Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded

Archives

---

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024

Add Pontius Pilate, remove Charles Spurgeon

Pontius Pilate is incomparably more globally significant, while Charles Spurgeon's significance is much more local and known primarily by Baptists.

Yes, Pontius Pilate is notorious. However, this notoriety does not negate his colossal level of significance. Pontius Pilate became the hero of a huge number of literary works. He has been very often depicted in fine art since the Middle Ages. According to English Wikipedia: Pilate plays a major role in the medieval passion play. He is frequently depicted as a more important character to the narrative than even Jesus.[Hourihane, Colum (2009). Pontius Pilate, Anti-Semitism, and the Passion in Medieval Art.] His personality attracts the attention of theologians and religious scholars.

Moreover, among the notorious characters, he is even somewhat ahead of Judas Iscariot and significantly ahead of Herod the Great and Herod Antipas in terms of the number of language sections. By the way, his "notoriety" is not so unambiguous - for example, in the Ethiopian and Coptic churches, Pilate is not considered a negative character. Thus, Pilate is a very important figure even in the question of the differences between different branches of Christianity in his interpretation.--Reprarina (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support - Way more relevant. Theklan (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Not sure about adding another Christianity topic -- Cataleirxs (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Both themes are Christian, but Pontius Pilate is more basic. I think the most basic Christian themes should be on the list. Reprarina (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Xefon (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Done There is some consensus. Reprarina (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Cai Lun, remove Pappus of Alexandria

The list of ancient scientists is unjustifiably Hellenocentric, despite China's colossal contribution to ancient science. I propose excluding the outsider in terms of the number of language sections among the Greek scientists (50), Pappus of Alexandria, and adding the Chinese inventor of cellulose-containing paper, who have significantly more language sections (68).--Reprarina (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Value (economics), remove Moral hazard

The concept of value in economics is considered more fundamental, as it forms the basis for understanding how people assign worth to goods and services based on their utility or usefulness. Moral hazard, on the other hand, is a specific economic term that refers to the phenomenon where individuals or entities may take greater risks if they are shielded from their potential consequences, such as when insurance policies protect individuals from the full consequences of their actions, leading to increased riskier behavior. So, value is a more fundamental concept in economics.--Reprarina (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Cataleirxs (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Anna Politkovskaya, remove John Stossel

The Anglocentrism of the journalists' list has crossed all imaginable limits. Of the 24 figures on the list, 20 are Americans.

Anna Politkovskaya has 77 language sections, John Stossel has 29. Politkovskaya is a much more globally famous journalist than Stossel.--Reprarina (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Algovia (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Thi (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Cataleirxs (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Lesya Ukrainka, remove William Carlos Williams

Lesya Ukrainka is one of the most important poets in Ukrainian history. William Carlos Williams' fame is more local. Lesya Ukrainka has 76 language sections, William Carlos Williams has 48. I think this is another case of Americentrism on the list.--Reprarina (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Also a non Western European, and a female! Theklan (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Cataleirxs (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Raspberry, remove Blackberry (fruits)

Raspberry is significantly ahead of blackberry in the number of language sections. It is especially strange that there are two Blackberry articles in the list, one about the subgenus, the other about its fruit, although even in the English Wikipedia they made one article about blackberry. I have big doubts about both Blackberry articles. In the case of fruit, I think raspberry is much more important.--Reprarina (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For me raspberries are more popular and known, but I don't know if this is something global. Theklan (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Xefon (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Rubus, remove Rubus subg. Rubus

As for the botanical section, it seems to me that it is much more relevant to add a genus of similar plants (blackberry, raspberry) than one subgenus of blackberry.--Reprarina (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This or the one above, please choose one to discuss. Theklan (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think both blackberry articles, Q13179 and Q13180, should be excluded for Q19842373 and Q602740, respectively. The raspberry fruit is more suitable for the list than the blackberry fruit, and the genus Rubus is more suitable for the list than the subgenus blackberry. Reprarina (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. I renamed the second category according to the title of the Wikidata article to make it clearer.--Reprarina (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Leonid Gaidai, remove Hal B. Wallis

Leonid Gaidai is perhaps a little less important than Eisenstein, Tarkovsky or Mikhalkov (I highly doubt the latter), but his contribution to Soviet film comedy is fundamental. I'm not sure Hal B. Wallis is more relevant for the list, I think he represents an Americentric bias: there are too many American filmmakers on the list, including some who are much more interesting to humanity. Gaidai has 57 langauge section versus Wallis has 35. Wallis has even fewer language sections than other producers on the list.--Reprarina (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Algovia (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Circle dance, remove Jitterbug

Jitterbug seems a subkind of en:swing (already on the list) only relevant to the US and in the 1930s and 1940s. While not completely meritless, the Circle_dance seems quite a better option: it is widespread in many places in the world, gives links to specific dances in other places and has a great story behind. Theklan (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support same than Theklan, and it will reduce list's US bias -- Cataleirxs (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Done -Theklan (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Match, remove Kitchenware

In general, I am for prioritizing the general over the specific, but in some cases there are terms that mean very general things, not always even having exact equivalents in different languages. Kitchenware does not have many language sections, and even the English Wikipedia has only a list-draft article on this subject. People write about matches in different languages much more willingly; it is a much more concrete concept. I think kitchenware is largely included in the kitchen article (it's unlikely that it will be mainly about the location, and not about the devices in it). Also, luckily, there are cutlery and plate on the list.--Reprarina (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support We have been discussing in our Wikipedia about Kitchenware and kitchen utensil (Q3773693), which are virtually the same thing. I agree in the option, match is a good choice.

