Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded

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


Actually doing this[edit]

It was mentioned a while ago that we should cut the cruft and then add more to get this to 10,000. I may actually do some work on that, inf anyone cares Purplebackpack89 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89's changes[edit]

I have added many articles to this, and cleaned up some sections

Biographies--Political Leaders[edit]

The political leaders section had some leaders who were current when the list was started, such as Tony Blair and George W. Bush, that are not current. I removed them, and created a sub-section for current political leaders, as many Wikipedias have a section or provision for such. The way I worded it allows for 12 current political leaders:

1.-8.: The heads of government of the G8 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, U.K., U.S.)
9. The leader of China
10. The leader of India
11. The U.N. Secretary General
12. The Pope

Obviously, when the heads of government change (as just happened in the U.K. and Japan), the people on the list will change


For starters, the mountain range section wasn't numbered correctly...there were some lines that had two entries instead of one (actually, there are a lot of places where this occurs; this project is slop city). That yields two mountain ranges. I also tried to resolve the bias towards American and European mountains that are talked about in (American and European) literature and history, and against taller mountains in other places. I replaced Pikes Peak with Mount Whitney, which is much taller. I added the four of the Seven Summits that weren't already there (Aconcagua, Elbrus, Kosciusko and Vinson). And I added the very tall also-rans K2 and Mount Logan.


I extended the cities list from 60 to 100, adding some of the cities that were on the 1,000 list but didn't make it here; and many other cities besides. I tried to ameliorate the Western (Europe) bias; the only European cities I added that weren't on the 1000 were Dublin, Geneva and Prague. The only cities that were on this list that I axed were Vatican City (already in the countries list below); Monte Carlo (replaced with Nice) and Las Vegas (replaced with Honolulu). Here's some statistical breakdowns on the list of 100:

  • U.S.:7 (one non-Contintal)
  • Rest of North America: 5
  • South America: 6
  • Europe: 29
  • Africa: 12
  • Middle East (inc. 'Stans): 11
  • South and East Asia (inc. Indonesia, Phillippines): 27
  • Oceania: 3

Comparare with the % each continent has of the world's population

  • North America (inc. all of the United States): 8.7 (slight overrepresentation)
  • South America: 5.8 (wash)
  • Europe: 10.8 (very overrepresentated)
  • Africa: 14.2 (slight underrepresentation)
  • Asia (inc. Middle East): 60.4 (very underrepresented)
  • Oceania: 0.5 (very overrepresentated; but small sample size)

Half of the cities are in countries that have multiple cities on the list; the following countries have more than one city on the list of 100 (subscript number is rank in world population)

  • United States-7 (Chicago, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Washington) 3
  • China-5 (Beijing, Chongqing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Wuhan) 1
  • India-5 (Bangalore, Calcutta, Hyderabad, Mumbai, New Delhi) 2
  • Germany-3 (Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich) 14
  • Italy-3 (Florence, Rome, Venice) 23
  • Japan-3 (Kyoto, Osaka, Tokyo) 10
  • Australia-2 (Melbourne, Sydney) 51
  • Brazil-2 (Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo) 5
  • France-2 (Nice, Paris) 20
  • Indonesia-2 (Jakarta, Surabaya) 4
  • Mexico-2 (Guadalajara, Mexico City) 11
  • Pakistan-2 (Islamabad, Karachi) 6
  • Russia-2 (Moscow, St. Petersburg) 9
  • Saudi Arabia-2 (Mecca, Riyadh) 46
  • South Africa-2 (Cape Town, Johannesburg) 26
  • Spain-2 (Barcelona, Madrid) 27
  • United Kingdom-2 (Edinburgh, London) 22
  • Vietnam-2 (Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City) 13

The following 42 non-capital cities were included on the list (italic indicates former capital)

Abidjan, Almaty, Auckland, Bangalore, Barcelona, Casablanca, Calcutta, Chicago, Chongqing, Dubai, Edinburgh, Florence, Frankfurt, Geneva, Guadalajara, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Honolulu, Houston, Hyderabad, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Karachi, Kyoto, Lagos, Los Angeles, Mecca, Melbourne, Mumbai, Munich, New York City, Nice, Osaka, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Surabaya, Sydney, Toronto, Venice, Wuhan

Purplebackpack89 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the list of the 10 000 articles should include approximately 300 cities. What do you think about my variant (en:Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography)? Also, I think we should have a list of 3,000 articles, which should include approximately 100 cities. --Igrek 06:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
To Igrek: Interesting list, but it needs a little work on Asia outside of China and India (I may help you a little with that). The strength is that it is representative of countries by population; perhaps the weakness is it's representative of most countries' populations, leading to many obscure cities making the list. This population constraint may have led to there being no Swiss city on the list (You could axe Vatican to get it on; the latter is already listed under countries and the former is adjacent to Nice). You might want to deviate a little from your population in the case of Oceania, so you can have a city from a country other than Australia on the list. Purplebackpack89 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Errors in list[edit]

Here's some problems with this list:

Multiple entries:

  • Dup found: Igor Stravinsky == Igor Stravinsky
  • Dup found: Aristophanes == Aristophenes
  • Dup found: Li Bai == Li Bai
  • Dup found: Jean-Paul Sartre == Jean-Paul Sartre
  • Dup found: Murasaki Shikibu == Murasaki Shikibu
  • Dup found: Du Fu == Tu Fu
  • Dup found: Laotse == Laozi
  • Dup found: Maimonides == Maimonides
  • Dup found: Martin Luther == Martin Luther
  • Dup found: Ho Chi Min == Ho Chi Minh
  • Dup found: Galileo Galilei == Galileo Galilei
  • Dup found: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz == Gottfried Leibniz
  • Dup found: Jim Lehrer == Jim Lehrer
  • Dup found: Hercules == Hercules
  • Dup found: Odysseus == Odysseus
  • Dup found: History of the European Union == History of the European Union
  • Dup found: History of the United States == History of the United States
  • Dup found: Hong Kong == Hong Kong
  • Dup found: Singapore == Singapore
  • Dup found: Poetry == Poetry
  • Dup found: Shiva == Shiva
  • Dup found: Vishnu == Vishnu
  • Dup found: Experience == Experience
  • Dup found: Cardiologist == Cardiology
  • Dup found: Radiologist == Radiology
  • Dup found: Radiologist == Radiology
  • Dup found: Physician == Physician
  • Dup found: Influenza == Flu
  • Dup found: Dove == Pigeon
  • Dup found: Cod == Codfish
  • Dup found: Tunafish == Tuna
  • Dup found: Apatosaurus == Brontosaurus
  • Dup found: Brahman == Brahman
  • Dup found: Guernsey == Guernsey
  • Dup found: Pecan == Pecan tree
  • Dup found: Alcohol == Alcohol
  • Dup found: Electrocardiogram == Electrocardiogram
  • Dup found: Magnetic resonance imaging == Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Dup found: Gasoline == Gasoline
  • Dup found: Panama Canal == Panama Canal
  • Dup found: Suez Canal == Suez Canal
  • Dup found: Artillery == Artillery
  • Dup found: Submarine == Submarine
  • Dup found: Integral calculus == Integral

--MarsRover 07:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing this to a bulleted list so I could strikethrough the ones I fixed. You might want to help me with some of the “double features”: lines that have two entries but should only have one. P.S.: are you getting a feeling that this list was based off of some guy’s personal preferences? I do, and I’ve been trying to clean them up Purplebackpack89 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I did fix one, but many others were already fixed but it wasnt marked in the list. I marked the ones i fixed or checked. I only found artillery and fixed it, almost all the others were already fixed. So its more about checking the rest than about doing any fixes.
  • All are fixed.--Abiyoyo 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Idea for more cities[edit]

