Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/Archives/2018

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Anthropology, psychology and everyday life

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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple is about both
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple#Botanical_information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple#Nutrition
@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)

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. [1]), 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

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)

Directors

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

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

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)