Theklan (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Novaria85 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Done, 4 unopposed votes in support, no activity since February. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Doris Lessing, remove Olaf Stapledon

Yes, Doris Lessing is from a much younger generation than Olaf Stapledon, but the gap in language sections in her favor is impressive. Olaf Stapledon has only 41, which is very small amount for a writer on this list. Doris Lessing has 107.--Reprarina (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support because adding a woman is really important. Theklan (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Stapledon was a pioneer of science fiction (notably by imagining transhumanism before the word was invented). Lessing is a great writer, but I haven't found the equivalent. As for "adding a woman is important", if I remember correctly, I believe that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia dedicated to women. --Algovia (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Doris Lessing has a Nobel in Literature. I would understand your argument about "an encyclopedia dedicated to women" if we didn't have less than 10% of the proposals in the list about women. Theklan (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Stapledon was a pioneer of science fiction It seems to me that this is an Anglo-centric view. Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote earlier and has more language sections. He is much more internationally famous. Last and First Men has 12 language sections, We has 37. We had been written before Last and First Men. So, Zamyatin is a much greater pioneer. However, he is not on the list. And I doubt that he should be. I believe Doris Lessing is simply more relevant for the list. Reprarina (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

By the Way, Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook is included in Bokklubben World Library list. None of Olaf Stapledon's works is. Reprarina (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Camelia (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose --Toku (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose --Novaria85 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Patna, remove Las Vegas

Patna (historically Pataliputra) was the capital of northern India during both periods that claim the title of "golden age" - the Mauryan Empire and the Gupta Empire. Also, I think that Patna should be on the list and not Pataliputra, for the same reason that Istanbul is on the list and Constantinople is not, and that Luoyang is on the list and Chang'an is not. Usually, in a situation where a city with a great past has changed its name, we include the city under its current name. However, even apart from the great past: Patna is the capital of Bihar, Las Vegas is the capital of Nevada. Bihar is many times more populated than Nevada, and Patna is several times more populated than Las Vegas.--Reprarina (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I support adding Patna, but I would suggest Miami. Las Vegas is more relevant in media, and as a world center of casinos and entertainment, while Miami is small and not so relevant. However, not Miami nor Las Vegas are the capital cities of their states (Carson City and Tallahassee are the capital cities). Theklan (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps your offer is better. I will exchange Miami for Patna if there are no further objections. Reprarina (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Oppose the removal of Las Vegas, but  Support the removal of Miami. --Algovia (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose --Novaria85 (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Female genital mutilation, remove Comparative religion

What male circumcision and female genital mutilation have in common is that both are culturally significant and religiously related topics. So I am in favor of both being on the list. However, female genital mutilation has far more serious negative health consequences, often literally involves clitorectomy, is still widespread, and is widely seen as an important social issue. As for Comparative religion, this academic discipline seems to me to be a rather niche discipline, suitable for a wider list (50,000 articles, for example), and is at least partially covered by the article Religion studies. In this regard, I propose to remove comparative religion and add female genital mutilation.--Reprarina (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Comparative religion is the field of study that analyzes differences in interpretation of themes and ideas common to religions. This seems important. Also, what does this have to do with genital mutilation? --Algovia (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not against "female genital mutilation" being in the list, but it would fit better in the health section. Comparative religion is still an interesting topic, as it introduces many concepts. Theklan (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose --Toku (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Algovia and Theklan. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Add A cappella, remove Rapping

The list includes Hip hop music and Rapping, which are closely related concepts. Within the same category, there are already three (male American) hip hop musicians and also B-boying. I propose swapping "Rapping" for A cappella, a concept that is both historical and contemporary and not tied to any specific culture. This change would also help reduce the UScentric bias. -- Cataleirxs (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Rigoberta Menchú (Q188620), remove James K. Polk (Q11891)

We don't have any woman from Central America, and Menchú is also a Nobel Prize winner. Polk is the less known US president on the list, we have too many men and too much US subjects on the list. -- Cataleirxs (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support Reprarina (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Polk declared war on Mexico, annexed many territories and transformed the United States into a world power; Menchu ​​opposed a dictatorship in Guatemala (not even a regional power), helped refugees and won 3% in a presidential election. --Algovia (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"won 3% in a presidential election" Not a relevant argument. We are talking about a person who wrote her name into history by drawing attention to genocide and achieving recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples at the UN level, despite opposition from the most economically powerful country.. This is an event of historic proportions. And there are too many US politicians on the list, as well as US citizens in general. Reprarina (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If the historical events are relevant, then we have "Mexican–American War" and "New Imperialism" in the list, which cover that era. Menchú is a Nobel Laureate, and it would be the only woman from Central America in the list, and one of the few American indigenous person at all. Theklan (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Camelia (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose --Toku (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Algovia. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add late modern period (Q6495391), remove modern period (Q3281534) (and mantain early modern period (Q5308718))