Instead of just largest cities in present time... how about largest cities in the past? Ex. In 100AD Luoyang was the 2nd largest city in the world. In 1500AD Vijayanagar was the 2nd largest city in the world. [1] --MarsRover 09:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by sample of article (Expanded) for July 2010[edit]

I calculated the Expanded Score for the July 29, 2010 version of the list. Its interesting to see which articles are popular (and which aren't). Also, which articles are missing from popular wikis --MarsRover 06:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)



What can we do with this list or it is only for reading? As far as I understand we have here a list with 3751 articles and it should be expanded to 10 000. So, can we make some suggestions or can we directly add some new articles in the list? Can we also suggest some removal or can we directly remove articles? Is this a private list?--MrPanyGoff 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So far this list is just for reading and as suggestions to other wikis. For now directly adding articles makes sense since we are below our limit of 10,000. I think you can remove articles too but you need to include a reason why in the comment. No, this list isn't "private". Feel free to edit it. -MarsRover 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


I added 30 more cities, all of them are capitals. The list reached 130 articles. I think that, at least 80% of the capital cities should be added first (about 195). In my view the list with 10 000 most significant articles should include approximately 400 cities.--MrPanyGoff 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I extended the list with 20 more cities. Only one of my addition is not a capital - Glasgow.--MrPanyGoff 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, the list reached 200 cities. This time 4 capital cities out of 50 names added.--MrPanyGoff 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to make some updates to your list. It privileges capital cites and smaller European cities at the expense of much larger and important cities Purplebackpack89 21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Musical groups[edit]

So far the musical groups are listed in the section People/Composers and musicians. This is a little bit confused. I think that they should be in some separated list in section Arts/Music/Musical groups. The articles about the musical bands are something different from the articles about musicians and they belong to the art section in the way the whole list is constructed. So in the part of the composers and musicians, only the most important individuals from the musical groups can be listed. What do you think about it?--MrPanyGoff 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Architecture/Specific structures and ensembles[edit]

I extended the list with „specific structures and ensembles“ in section Arts/Architecture. So far it contains 63 articles. In my view the list should reach 100 names, maybe 150.

Here's some statistics on the list of 63:

By regions

  • Europe - 37
  • Asia - 11
  • North America (USA, Canada) - 5
  • Africa - 4
  • Latin America - 3
  • Middle East - 2
  • Australia & Oceania - 1

By period (generalized)

  • ancient (before 1000) - 9
  • old (1000-1899) - 41
  • modern (1900-2010) - 13

Please, suggest some more significant buildings or architectural ensembles so that we can form the number 100 list.

--MrPanyGoff 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As with the cities list, remember to keep a global perspective. 37 structures out of 100 or 150 is a little too many for Europe; Asia needs at least 35-40, and Africa at least 15 Purplebackpack89 22:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
As with the cities list, I never forget the global perspective though, in my view, some tendency toward proportional equalization that I see here is not a good idea. We are going to clarify the number of articles about Africa or whichever region is named. Instead of numbers, I would like to ask you to give some concrete names we to discuss. So, can you suggest just one more structure or ensemble in Africa? If yes give it. Anyway, I think that 15 for Africa and 30-40 for Asia (+ Middle East) is normal. Initially, this was the general idea of numbers.
Furthermore about the proportional equalization, I wonder what is going to happen when we start extending the painters' list. You know, this so small and "insignificant" Holland compared to huge Nigeria for instance... With no doubt 30 Nigerian artists to 1 painter from the Netherlands will be some good proportion, don't you think;)? --MrPanyGoff 12:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added 9 more articles. All of them are about buildings in Asia and Africa. Now the list contains 72 names. --MrPanyGoff 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The list reached 90 articles. Statistic so far:

By regions

  • Europe - 39
  • Asia - 23 (8 in the Middle East)
  • Africa - 11
  • North America (USA, Canada) - 10
  • Latin America - 6
  • Australia & Oceania - 1

We need 10 more articles to reach the round number of 100. Still awaiting suggestions of buildings and ensembles mostly in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

--MrPanyGoff 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added 4 Chinese sites. However, I guess China is still under-represented in this list. I will add more if you guys think it appropriate.


I think this list should be split.Quangbao 06:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Corresponding list[edit]

There seems to be more work done on this list, and this one is slightly moribund, but is at over 5000. This set of projects is going to be very hard to handle, esp. with two divergent lists. i have no ideas how to make this all work better, but i will make sure the two lists are linked at some point in their ledes. I have been enjoying adding names to the one i have linked to, but may be the only one working on it.(Mercurywoodrose, not logged in) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be two separate lists. They will have much in common and it will make sense to compare them every now and then, but vital articles is for the EN-wikipedia only, stuff that might be vital for this language may not be that important globally and across different languages. The List of Articles every wikipedia should have is different, it should be as global as possible, and as soon as its done im sure it will be used to do comparisons between different wikipedias, to see how developed they are. Different languages might have different lists of vital articles, but all language versions redirect to the same list of articles each wiki should have. [2] directs some international attention here, and once this expanded 10000 list is done that will be its purpose as well. 02:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think i agree with you, and i think this is why there are 2 lists. thanks for the clarification.Mercurywoodrose 02:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Music addition ideas[edit]



Music periods:

  • Romantic music - Western music from 1828 (death of Schubert) to 1911 (death of Mahler)
  • 20th-century classical music - Western music from 1912 (It's a Long Way to Tipperary, Memphis Blues, Pierrot Lunaire, Prokofiev's 1st & 2nd piano concertos, When Irish Eyes Are Smiling) to the present

-MarsRover 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do it Purplebackpack89 06:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I already did it .. he he. The discussion page is a little too slow. I figure once we hit 10000 articles we can start debating. --MarsRover 06:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for list[edit]

We should discuss first before big deletes like this so editors do not get frustrated. How does someone tell when a someone is too minor? The main criteria for the list is "10x the details of the core list" so if this other list had 3 WW2 leaders this list would have 30 leaders, right? --MarsRover 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are still gaps so huge that the rule doesnt really hold. While the 1000-article-list doesnt have any website or web 2.0 company, i just added: # Website, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, Ebay, Amazon. Maybe a few of these should go into the 1000-article-list? I mean, a significant percentage of people on the planet are affected by these things.
Just let the list grow to 10.000, and then people will continue to have ideas, just like i found some really significant stuff thats missing, and then decide to kick out something else. As soon as it hits the limit, people will start looking for the most insignificant topics and make arguments why they are insignificant, or at least less significant than the substitute. Also, there can be diminishing returns which affect different topics differently. Once you got all professionals in sports that are or have been real global household names and covered the most popular kinds of sports, additions get more and more obscure. These diminishing returns are weaker when adding more chemical elements, or more individual countries, because all of them are arguably more important than the 182th sports professional you add. Are there any non-minor people in sports when you already have 181 of them? While we have only 10 living heads of state in the list?
Of course big deletes need to be discussed, any deletion on the list should have some argument backing it up! Also, lets first get to 10000 before starting deletions. And then we can discuss swaps, i agree that judging if something is significant enough or not is difficult, it gets much easier when you compare two things. 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I forgot, final note: When you see a removal that is not in any way discussed here, why not just undo it immediately and invite the person that edited to a discussion here? Maybe deletions shouldnt happen at all before this reaches 10000, unless its really junk, but then you should be able to explain why you think its junk. and maybe add something else instead. 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Added 15 corporations[edit]

Hey, I thought there needed to be individual corporations on this list, so I added 15 of them in a variety of areas. All are multinational, those in italics are HQed outside the US:

  • Oil-4 (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Royal Dutch Shell)
  • Computers-3 (Apple, IBM, Microsoft)
  • Banking-2 (Banks of America and China)
  • Food-2 (McDonald's, Nestle)
  • Phones-1 (AT&T)
  • Heavy Industrial/Media-1 (General Electric)
  • Personal Care-1 (Procter and Gamble)
  • Retail-1 (Walmart)

Is 15 too many? Not enough? Are there some companies you'd like to see removed? Added? Purplebackpack89 05:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey, I just finishing globalizing and adding to sports and recreation articles.

