Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have

Archives

---

• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020
• 2021
• 2022
• 2023
• 2024
• Topic index

Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

---

Guidelines being agreed upon:

1. A change of the list needs more support than opposition
2. Proposals should be provided with a reason
3. a change needs at least 5 supporters on the discussion page
4. swapping like for like (category switch only with reason)
5. single swaps (no mass changes)

Add South China Sea, Remove Lake Tanganyika

No need to list this African Great Lake when we have Lake Victoria listed, which is the largest one. The South China Sea is important polticially for everyone that does trade in the region, which is everyone!

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support South China Sea has been an important maritime area for world trade since (at least) the Middle Ages. Today, it is an area of ​​major geopolitical tensions. Lake Tanganyika doesn't seem to be so important. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre This is not a bad idea because the South China Sea is indeed a major element of global geopolitics (and of the "Asian Mediterranean"). But the weakness of the arguments (supposed bias to be corrected) does not convince me. --Algovia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. - Agreed. I’ve removed the sentence on bias LightProof1995 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Now I am wondering if I should've made a swap of Lake Tanganyika for Lake Titicaca, and Baltic Sea for South China Sea. Thoughts? LightProof1995 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Protestantism, Remove Trimurti

I don't think the concept of Trimurti belongs here, because I don't think it is that critical a concept to Hinduism:

1. It only appears twice on the entire English Wikipedia's entry on Hinduism: once in a caption, and once in a reference's notes. So not even in the main text of the article.

2. It doesn't appear at all on Hindi Wikipedia's article on Hinduism.

3. It is listed under "Specific religions", where everything else listed is a religion or its denomination. For Hinduism , the major denominations are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism. Two of these denominations consider one of the gods of the Trimurti to be the supreme one, but the third considers a goddess to be the supreme ruler of all. So, the concept of Trimurti doesn't even align with the major Hindu denominations.

I think Protestantism belongs instead. Christianity is the world's largest religion. The second-largest, Islam, has its two main denominations listed: Sunni and Shia Islam. So, it makes sense Christianity should also have is two largest denominations listed. (To elaborate, ~36% of Christians are Protestants, while 10% of Muslims are Shia. There are around 1 billion Protestants in the world, and around 200 million Shia Muslims.)

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support Okay, I've come to the conclusion that adding Protestantism wouldn't be too much of a Christianization of this list and that Protestantism is important enough to be in the list. It seems to me that Protestantism is important at least because it played a large role in the formation of the state with the most powerful economy in the world. Perhaps without Trimurti the list would be a bit lacking in Hindu presentation, but the article Trimurti is clearly not the article about Hinduism that should be on the list, since even in the languages of India people are not very keen to write about the concept.--Reprarina (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Support Indeed, Trimurti doesn't seem more important than Protestantism. --Algovia (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
4.  Support Per proposal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
5.  Support more influential--向史公哲曰 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
6.  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose albeit weakly. I feel like Protestantism is already represented to some extent by Martin Luther in the list. I agree that Trimurti seems to have a relatively weak justification and could well be replaced, though. I would prefer Animism or something like that that would be not under "Specific religions", to replace it. --whym (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think the Trimurti can probably be excluded. In the Hindi language (and most other languages in India) this article is a micro-stub. Perhaps the importance of this concept in Hinduism was exaggerated when the list was created. I am not sure if Protestantism and Shia Islam are important enough for this list, as I think the Bible and the Quran are a bit more important. I am also totally not sure that the Bible and the Quran are less important than The Tale of Genji, for example. On the other hand, Hinduism is still a very large religion, is it enough for it to have only the article Hinduism? --Reprarina (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) P.S. Trimurti has 105 language sections, Brahma has 110, Vishnu has 119, Shiva has 130.--Reprarina (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree the Bible could be swapped in, but I think it should be for Iliad, since Homer is listed. I don't think a proposal to swap out Shia Islam for the Quran would pass. I feel while Hinduism is a major religion, there isn't a particular second article related to it that stands out that I would propose we swap in. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