Currently, modern period (Q3281534) spans from 1500 to the present, overlapping significantly with early modern period (Q5308718) (1500–1800) and late modern period (Q6495391) (1800–present). By retaining "early" and "late" modern era, we preserve the full historical timeline while avoiding unnecessary duplication. This change ensures the list remains focused, balanced, and provides readers with two specialized, complementary perspectives instead of a generalist repetition. Thanks -- Cataleirxs (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support Not only that: in many places Modern means 1500s-1789, and the next one would be named Contemporary Era. English seems to have early and late for the same concept, which makes more sense. Theklan (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose --Novaria85 (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Holocaust denial, remove Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service

Holocaust denial is an international issue, and there is a lot of academic literature on this phenomenon in a variety of countries. Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service is just an Austrian national organization. This is too much of an Austrian national topic to be on the interlingual list. Reprarina (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support per nominator. Armenian genocide denial would be a good adittion as well. The Blue Rider 02:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Algovia (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose ok to remove Austrian Holocaust Memorial (per Reprarina), but we have Holocaust and we've just added Antisemitism -which is a wider topic than Holocaust denial-. So, I'd prefer to find another concept to add to the list. -- Cataleirxs (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

   I have neither alternative proposals, nor any desire to reduce the topic of Antisemitism in the list. Reprarina (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose --Novaria85 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Alternative civilian service, remove Austrian Service Abroad

And in this case, it seems to me that an article about a phenomenon as a whole seems to me more significant than about one national organization associated with it in particular. I think the list should have one article about alternative civilian service in the world, and not two articles about two Austrian alternative civilian service organizations. Alternative civilian service is an important topic for all countries that maintain conscription, not just Austria.--Reprarina (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support removal of Austrian Service Abroad per nominator. The Blue Rider 02:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose addition of alternative civilian service since it is a subtopic of civilian service and thus too niche. The Blue Rider 02:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per The Blue Rider -- Cataleirxs (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Muqaddimah, remove A Midsummer Night's Dream

There are a lot of Shakespeare's plays on the list. And while King Lear, Othello and Hamlet are included in the Bokklubben World Library list, the same cannot be said about A Midsummer Night's Dream.

There are practically no works written by Muslims on the list. I counted three - the Quran, Shahnameh and One Thousand and One Nights. I apologize if I missed anything.

I believe that the list seriously underestimates Muslim topics. Moreover, as the percentage of Muslims in the world grows, it is likely that the relative encyclopedic importance of Muslim topics will not decrease, but will only increase.

There are no books on economics on the list. Meanwhile, it was Muqaddimah that anticipated what would later be written in The Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Much of what seemed to be the original ideas of Western economists turned out to be the ideas of Ibn Khaldun after Westerners became acquainted with Muqaddimah. Therefore, in my opinion, this book fully deserves to be on the list.--Reprarina (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a remarkable work for its time. However, its ideas are dated and of little interest to modern society: there are no more dynasties that come to power thanks to the strength of the Bedouins of the desert... --Novaria85 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Swap Hawaiian Islands for Hawaii

We should list the state itself rather than list the archipelago. It would be like if we listed the British Isles over the UK or the Indian subcontinent over India. The state covers the history while the archipelago covers the geography of the article.

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The proposal is more than questionable. Physical geography is one sector, political geography is another. Adding American topics, like another US state, is extremely unwise, on the contrary, we should try to reduce the Americanism in the list. In addition, Midway Atoll is part of an archipelago but not a part of the state.--Reprarina (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
2. Per Reprarina. --Cataleirxs (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Add Lesson, remove E-learning

The list should focus on basic concepts rather than trying to cover a wide variety of learning types. Reprarina (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support -Theklan (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Cataleirxs (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Done, 4 votes in support with no additional activity since January. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Aisha, remove Menno Simons

Aisha, in whose arms the Prophet Muhammad died, is a much more internationally famous religious figure than Menno Simons and is probably known not only to Muslims. She has several times more language sections.--Reprarina (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Cataleirxs (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Bibliography, remove New York Public Library

There is absolutely no reason to give the United States the privilege of having 2 libraries on the list. The Library of Congress is quite sufficient.

I propose to replace New York Public Library with bibliography, since this is one of the most important concepts of library and information activities.--Reprarina (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• bibliography (Q1631107) has only 6 language sections and we already have over 10 book-related concepts. I prefer to swap NY Public Library for the largest one in Latin America: National Library of Brazil (Q948882) --Cataleirxs (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not everything is clear with Wikidata, as there is d:Q134995 (6 language sections), d:Q134995 (80 language sections) and d:Q4086340 (5 langauge sections). We need to figure out what's wrong with Wikidata. However, bibliography is not an insignificant concept, and there is a serious academic discipline that studies the theory of bibliography. Reprarina (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) P. S. The same thing, in fact, applies to the concept of “document”, but here they decided that this is supposedly too vague a concept.--Reprarina (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Coronary artery disease, remove Hand, foot, and mouth disease

In 2015, CAD affected 110 million people and resulted in 8.9 million deaths.[11][12] It makes up 15.6% of all deaths, making it the most common cause of death globally.[12] I believe that this disease should definitely be included in the list, whereas hand, foot, and mouth disease usually (unless there is a serious, more significant disease) goes away quickly on its own..--Reprarina (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment We already have Heart disease in the list. More diversification seems interesting to me. Theklan (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We also have Infectious disease. So this logic works both ways. I still think that cardiology is somewhat lacking in the list. At least coronary artery disease as the most common cause of death should be added. Reprarina (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Mikhail Glinka, remove César Cui