  • Sports and rec articles on the 1000 Meta: 6 rec, 14 sports
  • Sports and rec articles on this one: 22 rec, 128 sports

The sports section is almost full, as it contains almost 10x the number of entries the 1000 one does. It now has the general topics of Sport and Ball, 46 different sports disciplines, and subdisciplines and terms relating to those sports (for example, Marathon is a subdiscipline of Track and Field, Wushu is a subset of Martial arts). The list is now globalized, and contains sports popular in every corner of the globe. Almost all Olympic sports are on there, as are several former Olympic Sports, World Games sports, or sports that have wide international followings.

There is still room in recreation. The main thing I did there was expand the list of games to 15, which includes cards, dice, jacks, and marbles; the traditional games of Backgammon, Chess, Draughts/Checkers, Go, and Mancala; video games; plus the concept of board game and four specific ones representative : Pachisi (a traditional Indian game that's the basis for "cross and circle pursuit games like Ludo, Sorry, Trouble, and Aggrevation), Monopoly (world's best-selling game, and the only game with money on the list), Scrabble (word game) and Cluedo (detective/strategy/hidden card game). I think there's room for several more abstract topics relating to recreation, plus perhaps a couple of specific card or video games, and maybe add Tic-tac-toe and/or a trivia game like en:Trivial Pursuit. And maybe also add crossword and suduko to the list.

Any objections to what I have done? Any suggestions? Purplebackpack89 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Split this list[edit]

I suggest splitting this list into subpages, as made in en-wiki. The list is huge, and it is very inconvenient to edit such a big page. Any objections?--Abiyoyo 12:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I've moved.--Abiyoyo 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Do it. It's a pain in the neck to edit if you don't Purplebackpack89 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the list[edit]

I've made some changes to the list:

  • formatting, optimising structure
  • adding number of articles to section headers
  • expanded some topics, that are not culturally-dependent, basing on en-wiki.

--Abiyoyo 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Synchronizing lists[edit]

The en-wiki and meta list may differ. That can be true for culture, sports, and all the other topics, that can be somehow biased towards english-language culture in en-wiki. On the other hand, the 90% of the lists content are and have to be the same. For now english list is better - it has much more elaborated structure and more articles in it. Although there are a few topics, in which the meta list is better. Now, before both lists are complete, it is reasonable to synchronize them in order both lists to have as much proper items, as possible. After the lists are complete, they should develop independently. But now, in the preliminary stage, they have to be synchronized. Several steps should be implemented:

  1. Find duplicates in english list and correct them.
  2. Optimize structure of both lists to be as much in common, as possible.
  3. Find all the articles in meta list, that are not on en-wiki list, and add them into english list.
  4. Copy the english list into meta (with some technical changes).
  5. Delete the items in the meta-list, that are obviously english-culture biased (e.g. lots of american magazines).

It is possible, that such synchroniztion should be made several times before the lists are complete.--Abiyoyo 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds okay with me as long as we don't lose any of the current 'meta' articles. Hopefully just a cleaned-up superset would be nice. --MarsRover 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral to weak oppose current proposal, but support some of general concepts: I applaud your efforts both here and there, Abi. However, I think the 90% threshold may be too high. 60-70%, sure. 80%, maybe. The problem is that Meta and EN's missions are different enough from Meta that the lists shouldn't be a carbon copy. I also feel both lists need a stragetic cleanup. There are things in the Meta list that belong on the EN list. There are things on EN that belong on the Meta list. And I'm afraid, despite our efforts, there may be some cruft on one or more lists that doesn't belong on any list. I think both lists need a long, strategic look at what they've got, and what they need (perhaps considering what is on other languages' Vital lists). Could the two discussions be done together? Probably. Will it take awhile? Yes Purplebackpack89 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that the lists finally have to be different. Moreover, I am personally much more interested in meta list, not english one. But the fact is that the EN list draws much more attention and user efforts. Generally it would be good to just wait while both lists grow independently. But the reality is that thr EN list grows much faster and this list is neglected. What I propose is not to wait, but to take english list as a point to start from (without loosing articles from meta list of course). Finally, we'll have different lists, but what for to double the preliminary work of gathering the main content? E.g. geography section in EN list is much more better. Why to wait while someone will do the same job here on meta, if it is already made in en-wiki and will need only some fine-tuning of balance?--Abiyoyo 22:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't intend to wait. We can start the work when this thread closes, even sooner. On the other hand, I want it done properly; perhaps assess each section one by one thoughtfully. I don't think we should blindly dump all EN articles here (as I stated above, the EN list is longer, yes, but it also may contain things not even needed on it, let alone here); I think we should consider what we need, and perhaps consider things Wikipedias other than English have. French has a well-thought-out vital list, for example. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, we can discuss each section. BTW, woul you please give a link to a french list?--Abiyoyo 23:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. People. Lists are really different. Both are rather biased towards US citizens.
  2. History. English is much better and quite unbiased.
  3. Geography. English is much better and quite unbiased.
  4. Arts. English is bigger, but less to moderate biased towards english-language music and literature.
  5. Religion & philosophy. Allmost the same.
  6. Everyday life. Really differ in sports, where meta list is better.
  7. Sociey. Allmost the same.
  8. Biology. Allmost the same.
  9. Physical sciences. English is much better. This topic can not be really culturally biased.
  10. Technology. Some parts are better in EN, some here.
  11. Maths. Allmost the same.
  12. Measurement. Allmost the same.
And I absolutely agree that both lists contain lots of junk and are far from being finished.--Abiyoyo 23:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, these are 1000 lists, not 10000 lists, but I still feel much can be learned from their approaches Purplebackpack89 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotas for this list[edit]

  • I think, what we really need is quotas. It would be rather dufficult to compare notability of an actor vs. a concept in mathematics. If we have quotas, people should compare notability within a topic, not a whole list.--Abiyoyo 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The easiest way to create the quotas is look at the 1000 list and use the same proportions of each topic. --MarsRover 17:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking about. For the main topics the quotas should be counted as 1:10. But for the subtopics, the proportion should be 1:9 or 1:9.5, not 1:10, because there are some branches of knowledge, that were not notable enough for 1000 list, but are notable for this list. It's quite reasonable to give them 5-10 percent of this expanded list (e.g. anthropology). There's also a problem, that the structures of the lists are not the same, so some complicated calculations should be made.--Abiyoyo 23:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe the structure of the expanded list should be changed to comply with 1000 list?--Abiyoyo 23:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd go even higher than 5-10%...I'd maybe even go as high as 15-20%. For example, this list adds simple things like chair and toothpaste that aren't well covered in 1000 topics. I also think we may have to do it section by section. But I support the general, rough idea of quotas Purplebackpack89 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have made a preliminary table of quotas based on 1000 list. See Table. The method was the following:
    • For every section in the expanded list a correponding section in 1000 list was found
    • The 'coefficient of growth' was calculated based on decimal logarithmic function. I.e. 1 article in 1000 list 'grows' to 7 articles in the expanded list; 10 articles grow to 80; 100 grows to 900; 1,000 grows to 10,000.
    • The number of articles in 1000 list were multiplied by the found coefficient, making a rough preliminary quota suggestion.
    • The 'corrected quota ' column is reserved for quota correction, as mechanical multiplication gives sometimes strange result. It have to be corrected manually after discussion.

