Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/Archives/2019

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.

Is there any difference?

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

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

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?

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)

Piles and piles of pages!

I made PagePiles of 10k article sublists, so people can run queries on them in Petscan or use it with other tools - for example, Petscan can give you missing articles in your language etc. Here they are:

Please let me know if you find any mistake, such as missing items. Ideally, those should be updated when there's changes to the lists, but I'll try to check for updates periodically if they prove useful. — Yerpo Eh? 18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a mockup of a template I've been thinking to create, which would be placed at the top of each sublist. The code for use would be something like {{PagePile|id=27089 |revision=19475513 |date=2019-10-20 }}. This won't interfere with the script for ranking, right, Dcirovic and Boivie? — Yerpo Eh? 14:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can remember from the code, that shouldn't cause any problems. Boivie (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The addition of those notifications will not interfire with the script for page ranking, judging by the outcome of adding the proposed template to one of the sublists and running the relevant part of the page ranking script. On a separate note, one of the PagePiles lists does not function properly. Also, the need for manual synchronization could be alleviated by dynamically generating those lists, perhaps by making use of a Lua module that would reformat the original lists on the fly. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll check what's the issue with 27089, but it looks like a software problem - all the other formats work fine, and other tools interpret it normally too. As for synchronization, I'm not sure that's possible. As far as I know, PagePiles cannot be modified, so making a new PagePile each time a list is changed is the only method I can think of. — Yerpo Eh? 08:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: biographies PagePile was indeed incomplete because of some glitch. The full one is ID 27256. PagePile tool interface still returns an error when trying to display other pages of results (after the first one), but at least it's working elsewhere. — Yerpo Eh? 18:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Iranian languages to Mongolic languages or Mongolian language?

I don't really see how notable the Iranian languages are beyond Avestan, Persian, Kurdish and Pashto. Persian already has its own entry in the main list, and Kurdish and Pashto are in the expanded list, so the only gap that needs to be covered is Avestan, which can reasonably be introduced in the Zoroastrianism article if needed. On the other hand, the Mongolic language family doesn't have anything exemplifying it, except maybe the Mongols article under Ethnic groups. I'd suggest replacing Altaic with Mongolic instead, but maybe Altaic is useful to keep around as a sort of proxy for discredited linguistic theories like mass comparison. 177.244.57.58 22:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Wilhelm Reich

Am realy missing the psychologist and inventer of character analysis Wilhelm Reich. Btw. it's rated a "good article". --92.78.49.255 05:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)