Of the composers of the Mighty Handful, César Cui is perhaps considerably less well known than not only other members, but also than its forerunner, Mikhail Glinka, who is widely recognized as the founder of Russian classical music.--Reprarina (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I would swap Bedřich Smetana, Alexander Borodin, César Cui, Mily Balakirev, Gustav Holst, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and Pancho Vladigerov with Guillaume de Machaut, Josquin des Prez, Henry Purcell, Gabriel Fauré, Sergei Rachmaninoff, György Ligeti and Pierre Boulez. --Thi (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As for Rachmaninoff, yes, it's sad not to see him on the list. I don't want to exclude Smetana, however. Reprarina (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support Glinka is way more important as a composer. The alternative expanded proposal should be discussed separately, it has its own merits but let's do not mix things too much. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Document, remove Identity document

Passport - 108 language sections. Document - 80 language sections. Identity document - 46 language sections.

I don’t think that the list should include both Passport and Identity document without inclusion of Document. Most countries accept passports as a form of identification. By the way, contrary to the prejudice that a document is a vague and overly general concept, there is a serious academic discipline called "documentation science". Considering also that Passport and Document are articles with a large number of language sections, and Identity document lags behind them significantly, I believe that Passport should remain on the list and the Document should be included instead of the Identity document.--Reprarina (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree but Document seems to polysemic to me. It may be confused with a .doc or .odt file. How can we rephrase the idea to have the scope of "official document"? Theklan (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Document is not too polysemic. There is a very clear academic discipline that relates to this concept, the founders of which are Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan, Paul Otlet, Henri La Fontaine (Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1913) and Suzanne Briet. This is a quite clear and basic concept, on which there is a huge volume of reliable sources. It's perfect for inclusion on the list.--Reprarina (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose "Document" will just be a disambiguation page. --Toku (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Document must be an article based on the vast amount of academic literature on Documentation science. This is a much less vague concept than it might seem. Reprarina (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose per Theklan and Toku --Cataleirxs (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose --Novaria85 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove Nuclear engineering, add Television Picture Tube

We have two very close themes: nuclear engineering and Nuclear technology. I propose to add the most common type of cathode ray tube that you could find in every home twenty years ago. Tucvbif (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose. Presence in the list simultaneously Cathode ray tube and Television Picture Tube would not be better. Reprarina (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's very different. Read the English article, it says virtually nothing about NE itself, it consists of fragments of other themes (nuclear reactor, nuclear energy) and a collection of links. Because NE is a vague umbrella term, that means everything connected with fissile materials. From defending power plants from terrorists to prestressed concrete, that needed to build outer containments of nuclear reactors. This is the kind of article that developed wikipedias must get rid of, not only because an article about nuclear technology exists. Tucvbif (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternative propositions

1. Remove Nuclear engineering, add Nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactor is significantly ahead of both nuclear technology and nuclear engineering in terms of the number of language sections. I believe that the list should have an article about the structure of the reactor. Ultimately, the list should describe important things from real life.

1.  Support --Toku (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

2. Remove Nuclear engineering, add Gravitational field. Yes, this topic is probably not as important as Gravity or General Relativity, but it is perhaps the only important field that is not yet on the list.--Reprarina (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Faina Ranevskaya, remove Harold Lloyd

I don't know exactly how much American dominance in list of actors and actresses should be reduced, but it is too strong now. I propose replacing Harold Lloyd with Faina Ranevskaya, who is undoubtedly the most famous actress in the history of Soviet cinema of that generation.--Reprarina (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose. Tucvbif (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. --Thi (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: we should reconcile this nomination with a later one, suggesting to replace Harold Lloyd with Setsuko Hara. The later nomination seems to get more support. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Hayao Miyazaki, remove Ken Burns

With all due respect to the documentary genre, Ken Burns is too little known outside the US to be on the list. There are also not enough animators on the list. Meanwhile, Hayao Miyazaki has two anime on the BFI 2022 list - The Greatest Films of All Time.--Reprarina (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Support --Thi (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support --Theklan (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support --Cataleirxs (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support--Novaria85 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Done, 5 unopposed votes in support. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Clara Zetkin, remove Elizabeth Cady Stanton

While Elizabeth Cady Stanton is undoubtedly very famous in the United States, her international fame is significantly inferior to Clara Zetkin, who took the fight for women's suffrage to the international level.

Elizabeth Stanton has 54 language sections, Clara Zetkin has 88. Clara Zetkin is much more internationally known and more relevant to the list. The name of Clara Zetkin is associated with the establishment of March 8 as International Women's Day.-

One might wonder whether it would not be better to exclude some man. I am happy to hear alternative suggestions, but I do not think this is the case; Stanton loses in the number of language sections to many women from other countries of that era, for example Emmeline Pankhurst, Alexandra Kollontai and Nadezhda Krupskaya (as someone who has studied academic literature on library science a little, I know that Krupskaya is historically significant for more than just the fact that she was married to Lenin), who are not included in the list. And tbh, I don't want the list to look like the women's movement was primarily in the US.-Reprarina (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support per nom, as long as a viable alternative male candidate for removal is not suggested. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Done 4 unopposed votes in support, last comment back in March. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

More video games?