This is only a first step towards quota evaluation. They are rather unballanced. Now I suggest correcting the quotas in order to make the list ballanced.--Abiyoyo 12:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotas/Big Talk Part 1: People[edit]

The Meta 1000 list (which the German and Japanese Wikipedia borrow) has 204. The English Vital articles list has 123. The Spanish vital articles list has 270. The French and Chinese lists have 216 each. The English 10,000 has 2,143, but many of them are to non-notable and/or Americo-centric for this list. I think the proper amount for this list is a nice, round, 2,000; distributed in the way I suggest (actually, only 1,900 are distributed; there's 100 left over).

I am going to make a table with the various numbers each 1,000 list has; the number our 10,000 list currently has, and the number it should have (current total: 1620+25+10+20+50=1725+15+10+25+5+25+50+5=1860)

Topic Meta 1,000 En lv. 3 VA Fr 1000 Es 1000 En 10,000 Current Suggested
Actors/Actresses 4 0 4 0 221 (inc Perf) 115 100
Artist/Architects 18 11 17 1 86 77 150
Authors/Poets 31 16 31 77 (inc Phil) 190 101 225
Composers/Musicians 21 11 22 12 194 125 150
Directors/Producers 9 0 11 0 57 67 60
Entrepreneurs 0 0 NA 3 35 22 35
Explorers 12 8 11 22 30 26 100
Performing artists 0 0 0 0 w/Act 39 35
Phil/Hist/PolySci/SocSci 26 15 24 w/Auth 96 92 200
Philosophers (part of above) * * 15 * 41 38 ??
Historians (part of above) * * * * 10 10 ??
Social scientists (part of above) * * 9 * 16 15 ??
Psychologists (part of above) * * * * 29 29 ??
Religious figures 10 11 124 37 125
Political/military leaders 39 22 46 104 449 98 300
Current political leaders (part of above) * * 8 21 * 12 ??
Revolutionaries and activists W/Pol W/Pol 1 7 35 18 25
Sci/Invent/Math 34 30 22 22 189 198 225
Journalists W/Auth W/Auth W/Auth w/Auth 35 42 30
Sports figures 0 0 0 18 262 180 110
Myth/Legend 0 0 0 0 90 29 15
Fictional/cartoon 0 0 0 0 w/Myth 19 15

Right now, my total adds up to 1,900; you can allocate the remaining 100 (or haggle over the first 1,900) any way you wish. Note that most areas will add people; but a few will cut people (especially in the fictional characters realm). Remember, you still have 100 to play around with! Purplebackpack89 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  • 2000 sounds OK. I would cut explorers (100 is to much for a rather narrow topic) to ≈30, actors to ≈50 (giving actors half of the ammount reserved for scientists is too populistic imho), sportsmen also to ≈50 for the same reason. Increase scientists to 300 and social scientists/philo to 350. In humanities personal is much more important, than in physical science. That will leave us 55 articles more - they can be distributed elsewhere.--Abiyoyo 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I notice you cut actors, but not other performers? Maybe actors to 60 (+10) and performers down to 25 (-10). Also, you wanna start making suggestions on who to cut? Purplebackpack89 00:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree on actors/performers numbers. Though i'm not ready to make any specific suggestions on which actors should be removed - i don't think i'm capable enough to do this.--Abiyoyo 11:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


We seem to be deciding to cut actors to 60. I think the list should include 25 or so Americans, and the rest from around the world. Abiyoyo, the other person on this revamp, above says he's not qualified to make it to 60. Maybe I could get him to find lists of important foreign actors, and then maybe we can figure out what actors belong. I think the list will need several Bollywood actor/actress, several English actor/actress, several French actor/actress, and at least one actor/actress each from Eastern Europe, Japan and China Purplebackpack89 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass media - newspapers[edit]

The page currently suggests that every Wikipedia should have The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Two other named newspapers appear: The (London) Times and Le Monde (France). Three US newspapers as 'must-haves' seems overkill to me, albeit I'm sure it would be painful to choose just one. I wonder whether any named newspapers need be there, really. I confess I would be sad to see The Times go but then I'm born and raised in the UK, so I would, wouldn't I? --Bodnotbod 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We've got the space, so why don't we delete the Washington Post and add six non-American, non-French and non-British rags for a total of ten? Purplebackpack89 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the Washington Post, isn't in the same level as the NYT or WSJ. With the four remaining Der Spiegel is the only other paper I think of as a major paper of record on an international level (though we might include the Times of India for example simply for its effect on its internal market). We should also have an article for "Wire service," though I'm not certain that that three main ones each merit their own article. And I think we should include The Economist; it's not a national newspaper of record, but it's pervasive and influential to a degree I'm not certain is true even of the WSJ.
As things stand in the proposal, we have a proposed quota of 40 mass media articles, and I think we can afford to nominate a few more individual publications or companies, including non-newspapers. Going beyond strictly print, I think we absolutely need to have Al-Jazeera, Xinhua, and the BBC. I will also nominate National Geographic, which is ubiquitous everywhere I've traveled, far more so than any other periodical I've seen, save possibly The Economist. --Quintucket 07:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Back to basics: a newspaper needs to be longstanding for it to be notable over all our wikis. Here the Times is unsurpassed (founded in 1785) and even the Washington Post is impressive (1875). Le Figaro, founded 1826, is an obvious candidate. One reason for having several U.S. newspapers is the general nature of their press as having no national newspapers. I have to say the Wall Street Journal does not leap to mind as one of three US newspapers; I would have thought San Francisco Chronicle (founded 1865 under a different name). Germany is a problem, because all their present-day leading newspapers were founded 1945 or later. This is understandable, of course, but means they do not have such a desirable historical scope. It's not enough, really, for a newspaper to have millions of readers if its historical influence is negligible. Top newspapers have influenced events, sometimes in a major way. How about Pravda? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What about more scientific journals such as Nature? newspapers are around now for 300-400 years? 60 years (and still ongoing seems to me as it could be relevant) So I wouldn't want to say that all the papers should be at least 100 years old or something, it should just be the most influential ones over time, with a currently still running one having a higher chance to achieve that same level in the future. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your point about still ongoing. Scientific journals are obviously not mass media, and it's difficult to see where they could go except for the overall Science section. The oldest continuing publication is the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1665), which is now split into A and B series. The oldest weekly science journal is indeed Nature (1869). It seems to me quite ludicrous to propose 89 constellations and leave out science journals entirely. In addition to the two mentioned, I would include Science, PNAS, and one journal each from France (Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, 1666) and Germany. The importance of journal publication to the growth of science cannot be overstated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Physics and chemistry[edit]

I see that physics is below the adjusted quota. Some possible additions are: en:laser, en:free-electron laser, en:synchrotron, en:synchrotron radiation.

Analytical chemistry is missing techniques that are more popular than en:Absorption spectroscopy. For example, en:Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. --Racepacket on Simple English 4 January 2012.

