before an article on the lungs. By the way, the article on lungs has 172 language sections, and the article on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has 93. Lungs is just a more basic concept.

And yes, this is a suggestion to switch from medicine to biology. But a medical specialist will first study the topic of Lungs, and only then move on to studying the topic of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I believe that medicine is unlikely to lose from the inclusion of the lungs.--Reprarina (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support The rationale seems solid. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose There is already "Respiratory System". Then, I'm not convinced by a swap between two categories. --Toku (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not sure the Respiratory system is enough. Why not exclude the Ear, Eye, Nose and Taste on the basis that there is a Sensory system then? Reprarina (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Indus Valley Civilization (Q42534), Remove Jacques Cartier (Q7321)

The list seems to have too many historical figures and too few historical nations. In particular, the list of explorers is excessive and should be replaced with other historical articles.

I think the Indus Valley civilization is one of the few ancient civilizations that should not be written off. Jacques Cartier is credited with discovering Canada, but other explorers, such as Columbus, are more important. --Xefon (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support, if we arrive to a consensus on reallocating some space from biography to history section. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

   The allocation to Biography seems too generous, 204/1000 compared to 111/1000 for the English version and 1943/10000 for the Extended version, while the allocation to history is too sparse, only 46/1000 compared to 85/1000 for the English version and 800/10000 for the Extended version. Xefon (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Not convinced by a swap between two categories. --Toku (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Not in favor of a swap between two categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Reprarina. The prerequisite – too many explorers in the list – is not even demonstrated. --Algovia (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Age of Discovery (Q133641), Remove Russian Revolution (Q8729)

Since the Soviet Union was added to the list, there is less reason for the Russian Revolution to be on the list, and I would suggest putting the Age of Discovery instead as a more general term than individual explorers. --Xefon (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Strong oppose. No way. Russian revolution was in 1917, USSR was in 1922-1991, and there was a full-scale civil war between them. Russian revolution was one of the most important events in the history of humanity. And the Russian revolution is one of the most important revolutions in history. It was the first socialist revolution in the history of mankind, at least the first of those that were not soon suppressed.--Reprarina (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Russian Revolution and Soviet Union are two important notions for the history of the latest century ; Age of Discovery is often a list of discoveries with limited interest. --Toku (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose A proposal based on the idea that the number of biographies should be reduced. In my opinion, its goal isn't to improve the list, but to find an artificial way to remove all explorer biographies. Furthermore, it doesn't elaborate on its arguments beyond stating that it's a "more general term". --Algovia (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Silk Road (Q36288), Remove Ovid (Q7198)

The Biography lists seems to be a bit excessive, and Ovid is not so important as Virgil. Instead, a topic that has broader cultural relevance, such as the Silk Road, would be more appropriate. --Xefon (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list. And Ovid is very significant, he is an author of a work that is included in Verdensbiblioteket.--Reprarina (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Not convinced by the necessity of a swap between two different categories. --Toku (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Swap between two very different categories - a writer and a historical concept - with a weak argument ("there would be too many biographies"). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose A proposal between two very different categories. Literature is already barely present in the list, aside from author biographies. Reducing it further doesn't seem appropriate to me. --Algovia (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Rumi (Q43347), Remove Lord Byron (Q5679)

Out of the list of 32 writers, 21 are Europeans. It is too heavily skewed towards modern European authors and should be corrected. Rumi is a master of Persian poetry is also included in the Enwiki Vital Articles Level 3 list. I know Lord Byron's role for Romantic movement, but other writer such as Hugo would represent. --Xefon (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre Neutral for now until the proposition is actually argued: too many Europeans is not really an argument, the level 3 list of English concerns the English Wikipedia and the fact that Rumi is a master of Persian literature does not tell us why him and not another master... --Algovia (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
2. Question: I generally think Rumi (Q43347) belongs on this list, but is he too similar to Hafez (Q6240)? EchoVanguardZ (talk)
   1. Yes, I agree -- What if we accompany this with a swap of Hafez out for J. R. R. Tolkein in? LightProof1995 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Achaemenid Empire (Q389688), Remove Hernán Cortés (Q7326)

The list seems to have too many historical figures and too few historical nations. In particular, the list of explorers is excessive and should be replaced with other historical articles.