I feel we're well past the point where more than 2 video games should be listed Alena 33 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I would add Doom. I think this game has already reached a very high level of cultural significance. Some even called the generation of people whose youth fell on this game the Doom generation. By the way, it is ahead of Pong in the number of language sections.

I am not sure by what logic should games with sequels be added, perhaps each specific case should be considered. One way or another, for an old game 53 language sections is a colossal level. The articles Doom (franchise), Doom II have much less. Reprarina (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing against Doom, but Tetris or Pacman are far more known (even more than Pong). -- Cataleirxs (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Pong is older than Tetris (in this case it gives quite a lot of importance points to Pong), although Tetris is indeed very important internationally. However, in 2025, it is doubtful that the video game list should be composed mainly of old arcade games. Reprarina (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would go for Tetris. Theklan (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove Peking Man (Q45931), add mitochondrial Eve (Q221674)

Peking Man is a subspecies of Homo erectus, which is in the list. It is historically important, but the implications should be adopted in the Homo erectus article. I propose mitochondrial Eve (Q221674), because it adds a layer of genetics to the human evolution and also handles the early migrations issue. Theklan (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support, seems like much more universally important topic. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Add TRAPPIST-1, remove Acrux

Tbh, I don't know what makes Acrux so special. Meanwhile, TRAPPIST-1 is a system with a huge number of discovered exoplanets in the habitable zone, which has long attracted the attention of a huge number of scientists and, in general, people. In this regard, TRAPPIST-1 has long since significantly overtaken Acrux in the number of language sections and is probably more relevant for the list.--Reprarina (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1.  Oppose When, in a few years, another planetary system will be discovered with characteristics even closer to the Solar System, Trappist-1 will no longer be of much interest. But, Accrux will still be one of the brightest stars in the southern hemisphere. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose --Algovia (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Neutre Agree with Novaria85, but there is little things to say about most of stars too. --Toku (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Moro conflict, remove Moro Islamic Liberation Front

The importance of the Islamist organization Moro Islamic Liberation Front is quite secondary to the civil war in which this organization participated. The importance of Moro Islamic Liberation Front is also clearly inferior to much more internationally known Islamist organizations (ISIS, Taliban, Hamas), which are not included in the list. In general, having weighed various criteria (the need to maintain the globality of the list, the need for high importance of the items included in the list), I propose to add an article about the conflict in the Philippines, which lasted 50 years and took the lives of about 100,000 people, and to remove from the list the organization that participated in the conflict.--Reprarina (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It's better, but I'm not sure Moro conflict should be in the list. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add streaming media (Q220499), remove forward error correction (Q989220)

The item forward error correction (Q989220) has been divided in different languages, and is not very popular. It doesn't even seem important outside the very technical people. However, streaming media (Q220499) is completely related with the topic, and way more broad. Theklan (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support Forward error correction is too highly specialized topic. Reprarina (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Done This was very obvious. -Theklan (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Crocodilia, remove Alligator

Can someone explain to me why alligators and not the whole order Crocodilia should be on the list?..

The genus Alligator is considerably less relevant to the list than the order Crocodilia, to which it belongs, and probably even less relevant than the family Crocodile that includes another genuses of the order. Even articles about Nile crocodile and Salwater crocodile are written in more language sections than the article on the genus Alligator.

I also don't think alligators have such a strikingly different morphological structure to consider them so special. Yes, the genus Alligator includes a species important to the United States and a species important to China, but outside of those countries, people are much more interested in the order Crocodilia than in the genus Alligator.

See for yourself:

• Crocodilia - 98 language sections.
  • Crocodile - 92 language sections.
    • Crocodylus - 51 language sections.
      • Nile crocodile - 77 language sections.
      • Saltwater crocodile - 76 language sections.
  • Alligatoridae - 54 language sections.
    • Alligator - 74 language sections.--Reprarina (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support I suspect that this is another example of US-centrism. -Theklan (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support per Reprarina -- Cataleirxs (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support per nom. Alligator is not even the most famous member of the order, when compared to the Nile crocodile. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Done, 5 unopposed votes in support, last comment more than a month ago. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem with Aladdin (protagonist) in the list

Aladdin as a character does not arouse desire in Wikipedia users in different languages to create a separate article about him. They mostly make page Aladdin (protagonist) to be redirect to the fairy tale or do not write the article about him at all. Sinbad the Sailor is doing better, he interests Wikipedia users as a character, and people write about him, not about The Seven Voyages of Sinbad.