Sport personnel[edit]

This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory section at present. It is overwhelmingly biased towards sports popular in the United States, and biased also in favour of players from the later 20th century. Some very significant sports are absent, or almost so. Cricket? Soccer (Association football)? Rugby? Snooker?... The coverage of golf and tennis, on the other hand is overdone; has too many recent champions, and leaves out some who were crucial to the early development of the sport. I'm going to stick some names in! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"Thoroughly unsatisfactory" is a polite phrase considering this mess! There are about 90% Americans (and I'm not even overestimating), many of them participating in sports few people outside of the US care about. Even I as a basketball fan wouldn't have figured that anyone could think of "Jerry Lucas" as a serious answer to the question which articles every Wikipedia should have. And the rest seems to be an awkward attempt by someone not very familiar with the related sports to "fix" this bias. For starters, why is Gerd Müller included, but not Franz Beckenbauer? The probable answer is: Because he was the one to score the goals, representing a pretty limit view on what happens on a football pitch. -- 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Vladimar Vystorsky[edit]

There is no article en:Vladimar Vystorsky. What is meant? en:Vladimir Vysotsky? --Wikijens (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It was misspelled somewhere. But I think it should be en:Vladimir Vysotsky. --MarsRover 16:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


en:Voodoo is a disambiguation page. I assume either en:West African Vodun or en:Haitian Vodou should be in the list. --Wikijens (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

btw, it was discussed in the smaller list Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2008#Bad Voodoo entry. There are 3 possibilities. --MarsRover 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Author/Poet[edit]

I added these four Eastern Author in the Author list

  1. Amir Khusro
  2. Ghalib
  3. Rabindranath Tagore
  4. Saadi (poet)

(ذیشان امجد (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

Cities, World Heritage Sites[edit]

All cities have population over 2,000,000 Should add to the list. See the List of urban areas by population. The majority of World Heritage Sites Should add to the list.--Zhangzhugang (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a lot of world heritage sights to the english WP version of this list. thats a very good idea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Measurement Quota[edit]

I suggest that 35 articles be allocated from the Mathematics section to the Measurement section. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Measurements is already full of redundant entries. Look at some actual articles for "Kilowatt", "Megawatt" and "Gigawatt". There are really just one or two sentences long explaining it just a multiple of "Watt". --MarsRover 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
So, I assume it is not an issue to remove the "redundant" entries. I have made a proposal in the list, bringing back the number from 83 to 67.--Joopwiki (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The list is in so much need of improvement, so I don't think it's neccesary to make proposals. Just be bold and do the changes you think are improvements, and start a discussion if they are reverted. Boivie (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Done.--Joopwiki (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Music section is messed up[edit]

Even with the 150 musicians, "Rob Halford" doesn't really need to be there. The whole section is skewed toward heavy metal. 20% of all music is not rock or metal. Need to break it up into musical genres, then pick the better. We don't need Queen and all the members in Queen. Pink Floyd and the people in that band, too. I'll try to fix this up when I have some time. -MarsRover 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To improve the list as you said, I replaced Halford with Dufay; also Renaissance music should be represented.--Nickanc (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we should remove the following people:
  • John Barry (relatively minor movie composer; we already have several)
  • Ritchie Blackmore (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Joe Cocker (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Phil Collins (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Alice Cooper (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Adolph Deutsch (relatively minor movie composer; we already have several)
  • Bruce Dickinson (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Ronnie James Dio (member of Black Sabbath; we have them)
  • Peter Gabriel (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Ian Gillan (cut bloat of rockers)
  • David Gilmour (member of Pink Floyd; we have them)
  • Steve Harris (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Ken Hensley (cut bloat of rockers)
  • James Hetfield (member of Metallica; we have them)
  • Glenn Hughes (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Tony Iommi (member of Black Sabbath; we have them)
  • Alan Jackson (we don't need him)
  • Mick Jagger (member of the Rolling Stones; we have them)
  • Jon Lord (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Brian May (member of Queen; we have them)
  • Freddy Mercury (member of Queen; we have them)
  • Barbara Mandrell (cut bloat of country)
  • Ronnie Milsap (cut bloat of country)
  • Gary Moore (cut bloat of rockers)
  • Ozzy Osbourne (member of Black Sabbath; we have them)
  • Jimmy Page (member of Led Zeppelin; we have them)
  • Alan Parsons (we have the Beatles and Pink Floyd)
  • Robert Plant (member of Led Zeppelin; we have them)
  • Keith Richards (member of the Rolling Stones; we have them)
  • Linda Ronstadt (not high-profile enough for this list)
  • Stevie Ray Vaughan (not high-profile enough for this list)
  • Roger Waters (member of Pink Floyd; we have them)
  • Angus Young (member of AC/DC; we have them)
And add the following people, to correct certain omissions:
  • Guillaume de Machaut (Medieval/Renaissance)
  • Josquin des Prez (Medieval/Renaissance)
  • Aaron Copland (American classical composer)
  • Stephen Foster (19th c. American popular composer)
  • Sergei Rachmaninoff (Russian/Soviet composer)
  • Celia Cruz (latin music)
  • João Gilberto (latin music)

You may notice that nearly all being removed are American or British rock or country singers (I think I counted six or seven of the band Deep Purple alone). If we feel we don't have enough musicians after these cuts, I'd be open to suggestions Purplebackpack89 03:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those are good removals. You did remove more than you added. Maybe we should be beef actual musical works which only total 10. --MarsRover 07:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

--Sunpriat (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like good changes. Boivie (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Listing criteria[edit]

I recently noticed under Society Educational Institutions that the entry for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in this list has been substituted with Johns Hopkins on wiki. Was there criteria for adding these articles in the first place? Should the Johns Hopkins entry be challenged? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for this list is as far as I know only being among the 10000 most important topics for Wikipedias in every language. The list at enwiki is for the 10000 most vital articles in the English language Wikipedia. The change you're writing about was preceded by discussions there. For this list at meta we unfortunately don't have so many contributors yet, so everyone who is interested in helping can freely make the changes they think are improvement. And I believe it has been that way since the list was created. Boivie (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


In enwiki en:graveyard finally was merged with en:cemetery, so we can replace "graveyard" for something else and leave only "cemetery". ~Sunpriat (обс) 06:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this list should include the 10000 most important topics (wikidata items), not the 10000 most important articles at enwiki. So a change at enwiki should not automatically mean that a change is needed here. On the other hand we would probably not need both "graveyard" and "cemetery" in this list. Boivie (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "graveyard" - the English word and not used in whole world; only 3 wikidata interwiki. If English native speakers can't divide this words to a separate article and consider them synonymous, than how can we write this article...~Sunpriat (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted graveyard from the list. Not because of what happened at en:wiki but because it was practically a double entry. --Santac (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


In the list of cities, one of the articles is Melekeok, which is the name of a state in Palau. I guess this is in the list because the capital of Palau, Ngerulmud, is inside this state, but why isn't Ngerulmud itself found in the list? Mbkv717 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


Since I find the main page difficult to read (maybe a browser problem) I failed to note that the list is full (has reached 10000) when I added a few pages under People and Geography yesterday. I wouldn't want to exceed the aim. I will therefore suggest a few deletions to match. I mentioned those additions of mine on the sub-talkpages, but maybe it is now better to discuss changes on this page? I'm not sure :) Andrew Dalby (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the following deletions under the heading "People". My impression is that in this area we need to reduce the emphasis on males, Anglo-Americans, Greece and Rome. So:
I'll suggest some under "Geography" later. Andrew Dalby (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Great that you're helping with improving this list! I don't think you need to suggest changes on talk pages before making them in the list. I think it's enough to discuss only if someone is reverting the changes. Boivie (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply, I am making those deletions now. I also took out en:Livius Andronicus. He would be important maybe if his work survived. Since his writings are lost, he is only known to specialists. If anyone disagrees I am happy to discuss. Andrew Dalby (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Under "Geography" I don't think our list has any Anglocentric bias, but I think that sometimes big things were included because they were big, rather than because they have great importance to humanity. So I am going to remove the following bodies-of-water that don't have any unusual cultural, historical or environmental importance (so far as can be judged from Wikipedia articles).