By this logic, both theories of relativity can be excluded because Einstein is on the list. I am categorically against excluding both the Iliad and Homer. The Iliad is one of the most important poems in history. Homer is one of the most important poets in history. Reprarina (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You’ve stated your disagreement with reducing redundancy in the list before. I’m suggesting a swap with the Bible, which also is related to other articles on the list. You’d rather replace Tale of Genji with the Bible? Feel free to make a proposal, but nothing you are saying is against my proposal here, unless you’re suggesting we swap Trimurti out for Bible, but I don’t think such a proposal will pass, since they are in separate sections. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Add Phosphorus, remove Analytical chemistry

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

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

Support

1. As nom. Reprarina (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support I think basic, more commonly used and understood, as well as more influential concepts should have more priority over specialized concepts/areas of knowledge. --Ideophagous (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "The list contains too many specialized sections of chemistry, which is not typical for other sections" : it's also the case for physics. Moreover, these different sections are important in the organization of chemistry itself: a chemist is more often specialized in chemical engineering, electrochemistry or physical chemistry than in nitrogen or phosphorus chemistry. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud. --Algovia (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud.--Kani (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

That's true. I was making an observation that "physical" is synonymous with "material" or "inanimate", and therefore is synonymous with "inorganic", but they are different fields. There is also overlap between "organic chemistry" and "inorganic chemistry", as they tend to be used together. That's why I'm wondering which Reprarina would choose to remove, if either, and for what element, if the proposed swap passed. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Too many international organizations

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

Remove Commonwealth of Nations, add Siege

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

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

Discuss

Remove "swap like for like" rule

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantage

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discuss

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

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

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

Add Library, remove Mass media

The topics of Journalism and Mass media are very close, and mass media have relatively few language sections for this list. (I know: some people associate mass media with propaganda rather than journalism, but Propaganda is also on the list). Meanwhile, despite some disdainful attitude towards libraries among ordinary people, Library is actually one of the key concepts in the discipline of Library and information science. Libraries have been existing for several thousand years, many libraries, particularly national libraries of large countries, are very significant subjects in their own right, with a huge number of language sections in Wikipedia. Library and information science is actually a very serious science, with a large number of academic articles focusing on libraries. Library has 156 language sections in Wikipedia, which is significantly more than the mass media, and even more than journalism.--Reprarina (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support LightProof1995 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support Throwaway23523 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support 向史公哲曰 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
5.  Support per above --Ideophagous (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Although journalism and mass media have a lot in common, they are not completely identical, and both concepts are very important so I would disagree with leaving them out of this list.In the technology field, I think "encyclopedia" are the least important, so I would be in favor of replacing them with Library.--Opqr (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure everyone would agree, but I think Mass media is the broader topic than Journalism. If so, an arrangement like this also makes sense:

• Mass media
  • Journalism
    • Newspaper

And if that's the case, I'd prefer a swap of Newspaper for Library. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

However, Newspaper is in fact perceived by speakers of various languages ​​as an article that should be in Wikipedia ahead of Journalism and Mass media. Newspaper has 166 langauge sections, Journalism has 127, Mass media has 120. Perhaps because Newspaper is a material thing, and Mass media is no more than a relatively new academic umbrella concept. And it is unlikely that any native speakers of a small language will write Wikipedia without an article about a newspaper, but with an article about a young umbrella academic concept.

In general, I am for the principle of preference of the general over the particular, but I do not think that it should be absolutized. Let's take biology. On the one hand, we excluded Lemon and added Citrus. On the other hand, we have Ant and Bee, but no Hymenoptera. Or, for example, we have Spider, but no Arachnid. It seems to me that the question of "general or particular" should be decided in each individual case, and there should be a balance. Reprarina (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, Reprarina. While I agree with your argument's substance, it overlooks we're directing Wikipedias like Assamese Wikipedia, who are missing Mass media, to not get started. Still, if you insist Book, Journalism, Newspaper, and Propaganda are all more deserved to be on the list than Mass media , which encompasses them all, I'm inclined to support. The idea of adding "Library" to the list is too good to pass up. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Result

Done--Reprarina (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)