On the other hand, we can replace Aladdin (protagonist) with the tale of Aladdin. Either way, the article Aladdin (protagonist) seems to me to be an unfortunate choice in the list.--Reprarina (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps influenced by the vote just above, but I propose replacing Aladdin with Godzilla (Q6567) -- Cataleirxs (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Swap Zhou Xuan for Teresa Teng

There are only 7 non-English language singers listed so each of them should be held to a very high standard. For East Asian representation, Teresa Teng is a much better choice. Not only is she a Chinese icon (voted as the most influential cultural figure in China since 1949), she is also a global star, having released music in 8 different languages. She is probably the most influential Asian pop musician ever. Zhou Xuan is respected in China but in the same way that any other golden age musician is; her work was beloved but not particularly notable or influential to music or culture. Teresa Teng is more notable/influential in every possible metric. To copy-paste from her English Wikipedia article, "throughout her 30-year career and up to this point, Teng has been acknowledged by many as one of the most celebrated and influential figures in Asian music and popular culture, considering her deep impact on the whole of Chinese society, with an influence extending beyond music to include both political and cultural spheres, while her Asia-wide reach is largely attributed to her multi-lingual abilities, which established her as an icon in all of Asia, heralding the era of region-wide pop superstardom that has become today's norm." Aurangzebra (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose for exclusion Zhou Xuan; I'm not convinced that the leading singer of the Chinese golden age of music should be excluded, especially when there are more suitable candidates for exclusion.--Reprarina (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Alternative proposition: Swap Ozzy Osbourne for Teresa Teng

•  Support for inclusion Theresa Teng. There was a recent thread about Ozzy Osbourne being redundant on the list since Black Sabbath is already there. I think it would make sense to swap Osbourne for Teresa Teng.--Reprarina (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I don't think Ozzy Osbourne deserves to be on this list. In fact, that whole rock list needs a massive rehaul and there are other people I would remove before Ozzy Osbourne (why do we list Bruce Dickinson instead of Iron Maiden? Why do we list two different members of Deep Purple, David Coverdale and Jon Lord, when we don't mention anyone from Led Zeppelin, a much more famous and notable British heavy metal band? Do we really need Gary Moore?). But I don't think China needs two musicians when there is such poor representation across the globe as is. I consider myself pretty well-versed on world pop and I don't think China's Golden Age is a particularly important age in the grand scheme of music or even Chinese cultural history. When the CCP came into power, they effectively shut down this brand of music by labeling it as pornography, stunting its long-term cultural longevity. It's hard to justify having two Chinese singers on here when we don't include, for example, any Japanese or Korean musicians (especially now that K-pop is arguably the most global genre of non-English music in history). We also do not include a single musician from sub-Saharan Africa (Umm Khultum is from Egypt) which is pretty shameful considering that some of the choices there are better contenders than musicians already on this list: for example, Fela Kuti, who was the father of Afrobeat, a wildly popular genre of music globally, and Miriam Makeba, who achieved worldwide recognition and was a notable anti-Apartheid activist. Both these singers are from the 'golden age' of music in their respective countries and their countries have a more notable musical tradition than mainland China does (the Chinese language music industry has centered around Hong Kong and Taiwan until very recently). I'd rather see Ozzy Osbourne (and maybe those other rock musicians) swapped with them while also seeing a 1-to-1 swap of Chinese singers and if you agree that that's reasonable, Teresa Teng is the definitive Chinese singer. As a footnote, it's worth noting that both Russia/Soviet Union and India have 2 representatives each. I think this is fine: both these countries have long-established musical industries and massive populations which make this a fair proposal. China only has the large population part of that equation. Aurangzebra (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think there are actually a few countries on this list that would be overkill if they added one more singer, and it's not China. Reprarina (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would buy the Fela Kuti for Ozzy Osbourne and Miriam Makeba for Gary Moore schema. Theklan (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

NGOs

I have no idea how quotas were set, but this category seems unreasonably bloated. Right from the top:

1. Agenda 21: a non-binding 1992 UN sustainable development action plan.
2. AIESEC: according to its website, a "global platform for young people to explore and develop their leadership potential"; its enwiki article mostly consists of statements from primary sources about how important this organization is.
3. al-Qaeda: should it really be categorized as NGO?
4. American National Standards Institute: not sure if any national standards organization is important enough to have an article in every Wikipedia.
5. Association des États Généraux des Étudiants de l'Europe: as with AIESEC, a students organization with dubious notability.
6. Association for Computing Machinery: might be notable enough, but its Wikipedia articles fail to show this level of importance.
7. Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service: program which allows Austrian citizens to serve at memorial sites as an alternative to mandatory military service.
8. Austrian Service Abroad: organization implementing the program above; its website boasts that since "founding in 1998, 724 people have served" under its aegis.
9. Bilderberg Group: elite political forum, most notable for being a subject of various conspiracy theories.

And so on. It would be more appropriate to discuss which of "NGOs" deserve to stay on the list (and whether topics like College of Cardinals or Scouting should be categorized as such). I think there are plenty of good candidates among other types of organizations, international (Non-Aligned Movement), government (National Health Service) and private (Adidas, Mitsubishi, Mercedes-Benz Group, Nvidia, Lockheed Martin, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures). Qbli2mHd (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth considering including in the list organizations that have recently won the Nobel Peace Prize (Memorial and the Center for Civil Liberties). Reprarina (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. This quota should decrease. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Swap Gotthold Eisenstein for Hermann Minkowski

Gotthold Eisenstein, judging by the number of language sections, is a relatively little-known mathematician. I propose instead Hermann Minkowski, who developed a geometric model of relativity. By the way, he was one of Albert Einstein’s direct teachers.--Reprarina (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

1.  Support Per Reprarina. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Indo-Aryan languages, remove Assamese language

It seems to me that there is some contradiction in the list: there are many Indo-Aryan languages, including relatively small ones (such as Assamese language), but there is no entire language group Indo-Aryan languages (although there are four other Indo-European groups). Meanwhile, this language group is ahead of other Indo-European groups in the number of speakers, and is unlikely to lag behind in the diversity of different dialects.--Reprarina (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

1.  Support Per Reprarina. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Dirac equation, remove Hydrogen-like atom

Judging by the process of writing articles in different languages, it can be said that the article about the Dirac equation has more priority than the article about the Hydrogen-like atom, because the Dirac equation has more language sections, and the Hydrogen-like atom article, when written, largely consists of a description of the Dirac equation.--Reprarina (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Khalid ibn al-Walid, remove Flavius Aëtius

The late antiquity period in the list is very Romanocentric. To a certain extent that is justified, but I think some of the people on the list are included excessively.