Again, please discuss if anyone thinks I'm wrong. Andrew Dalby (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

some more technology entries[edit]

I think the following should be added (but the quota of technology is full):

--° (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with Unicode, and an extended article on that will mention UTF-8, ISO 8859, and probably ASCII. I'd propose removing JavaScript, Ada, or "booting" (given that we have "operating system"). Actually, I'd propose replacing one of the minor languages (JavaScript, Ada, PHP, Python) with Algol for historical reasons; the Algol 60 Report is seminal and underlies a whole bunch of similar languages (like Ada etc, but also C, Pascal, Perl -- roughly, darn near everything except Fortran, COBOL, LISP, and APL). A. Mahoney (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Transportation section[edit]

I had been bold and replaced the long list of arbitrarily selected car manufacturers and models with more important topics in transportation. It was difficult to think of so many, so I also reduced the size of this section by 5, putting additional 5 topics in the section Space technology. Further improvements to my selection are of course welcome. — Yerpo Eh? 07:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

suggestions for articles that need to be added[edit]

I have the following suggestions for articles that need to be added:

  1. Deutsches Museum: the world's largest museum of science and technology
  2. Germanisches Nationalmuseum: one of the largest museum of cultural history on world, the biggest museum of cultural history in Central Europe
  3. Carnival: global event with a long tradition
  4. Stab-in-the-back myth: were Social Democrats and Jews to blame for the defeat in the First World War, helped the Nazis crucial to the rise
  5. 20 July plot: is the most significant attempt to overthrow the military resistance during the Second World War

For multiple items from the "Museum" will be removed because there are too many with respect to the United States. Generally there are in the expanded list too many items with respect to the United States, too few with respect to other areas, even Europe! -- 10:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Carnival exists in the Culture section of the Society and social sciences. I don't know much about the areas of the other suggestions, but please, do the changes you think are improvements. The more people who help with this list, the better it will become. Boivie (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I see now that Carnival was added (by you?) while I was writing this. Boivie (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre are now both in the list of Authors/Poets and in the list of Philosophers. I think each should be only once in the list, but I don't know what the best places for those two are. Boivie (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think they are more philosophers than authors--Cavaliere grande (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Now Orson Welles is both in the Actor and the Director section. Boivie (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actors / Actresses[edit]

There are too many actors present, we should remove some of theme and replace them with artists. This would also fit better the quotas.--Cavaliere grande (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove Egyptian Dynasties & Germanic Wars[edit]

I think Egyptian Dynasties & Germanic Wars can be removed. Daiquping (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas of what to add instead? Boivie (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea... Daiquping (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


I've added pharmacy, which deserve more entries.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Solar Nebula & Nebular hypothesis[edit]

Having different names and objects (model and hypothesis about this model, respectively), both share the same subject (history of the Nebular hypothesis and Solar system evolution from its perspective). It can or cannot be considered as forks or even merged, but including both in this list is obviously redundant. Александр Крайнов (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Computer Scientists" leaves out Bill Joy, a major oversight[edit]

Under "1.14 Scientists, inventors and mathematicians, 277" subheading "Computer Scientists," Bill Joy is not on the list, a major oversight, since his contributions to software engineering are legendary: BSD Unix and the Java programming language, for instance. He's also a co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Quoting from the Wikipedia article about him <> "In 1986, Joy was awarded a Grace Murray Hopper Award by the ACM for his work on the Berkeley UNIX Operating System.... In 2011, he was inducted as a Fellow of the Computer History Museum for his work on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) Unix system and the co-founding of Sun Microsystems.[7]"

I'd add his name myself, but the procedure is obscure to me. --Wikifan2744 (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"abduction" under "law"[edit]

At some point over the summer the legal concept of "abduction" (= kidnapping) was changed to "alien abduction," the idea that people may be taken by extra-terrestrials, non-human aliens. Clearly that's a mistake, so I've fixed it; "alien abduction" may not belong on this list at all, but if it does, it should be under "esoterics" (in the "religion" section). I think the entry on "extraterrestrial life," already present under "astronomy," sufficiently covers it, though. A. Mahoney (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I note my change has been reverted with no explanation. Alien abduction clearly does not belong under "law" in this list; abduction or kidnapping does, and is certainly the intended article. If "alien abduction" is considered a suitable topic, it needs to go somewhere else; is there consensus that this is more important than the abduction of humans by fellow humans? A. Mahoney (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The page you're linking to is a disambiguation page. I don't think we should have disambiguation pages in this list. The entry has since been changed to kidnapping. Boivie (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

add Censorship[edit]

en:Censorship is't in list! It's very important theme. --Pessimist (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Medicine and Disease rewrite[edit]

I propose full rewrite of Medicine anf Disease sections:

  1. to move all diseases from Medicine to Diseases (f.e. Injury section, Aneurism, Myocardial infarction...);
  2. to sort out all diseases to sections according to w:ICD-10 (section names can or cannot be wikified);
  3. some minor changes to retain important articles already in list.

--Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I'm glad you are willing to improve those sections.
In the list of 1000 articles, four new articles have been added, that probably also should be added to this list:
  1. nerve
  2. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  3. epilepsy
  4. Gastroenteritis Viral
Would you consider them in your rewrite? Boivie (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Nerve is obviously an anatomic item, the next three could be added... instead of what? Epilepsy is the most important of three, should be in the list. Can cut cancer types to 3-4 types. Based on data from w:en:Epidemiology of cancer, the most important cancers are prostate cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer (highest mortality and occurence), breast cancer (highest occurence). COPD and Gastroenteritis are confusing me. Foodborne illness covers much wider and much common illnesses than Gastroenteritis Viral. Ulcer (both skin and peptic) seems more common than COPD and has no cover at all. Ok, I mark changes: Ulcer and three more articles from the list of 1000 added, four cut out. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems like noone is opposing your suggestions, so please go ahead and change the list. Most of us have been bold and changed without previous discussions. And there is still lots of room for improvements of the list, and few that are willing to help, so I don't think previous discussions should be required. Boivie (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes[edit]

(Just sorted already present articles. You can see, how many disease classes are not in list)

Medicine, 76[edit]

See also "Biology" for e.g. anatomy

General concepts, 32[edit]

  1. Medicine
    1. Health care
  2. Physicians and other professionals
    1. General practitioner
    2. Nursing
    3. Surgeon
  3. Anesthesia
  4. Chemotherapy
  5. Hospital
  6. Medical diagnosis
  7. Organ transplantation
  8. Palliative care
  9. Radiation therapy
  10. Surgery
  11. Artificial organ
  12. Pandemic
  13. Physical examination
    1. Autopsy
    2. Biopsy
    3. Blood pressure
    4. Blood test
    5. DNA profiling
    6. Electrocardiography
    7. Endoscopy
    8. Eye examination
    9. Lumbar puncture
    10. Magnetic resonance imaging
    11. Pap test
    12. Pulse
    13. Radiology
    14. Reflex
    15. Urinalysis

Fields of medicine, 44[edit]

  1. Alternative medicine
    1. Acupuncture
    2. Chiropractic
    3. Herbalism
    4. Holistic health
    5. Homeopathy
    6. Naturopathy
    7. Osteopathy
  2. Angiology
  3. Cardiology
  4. Dentistry
    1. Dental caries
    2. Dental restoration
    3. Root canal
    4. Toothache
  5. Dermatology
  6. Dietitian
  7. Gastroenterology
  8. Geriatrics
  9. Hematology
  10. Immunology
  11. Neurology
  12. Obstetrics and gynaecology
  13. Oncology
  14. Ophthalmology
  15. Otolaryngology
  16. Pediatrics
  17. Pharmacy
    1. Pharmaceutical drug
    2. Pharmacist
    3. Prescription drug
  18. Pharmacology
    1. Pharmacokinetics
    2. Antibacterial
    3. Penicillin
  19. Psychiatry
  20. Pulmonology
  21. Reproductive health
  22. Toxicology
  23. Traditional medicine
  24. Traumatology
  25. Urology
  26. Vaccination
    1. Vaccine