The Achaemenid Empire was an important ancient dynasty that influenced many regions. I think the activities of the conquistadors such as Cortes could be covered in the other articles. --Xefon (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Not convinced by a swap between two categories + why the Achaemenid Empire and not the Sassanid or the Safavid or the Parthian Empire ? --Toku (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Not in favor of a swap between two categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Cortés is a major figure in American history, as he allows us to address the exploration, conquest, colonization, and religious conversion of America by Europeans. Removing him from the list therefore weakens him. Furthermore, why the Achaemenid Empire? How important was its influence? This is not an explanation, and we are entitled to wonder why the Sassanid Empire, the Partian Empire, the Seleucid Empire, the Median Empire, or the Safavid Empire are not proposed instead. --Algovia (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose per Toku and Algovia. Also, Spanish Empire is not listed. I'd support a swap for that one instead. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Mughal Empire (Q33296), Remove Charles de Gaulle (Q2042)

The list seems to have too many historical figures and too few historical nations.

The Mughal Empire is important in history as it was one of the few empires that controlled all of India. Charles de Gaulle was a great French leader, but he is less important than his contemporaries and is not even listed at level 3 on the French Wikipedia list. --Xefon (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom assuming we achieve consensus Biography quota should be reduced and History quota increased LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I do not support reducing the number of biographical articles in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Not convinced by the need of the swap between two different categories + de Gaulle is important for French and European history + Mughal Empire quickly became a nominal entity with a limited power. --Toku (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Toku + Reprarina. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose The proposal is not very detailed, which is highly recommended for changing articles between two categories. The Mughal Empire is described as one of the empires that controlled India, but it does not say why this one and not another, for example, the Delhi Sultanate (which has a longer existence). It also does not explain why two Indian empires should be included in the list (and why these ones). Conversely, de Gaulle plays an important role in recent history and his thinking seems to be influencing certain European defense policies again since the election of Donald Trump. It is also frequently invoked in the context of European integration. The proposal therefore does not seem adapted to the current needs of the fundamental articles. --Algovia (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose per Toku and Algovia. Also, French Empire is not listed. I'd support a swap for that one instead. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   French Empire does not matter much without Napoleon, so it seems redundant. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Napoleon's "Empire" was a little short in its duration, don't you think ? I'm talking about the glorious French Colonial Empire, second only to the British Empire in size at the advent of WW1, and third behind the British Empire and the Soviet Union during WW2 under De Gaulle. Its remnants control the world's only source of black pearls to this day! LightProof1995 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Add spice (Q42527), Remove Secale cereale (Q12099)

Swapped (support : 5, opposition : 0)

Rye is consumed in large quantities in limited areas, such as Northern Europe, whereas spices are consumed worldwide and are more desirable. (This is my final proposal) --Xefon (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Support  Support --Xefon (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)  Support Per Xefon. --Toku (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)  Support, makes sense. --Deinocheirus (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to change allocation from Biography to other category

The allocation to Biography seems too generous, 204/1000 compared to 111/1000 for the English version and 1943/10000 for the Extended version.