Flavius Aëtius is perhaps the least known of the Roman military figures included in the list. Objectively, he is a figure from the period of Rome's military decline, although he stands out from other figures of the period of decline due to his relative success. However... is he significant enough for this list? I doubt it.

Khalid ibn al-Walid is undoubtedly one of the most revered military leaders in the Muslim world, and played a major role in laying the foundations of the Arab military might. It seems to me that Khalid ibn al-Walid is objectively more important.--Reprarina (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

1.  Oppose Aetius was the last Roman leader able to "save" the Western Empire. His victories and his assassination lead to his downfall. This may deserve a presence in the list. Afterwards, it is true Khalid ibn al-Walid also has his place. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Novaria85. --Toku (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Marta, remove Marco van Basten

Also an stricker, Marta is widely considered one of the greatest footballers of all time, and her long-lasting influence, achievements and impact on the game is undeniable. She has won the FIFA Women's World Player of the Year six times. More importantly, Marta has been a pioneering figure for women’s football, raising the visibility of the sport worldwide and advocacy for gender equality in sports. -- Cataleirxs (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

1.  Oppose Van Basten was an iconic player of the 1980s and 1990s. Even though it's a bit dated, I think he's still more notable. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Comment: while agreeing that there need to be more female football players on the list, I am not convinced that Marta is a natural choice. After all, it's Christine Sinclair who is currently the all-time world leader for international goals (men or women); she is also an Olympic champion which Marta is not. The fact that she was never voted FIFA Women's World Player of the Year is rather baffling in this regard, but this is not the only criterion we should be using. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per above. --Toku (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Pau Gasol, remove Dražen Petrović

While Petrović was an incredible talent and a pioneer for European basketball, Gasol’s legacy in both European and NBA basketball is higher. He is a multiple-time NBA All-Star, NBA champion, and one of the best international for almost 15 years.

In case you're thinking that Dirk Nowitzki is a better option: the German has been an transformative power forward with strong individual statistics, but Gasol has stood out for leading his teammates to multiple successes, a key factor in a team sport. While Nowitzki has just one NBA championship ring and a bronze medal in the FIBA Basketball World Championship, Gasol has won 2 NBA Finals, is a World Champion, has 3 Olympic medals, and 7 more in the European Basketball Championship. -- Cataleirxs (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support -Theklan (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose Petrović is an inaugural inductee of FIBA Hall of Fame which speaks a lot about his legacy: they had a century-long list of players but they decided to induct him, along with several others. He also has some historical statistical records that are unlikely to be beaten in the foreseeable future, such as 112 points in a single match. Some of their other accomplishments are similar: both were world champions once, world championship MVPs once; Gasol is a three-time European champion while Petrović won it only once but this single time he also was voted an MVP while Gasol doesn't have this title. Gasol is indeed a 2-time NBA champion but there he was one of the many good players in a great team, not an undisputable leader and superstar (Kobe Bryant was both times); Petrović, while not playing a lot in NBA due to the Iron curtain, won European Champions Cup (now Euroleague) also twice, but with a team that has never done it before or after him. So overall I don't find the arguments convincing. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Work, remove Career

Work (also known as labour/labor) is much more fundamental concept than career. Work has 83 language sections, career has 46. In my opinion, this gap is natural, since work is objectively a more basic concept.--Reprarina (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Per Reprarina. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Thi (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Theklan (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, 5 unopposed votes in support by March. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Presumption of innocence, remove Equity (law)

Particular body of law, developed in the English Court of Chancery,[1] with the general purpose of providing legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve the disputed legal matter does not seem relevant for a cross-lingual list (and it is not surprising that it did not even get 30 language sections). Instead, I propose adding a more fundamental and more internationally recognized legal concept - the Presumption of innocence.--Reprarina (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

1.  Support --Algovia (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support -Theklan (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support per nom. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
5.  Support --Toku (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Done Reprarina (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, remove The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama)

The famous panic over the radio production of The War of the Worlds is probably nothing more than a myth. But the fact that Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines played an important role in the genocide in Rwanda is a fact established by an international tribunal.--Reprarina (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

1.  Oppose Rwandan Genocide is already present. No need for Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines. --Algovia (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per Algovia -- Cataleirxs (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Bell beaker culture (Q470867), remove Dacians (Q212853)

We have two very similar articles, one for Dacia, the other one for Dacians. Well, technically they are not the same, but they overlap notoriously. However, there's a wide Western and Central European culture which shaped the continent for some centuries, the Bell beaker culture (Q470867), which have articles in 44 languages, and adds very interesting links to other topics and articles. Theklan (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Toku (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Xefon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Yamnaya culture (Q426737), remove Five Good Emperors (Q193254)