Disease, 123[edit]

General illnesses, 15 16[edit]

  1. Bleeding
  2. Brain damage
  3. Disability
  4. Foodborne illness
  5. Hypoxia (medical)
  6. Infectious disease
    1. Sexually transmitted disease
  7. Inflammation
  8. Injury
  9. Mental disorder
  10. ParalysisNEW!
  11. Poison
    1. Pathogen
    2. Toxin
  12. Severe acute respiratory syndrome
  13. UlcerNEW!
  14. Syndrome

Disease, 108[edit]

  1. Disease
Infection, 35
  1. AIDS
  2. Anthrax
  3. Botulism
  4. Bubonic plague
  5. Chickenpox
  6. Cholera
  7. Common cold
  8. Dengue fever
  9. Diphtheria
  10. Dysentery
  11. Encephalitis
  12. Ebola virus disease
  13. Gonorrhea
  14. Hand, foot and mouth disease
  15. Herpes simplex
  16. Leprosy
  17. Lyme disease
  18. Malaria
  19. Measles
  20. Mumps
  21. Pertussis (Whooping Cough)
  22. Poliomyelitis
  23. Rabies
  24. Salmonellosis (chaged from d:Q150839)
  25. Scabies
  26. Scarlet fever
  27. Smallpox
  28. Syphilis
  29. Tetanus
  30. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
  31. Tuberculosis
  32. Typhoid fever
  33. Typhus
  34. West Nile fever (changed from d:Q158856)
  35. Yellow fever
Neoplasms 11 8
  1. Cancer
    1. Breast cancer
    2. Colorectal cancer
    3. Leukemia
    4. Lung cancer
    5. Lymphoma
    6. Prostate cancer
    7. Skin cancer
      1. Melanoma
    8. Tumor
      1. Brain tumor
Blood disease, 0
Endocrine diseas, 1
  1. Diabetes mellitus
Mental disease, 9
  1. Autism
  2. Bipolar disorder
  3. Major depressive disorder
  4. Mental retardation
  5. Neurosis
  6. Posttraumatic stress disorder
  7. Psychosis
    1. Delusion
  8. Schizophrenia
Diseases of the nervous system, 5 6
  1. Alzheimer's disease
  2. Dementia
  3. EpilepsyNEW!
  4. Meningitis
  5. Multiple sclerosis
  6. Parkinson's disease
Eye disease, 2
  1. Blindness
  2. Color blindness
Ear Diseases of the ear and mastoid process, 1
  1. Deafness
Diseases of the circulatory system, 6
  1. Aneurysm
  2. Cardiac arrest
  3. Heart disease
  4. Hypertension
  5. Myocardial infarction
  6. Stroke
Diseases of the respiratory system, 6
  1. Asthma
  2. Bronchitis
  3. Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseNEW!
  4. Influenza
    1. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1
  5. Pneumonia
  6. Respiratory failure
Diseases of the digestive system, 2 3
  1. Cirrhosis
  2. Gastroenteritis ViralNEW!
  3. Hepatitis
Skin disease, 0
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, 0
Diseases of the genitourinary system, 0
Congenital malformations, 1
  1. Down syndrome
Symptoms, 6
  1. Coma
    1. Persistent vegetative state
  2. Gangrene
  3. Hallucination
  4. Headache
  5. Shock (circulatory)
Injury, poisoning, 7
  1. Allergy
  2. Bone fracture
  3. Bruise
  4. Burn
  5. Frostbite
  6. Mushroom poisoning
  7. Wound

Epic: which of 3 items?[edit]

I agree that "epic" is an important topic (under Arts), but there are 3 overlapping Wikidata items here: d:Q37484, which is the Epic poetry article in :en and de:Epos in :de; d:Q2367164, which is Epic (genre) in :en and doesn't have an article in :de; and d:Q1097273, which doesn't have an article in :en but is Epik in :de and Poësis epica in :la, where I noticed the discrepancy. Which one do we want? A. Mahoney (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Victor Kovalenko[edit]

The best! Khodakov Pavel (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

how can we see ?[edit]

How can we see the current situvation of malayalam wikipedia and other wikipedias in List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded?(stubs,long article etc)--AJITH MS (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by expanded sample of articles? Boivie (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

winkThanks!--AJITH MS (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


I guess we should replace E.Bloch by Hannah Arendt in the list (we have already included Adorno, Buber and Benjamin (and Fromm) here. Bloch is an original thinker but not a unique one. See: Benjamin) since she had an enormous impact on political theory and she surely is one of key political thinkers of the past century. She`ll be 3d in the section with Butler and Gramsci. Any objections? Ouaf-ouaf2010 (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Done Ouaf-ouaf2010 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


In List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/Arts, Art(d:Q735) should be changed to The arts(d:Q2018526). Art also be included as a part of "Visual art" section. Is there any candidate to delete?? -- ChongDae (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Astromony verses Astrology[edit]


Anthropology, psychology and everyday life[edit]

Hello, we have a one problem with this category. 813 articles instead of 800. Special:Diff/15921584/17536779. Iniquity (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with User:Iniquity that this is a problem. User:D1gggg added 13 fruits and vegetables after a dispute on Wikidata about objects for species and objects for fruits. In this list we generally have had items connected to species, since that's how most of the Wikipedias have structured their info. I spent an hour trying to find the 13 best (least good) items to remove from the "Cooking, food and drink" part of the list, and removed items that didn't have so many iw-links to Wikipedias. Apparently User:D1gggg didn't think I review that edit carefully enough (how many hours do I need to spend for one edit?), so my edit was undone. So this is basically a Wikidata dispute that has spilled over here, and I don't know how to solve it. Boivie (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata item Q89 is about fruit(s) is about both
@Boivie and Iniquity: it is absolutely wrong to mix them in Wikidata. Wikipedia(s) can do whatever.
Q89 should be culinary item, not botanical. D1gggg (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Replace en:Myspace with en:RT (TV network)[edit]

Myspace is no longer popular, and RT is currently the most popular television news network in the Arab world and Latin America, which is unusual since its headquarter is in Moscow, and it successfully challenges the Western media hegemony, meaning that for small Wikipedias the latter is more vital than the former. Myspace should be replaced by RT.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with removing "Myspace" for something better. But I really doubt RT is "most popular television news network in the Arab world and Latin America". The most popular television network in Russia is en:Russia-1 which seems a better choice that RT. Or if we are swapping social media platform for social media platform en:Instragram (or just about any Chinese social media) is more popular than anything in the current list. --MarsRover 07:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
After skimming the lede of the English Wikipedia article on Myspace I changed my mind, since although Myspace is becoming less and less popular, it was not only once the most largest social networking site on earth and once the most popular website (exceeding Google) in America, but also influenced pop culture and music substantially. I now argue that MS-13 should be removed instead, since it is vital only for people living in America, Canada, Mexico and Central America, the list is meant to list 10,000 articles which every Wikipedia should have and make them featured, and the English equivalent list does not contain MS-13 at all, meaning for many smaller Wikipedias it is even less vital. Besides, I think that many more NGOs should be removed from the list, since it seems to me that they are less vital than marines and submachine gun, and English Wikipedia does not contain them at all. Regarding RT, although I forgot the source which claims that RT Arabic is now the most popular TV news channel in the Arab world and RT Spanish is now the most popular one in Latin America, RT indeed successfully challenges Western media hegemony (cf. [3]), and of all news media RT's Youtube channel is the most subscribed one, thus RT is more vital than Russia-1.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC) changed "marine corps" to "marines" 18:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think historical importance is a good justification for Myspace. It is dead now but it was once king of social media. I think judging relative important is a lot easier when finding and replacing entries in the same category. For example, MS-13 is much more important than Tom and Jerry. Not arguing for either but it is much easier to compare entries in the same topic. --MarsRover 10:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
MarsRover, you mean you don't argue for keeping MS-13?--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC) added "MarsRover, " 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am arguing to keep MS-13 just because RT is a Media topic and MS-13 is an Organization topic. IMHO, we should remove from the same section that we add to so the quotas stay the same. If you want, you can always propose to add another organization and remove another media topic if you really want to add RT and remove MS-13. --MarsRover 03:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Musicians and composers: not representative[edit]