Plus, The list is biased towards Western figures and is, as a result, more Eurocentric than the English Vital list. It should be allocated to other categories that deal with more globally common terms. Xefon (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The list is used by many projects for organizational and structuring purposes, especially by "small" projects. Therefore, it doesn't seem wise to make such radical changes. However, there's nothing to prevent you from making another list. There's no shortage of synonyms for fundamental – elementary, central, important, basic, essential, capital – and it's really not forbidden. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I am making such suggestions because they are useful for such small projects. For example, if you have limited resources, an article like "Achaemenid Empire" would be more useful than "Cyrus the Great". You know that such a dismissive opinion will not produce anything. If radical changes are not favored, we may update the version. Xefon (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We should reach a consensus on what the quotas should be, and this could take place by making a separate draft list that explores how the list would look with various quotas! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support some expansion of historical section, say, adding 20 items. Biographical section can be reduced somewhat, but we may also borrow items from other sections, not all of them should come from biography. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with changing the allocation from biography to other categories, but I would prefer it to be in technology rather than history. I'm thinking that "concrete" and "tunnel" should be on the technology list, but I haven't been able to propose it for years because there are no articles to replace them.--Opqr (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Lu Xun (Q23114), Remove Jorge Luis Borges (Q909)

The inclusion of two modern Latin American authors in the list is questionable. Lu Xun is a representative modern Chinese author and should be included in the list. --Xefon (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutre

1. Neutre Neutral for now until the proposition is actually argued: too many South Americans is not really an argument and the fact that Lu Xun is a representative of modern Chinese literature does not tell us why he and not another representative of Chinese literature (or even of another literature). --Algovia (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Currently, the list includes 32 authors, two of which are from Latin American literature: Borges and Garcia Marquez. Both are important authors, and it makes sense to include two Latin American authors in the list.--Opqr (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per Opqr. Also, Borges gets more than triple the views on English Wikipedia. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Add respiration (Q472287), Remove breathing (Q9530)

Swapped (support : 5, opposition : 0)

Q472287: Respiration (physiology), Breathing, Breath, Respiration, Respiration (biochemistry), Respiration (comparative physiology) Q9530: Breathing, Pulmonary ventilation, Breath, Respiration, Pulmonary breathing, Respiration (human physiology), Respiratory system (humans), Breathing (movement) There's serious cross-wiki confusion about what the difference between these articles is supposed to be. I've tried to translate the various titles they have just in Germanic and Romance languages - probably if someone looked through other languages, there would be even more confusion. There also often seem to be problems within wikis with duplicate articles and articles whose content doesn't match the title. However, so far as there's any identifiable pattern, it's that Q472287 is a broader topic - all ways of getting oxygen from the surrounding environment into the cells of an organism - and Q9530 is a specific subtopic, focused only on the way humans breathe or the part of it that involves moving air in and out of the lungs. The English Wikipedia is unusual in putting a lot of the content that most Wikipedias would assign to Q472287 in en:Gas exchange instead, leaving its "Respiration (physiology)" as a kind of super-disambiguation page. I think it would make more sense for the broader topic to be the one recommended for all Wikipedias. That way, on small Wikipedias, whatever information anyone chose to add to the article would be appropriate, regardless of whether it was about human lung-based breathing or more general. Later, as the article grew, they could choose whether to move some of the information into a more narrowly human-focused or lung-focused one. A second reason for my proposal is that when the narrower topic is listed as more important, the way it is now, it creates a perverse incentive for medium-sized Wikipedias to move as much information into the supposedly narrower article as possible, regardless of whether it is actually appropriate there. The end result is duplicate articles on the broad topic and no article on the narrow topic. This has happened on the Esperanto Wikipedia, where I usually contribute, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened on others. Notice that this proposal would undo a change made in 2011 (Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2011#Respiration (physiology) -> Breathing). That change was decided based on the semantics of "breathing" and "respiration" in English and the lack of content in the English Wikipedia article "Respiration (physiology)", which I don't think were appropriate reasons for modifying this global list. (I've pointed out above that the English Wikipedia's treatment of Q472287 is anomalous.) --Arbarulo (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Discussion To clarify the reading, the links to the wikidata pages are as follows: Respiration (Q472287) and Breathing (Q9530). --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC) These are synonyms, and the current allocation of their categories makes no sense. Can we merge the two topics? LightProof1995 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC) My understanding of d:Help:Merge is that no, we can't merge the topics, because 42 Wikipedias have separate articles about them. I don't have much experience with Wikidata, though, so I could easily be missing something or misunderstanding your suggestion. Am I? --Arbarulo (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC) From reading that link, I don’t see a problem with merging the two articles. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC) LightProof1995, I'm referring to this part: "If there is a sitelink conflict, items can't be merged as only one link per site is possible." How do you interpret that wording? --Arbarulo (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC) I'm not sure. Where are you seeing the "42" number? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC) LightProof1995, I understand "sitelink conflict" to mean the situation where one Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia site) has articles linked to both of the Wikidata items that a Wikidata editor would like to merge. There are also other statements in d:Help:Merge that seem to convey the same idea as the one I cited, especially under the section "Dealing with items where both have a Wikipedia link to the same Wikipedia": "A Wikidata item can only have one Wikipedia link . . . If [a] Wikipedia doesn't merge their articles, we don't merge the items here on Wikidata". As for the number 42, I think I got that by manually counting, or maybe by manually counting the Wikipedia links at "respiration" that didn't have a corresponding link at "breathing" and subtracting them from the total of 55, I don't remember. Just eyeballing the lists should be enough to convince you that 42 is in the right neighborhood, or at least that the true number is much greater than zero. --Arbarulo (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC) I'm too lazy to count myself, lmao. Nice work!! LightProof1995 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)  Comment Although related, they're different topics. A bit like eating versus digestion. — Yerpo Eh? 17:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC) I agree :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Just checking that I'm understanding the guidelines correctly - this proposal and the one below on scripts vs alphabets have met the approval requirements and it's okay to go ahead and implement them, right? --Arbarulo (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC) I went ahead and changed the list so I could get started on merging "Arabic script" and "Arabic alphabet" in Esperanto without ruffling feathers there. Not having had anything to do with this list before, I hope I didn't mess up any formatting and apologize if I did. --Arbarulo (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC) Support  Support as the proposer --Arbarulo (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)  Support Per Arbarulo, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)  Support, same — Yerpo Eh? 11:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Opposition # Oppose I prefer we merge the two articles (if possible). LightProof1995 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Neutral