I suggest adding Yamnaya culture (Q426737), as now we know that this culture is deeply related with the expansion of the Indoeuropean languages around the world. In terms of descent, is one of the most important Neolithic cultures, and nowadays it is in the focus of several research lines. I suggest removing Five Good Emperors (Q193254), which covers a very specific moment of the Roman Empire, which is already covered by the articles on Roman Empire and Ancient Rome. Theklan (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support. There's too much ancient Rome on the list. It's enough that the most important of the "good emperors" are already on the list. The probable homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is very important. Reprarina (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I think the Antonin dynasty is more important than an Indoeuropean culture. --Toku (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that it's not an Indoeuropean culture, but the origin of that culture. Theklan (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The Antonines are still a very important part of the Roman Empire. Something else should be removed. --Algovia (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, remove Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Ambedkar was able to draw the world's attention to the caste system in India. Of India's political figures of period of declaration of independence, Ambedkar is considerably better known internationally than Patel. Ambedkar has 132 language sections, Patel has 76. This may not be the case in India itself, where Patel is very popular (although the popularity of a particular figure among different castes in India can vary greatly), but the list is a list that reflects the level of international importance.--Reprarina (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support B. R. Ambedkar was voted as the Greatest Indian since independence in 2012. --Thi (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Algovia (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Rajini kanth (Q60068), remove Gene Kelly (Q73089)

The list of actors is biased towards the Western world, it seems odd that not a single actor from Tamil cinema has been selected. He is a great Hollywood actor, but Fred Astaire would take his place. --Xefon (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose An argument based solely on quotas – a Tamil actor is necessary – is not really acceptable in my opinion. --Toku (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Toku. --Algovia (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Setsuko Hara (Q236129), remove Harold Lloyd (Q104340)

Setsuko Hara is one of Japan's greatest Showa era actresses and should be on the list, while Harold Lloyd is good, but there are other great silent film actors on the list too. --Xefon (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support Setsuko Hara played many very important roles in the films of Yasujiro Ozu. Reprarina (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Thi (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Algovia (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Madhubala (Q36881), remove Gérard Philipe (Q150662)

There are not many Indian actors with thriving films on the list, so Madhubala should be included. Gerard Philipe is less important than the other French actors of his age in the list. --Xefon (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Thi (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose --Toku (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose --Algovia (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Mount Fuji (Q39231), remove Mount Whitney (Q235539)

Mount Fuji is not only the highest mountain in Japan, but is also an object of cultural worship, has been depicted in many paintings, and is of great importance, whereas Mount Whitney is the highest mountain in the United States proper, but has little other significance beyond that. --Xefon (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support --Thi (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Makes sense. Cultural value of Mount Fuji is much higher. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Toku (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Algovia (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cataleirxs (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Done, 5 unopposed votes in support. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Mount Kailash (Q229107), remove Mount Logan (Q120306)

Kailash is a sacred and important site for several religions, including Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism. Mount Logan is a highest mountain in Canada, but its significance is not so high. --Xefon (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

1.  Support Indeed. --Algovia (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Criteria for disputed regions and dependent territories

I found the criteria for whether dependent territories were included on the Countries/territories list to be vague. Except for the 193 UN member states, the list currently includes 16 articles, but it seems a bit arbitrary. I would like to fix it, is there any suggestion?

Currently the list includes:

1. Abkhazia
2. American Samoa
3. Aruba
4. Bermuda
5. Cook Islands
6. Faroe Islands
7. Gibraltar
8. Guam
9. Kosovo
10. Northern Cyprus
11. Palestine
12. Puerto Rico
13. South Ossetia
14. Taiwan
15. Vatican City
16. Western Sahara

And not includes:

• British Overseas Territories

1. Anguilla
2. British Virgin Islands
3. Cayman Islands
4. Crown dependencies
5. Falkland Islands
6. Montserrat
7. Pitcairn Islands
8. Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
9. Turks and Caicos Islands

• Overseas France

1. French Guiana
2. French Polynesia
3. Guadeloupe
4. Martinique
5. Mayotte
6. New Caledonia
7. Réunion
8. Saint Barthélemy
9. Saint Martin
10. Saint Pierre and Miquelon
11. Wallis and Futuna

• Others

1. Åland
2. Caribbean Netherlands
3. Christmas Island
4. Cocos (Keeling) Islands
5. Curaçao
6. Greenland
7. Hong Kong
8. Macau
9. Niue
10. Norfolk Island
11. Northern Mariana Islands
12. Sint Maarten
13. Somaliland
14. Svalbard
15. Tokelau
16. Transnistria
17. U.S. Virgin Islands

Xefon (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

History of the list shows that they were included when it was created. I don't think there was any real discussion about this. --Algovia (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Saul, remove Vilna Gaon

In my opinion, some characters in the Tanakh are more significant than some figures in late Judaism.

Saul has significantly more language sections than Vilna Gaon. It is not difficult to see that the interest of Wikipedia readers in general is much higher to Saul than to Vilina Gaon in both English and Hebrew Wikipedia. (1, 2). In general, the problem with figures of late Judaism for this list is that it is somewhat local, whereas the Tanakh has indeed had a huge influence on world culture and many of its characters are world famous.--Reprarina (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)