The list of composers is very heavily lopsided towards the "romantic" epoch. If you really want to include people like Bruckner (didnt like his own works and kept aimlessly rewriting them), Smetana (important for Czech music, but worldwide? same with Sibelius for Finland, 20th c.), Liszt (superficially virtuosic) or Mussorgsky (had no idea of orchestration) -- then the absence of some of the greatest masters from earlier epochs cannot be excused. The following additions would still result in a very narrow selection that does not remove the imbalance:

On the other hand, some quite unknown composers could be weeded out, in addition to some less important romantic ones. I consider myself as more-than-average interested in classical music, but never in my life have I even heard the names of: César Cui, Harold Arlen, Joe Hisaishi. Alan Parsons is someone capable of assembling sound effects but hardly a "composer". --Alazon (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please help improve the selection. Add those you think should be in the list, and remove those that shouldn't. Boivie (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


I find a bit strange the selection of Directors: I think the significance and influence of Danny Boyle, Ron Howard, Andrei Konchalovsky or Lewis Milestone is quite lesser than Luis Buñuel, Dziga Vertov, Andrei Tarkovsky or specially Georges Méliès. Also: Jean-Jacques Annaud, Roberto Benigni or Robert Redford over François Truffaut, Zhang Yimou ou Stanley Donen?--Jglamela (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please help improve the selection. Add those you think should be in the list, and remove those that shouldn't. Boivie (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree about Buñuel in particular, though I'd probably keep Truffaut. Any of the ones you propos dropping seems OK to me. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Foundations of mathematics[edit]

It is strange, that "en:Foundations of mathematics" is absent.--SEA99 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I would include this issue instead of «Four color theorem». LGB (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Length that is more physical can be excluded (exists Distance).--SEA99 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I like adding en:Foundations of mathematics but I'd take out Arithmetic mean (as we already have "mean" in general) or Russell's paradox (interesting, and seminal, but no longer all that important) or Multiplication table (as we have "multiplication"). A. Mahoney (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please help improve the selection. Add those you think should be in the list, and remove those that shouldn't. Boivie (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's vote for article to exclude. I vote for Length or Russell's paradox.--SEA99 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The Russian article about Foundations of mathematics is written awfully (see my comments at the talk page). I would suggest to the Russian participants of Wikipedia who initiate these replacements to improve it, before starting this discussion. Eozhik (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Article count[edit]

The non-analyzed Wikipedias at the bottom of the List of Wikipedias by expanded sample of articles apparently miss only 9992 articles instead of 10.000. Categories of most other Wikipedias also add up to 9992, except some (e.g. 9987 for :bnwiki at 60th place). Should I come up with 8 topics to add? — Yerpo Eh? 11:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that there is an error in the script. When I count the articles (with another script) I get 10001 items. When I run the list-of-wikipedias-script I got error messages like: "Q16 has no wikidata item", and the same error for Q4628, Q1011, Q26988, Q1410, Q1009, Q79, Q16635, and Q1246. All those nine Wikidata items exist, and have lots of links to Wikipedias. 10001-9=9992. Unfortunately I don't have time to investigate and fix the error. In today's run there was a tenth item that also couldn't be reached: Q1027. Boivie (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Should we attempt to fix the 10001 items? We should have 10000. The extra one is in Society and social sciences, Business and economics, Companies, where there are 20 items but listed as "19". ネイ (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead to remove one company. Let me know if there are any concerns and we can discuss and see what we can do. ネイ (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any difference?[edit]

It seems to me that articles linked to Wikidata elements d:Q51614 (Anatolia) and d:Q12824780 (Asia Minor) in most cases describe the same entity, with very little Wikipedias having articles in both. Let me for example quote the lead from en:Anatolia: "Anatolia (from Greek Ἀνατολή Anatolḗ; Turkish: Anadolu "east" or "[sun]rise"), also known as Asia Minor (Medieval and Modern Greek: Μικρά Ἀσία Mikrá Asía, "small Asia"; Turkish: Küçük Asya), Asian Turkey, the Anatolian peninsula, or the Anatolian plateau..." I believe thus, that most of the articles should be linked to one of the two, keeping exceptions (like be:Анатолія) in the other. --Deinocheirus (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the Mathematics and Sports list[edit]

There were some massive changes made in the Mathematics and Sports lists (5 and 6 items replaced correspondingly). I doubted the value of these changes and reverted the changes. Now we have discussions open around both lists and I invite all interested editors to join them. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

1K-Article/10K-Article Section Incongruities[edit]

I've noticed quite a few incongruities between this list's sections and the 1000-article one's. Some sections have different names, some have changed location, some have split and recombined with other sections, etc. What should we do about the section differences? --Megaskizzen (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sections are mostly for easier browsing (=inconsequential), so I wouldn't worry too much about the differences. But you can give an example or two that you find confusing, and we can discuss. — Yerpo Eh? 05:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
In hindsight, I probably should've started this topic on the 1K list because this list seems to have the more sensible ordering. I'm gonna make myself a list of differences and resume the discussion over there, if that sounds better. --Megaskizzen (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Conform to style guide?[edit]

Because this list is in English, and because it is about Wikipedia content, and because it is a list, I think it makes sense to follow the English Wikipedia's MoS, particularly the section on lists. I've already started drafting a reformatted version of the page, but won't make changes without input. I'd like to highlight a few changes that may result from following the style guide.

Ordered to bulleted lists: Numbered lists should only be used when there's a need to refer to the elements by number, the sequence is critical, or if the numbering has some independent meaning. I don't know of any need to refer to these articles by number, so I doubt that there needs to be an ordered list. If there is some reason to keep these lists ordered, tell me.

Article order: Lists should all be alphabetized unless some other order makes more sense. For example, it makes the most sense to list chemical elements by atomic number or to list solar system bodies by distance from the Sun. This will be straightforward to fix, though tedious.

Personal names: Lists of personal names should be ordered by surname or family name. The list of people is largely sorted, but largely by last name as opposed to surname. This is a problem for names which list surnames first. Furthermore, I believe names should be formatted with respect to their language on a case-by-case basis.

Lead explanation: The introductory material for lists should explain non-obvious characteristics of the list. As far as I can tell, it is unexplained why some items are in bold (I assume this is for which items are in the 1K list, in which case it should be updated) or why some items have an asterisk. These should be addressed in the lead.

Wikidata naming: Another formatting change that I believe should be made, though not in the style guide, is to match an article's title as it appears here to the title shown first in the article's corresponding Wikidata article.

These changes will not alter which articles are included nor which section they appear in. The first change I'm working on is to alphabetize/organize the list. These are some big changes I'm proposing, so I'd like to discuss them before actually making any public change. Let me know what you think, or how you'd format the list. --Megaskizzen (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)