Add Tokugawa Ieyasu (Q171977), Remove Rosa Luxemburg (Q7231)

I checked the chapter of political leaders and noticed two things: there are only six figures from the early modern period, which is relatively few, and there is no one from Japanese history. Although Japan’s influence on the entire world has been limited, its large population and thriving culture makes it impossible to ignore. Tokugawa Ieyasu, the leader who initiated the Edo period that laid the foundation for Japan’s prosperity after the Meiji Restoration, should be included in the list. On the other hand, while I acknowledge that Rosa Luxemburg was an important figure in Germany/Poland and socialism, her significance is relatively smaller. --Xefon (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support --Xefon (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom. Japan was first unified under Tokugawa. He's commonly seen as one of Japan's greatest leaders, if not the greatest, because of this impressive feat. Rosa Luxemburg doesn't deserve to be listed. She's not that influential or well-known on a global scale, like Tokugawa. She is a controversial figure and her importance is debated even in her homeland of Germany and Poland. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support There's no point in pretending that this list includes women. All women should therefore be removed, and a second, all-female list should be created. BeMinoo (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)st

Oppose

1.  Oppose Firstly, I think that Tokugawa Ieyasu's encyclopedic significance is approximately equal to that of Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and I do not think that one of them should be on the general list and the other two on the extended list. Secondly, if we were to choose from Japanese political figures for the general list, we should rather choose Mutsuhito, who organized the change of the socio-economic formation in Japan from feudal to capitalist, than Tokugawa Ieyasu, who, together with Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, merely modified Japanese feudalism. Thirdly, I am not sure that Rosa Luxemburg should be excluded from the list - she is one of the most important figures in the history of the socialist movement.--Reprarina (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Toku (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Algovia (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Rosa Luxemburg's importance is obviously lower than that of other historical figures. For the history of socialism, Marx and Lenin are enough. She remains on this list only because there are obviously few important female political figures. (In fact, in my previous proposal, I included her for that reason alone). However, it is true that there are no other suitable important female figures, so I feel that I have no choice but to include her.--Opqr (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

   Will you support Remove Rosa Luxemburg, Add Catherine the Great? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

   @Opqr: If you think that: Rosa Luxemburg's importance is obviously lower than that of other historical figures, then you should vote for her removal. Best Minoo (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

   #  Oppose Minoo (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

6. 飞车过大关 (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Alphabet → script

Swapped (support : 6, opposition : 0 for Latin script; support : 5, opposition : 0 for Arabic script)

Script is a more general (and useful) term, because alphabet denotes a collection of characters from a script, used to write one language. So for example, "Latin alphabet" only describes the ancient Roman system, whereas "Latin script" is still used by half of the world in one form or another. Two changes: add Latin script (Q8229), remove Latin alphabet (Q41670) add Arabic script (Q1828555), remove Arabic alphabet (Q8196) Note: the list used to include Latin script (Q8229), but this was recently changed by Nicolas Eynaud to Latin alphabet (Q41670), to more accurately reflect the name. Greek alphabet (Q8216) can stay, because it was only ever used for the Greek language and (AFAIK) no Wikipedia has a separate article for the script. Support  Support, as the proposer. — Yerpo Eh? 11:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)  Support per Yerpo. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)  Support Among the languages I can read confidently, only English and German make a distinction between these pairs of items, and they make the same distinction that Yerpo says they should. Esperanto has duplicate articles for "Arabic script" and "Arabic alphabet" (actually both about the script), probably because of the same perverse incentive I described under the "respirations" proposal. I'll try to get them merged. However, it's worth noting that a lot of languages seem to have articles on the "scripts" attached to the "alphabet" items. I think the appropriate solution is for those Wikipedias to move their articles to the "script" item, and hopefully many of them will choose to do that if this proposal is approved. --Arbarulo (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)  Support for the first change. The change in June was done without any discussion. I cannot see a proper reason to support replacing Latin script (Q8229, currently 133 languages) with Latin alphabet (Q41670, currently 87 languages). But Neutral for the second change, as Arabic script (Q1828555, currently 45 languages) is far less popular than Arabic alphabet (Q8196, currently 141 languages) among all languages. --Telepo (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC) Keep in mind that many (possibly most?) of the articles attached to the "Arabic alphabet" item are wrongly attached to it, because they are actually about the Arabic script. --Arbarulo (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)  Support Logical. --Algovia (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)  Support per Yerpo and Arbarulo LightProof1995 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Opposition # Oppose Alphabet is the more commonly known and used term for those two writing systems, e.g. the alphabet articles get more page views. Of the five writing systems listed, the only script listed should be Cryllic, which doesn’t normally have a separate alphabet article. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC) It sounds from your argument like you may have misunderstood the proposal. We aren't discussing what are the best terms in English for two given writing systems. We're discussing which writing systems should be on the list - whether it should be two translingual writing systems which are among the most widely used worldwide (per the proposal), or just the specific variants of those writing systems used for the Latin language and the Arabic language (as currently). It's unfortunate for English speakers that "alphabet" is commonly used in English for both types of concept. I suspect that many of the pageviews for the English Wikipedia article on "Latin alphabet" are from people who are actually looking for "Latin script". Arbarulo (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Thanks for explaining! I agree that's unfortunate more people don't know about script vs alphabet. I think script might be the more common term for Arabic anyway, so it's really just the Latin alphabet. I'm a big fan of the alphabet, but your argument here is valid. I can only change my mind because of your explanation, and support the proposal!! LightProof1995 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC) Neutral