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
• 2025
• 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)
4.  Support Per nom. --Novaria85 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
5.  Support Per above. --Algovia (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
6.  Support Sound most reasonable among 3 proposed body-of-water swaps. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
7.  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 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)
      1. When I see the new proposals, I find this swap is a good idea. --Algovia (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (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)

Now, the proposal could be adopted, but I think it will be better to wait some time before integrating the swap in the list as the two new proposals – Titicaca/Tanganyika and South China Sea/Baltic Sea are very recent. We should take time to see the developments of these discussions. --Algovia (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Conclusion

@ Algovia, LightProof1995 : I think the result of the discussion is quite clear. The swap South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika is supported by a majority and the two alternative proposals are contested. If no new point and no opposition, we will be able to do the swap in the next days. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Add Lake Titicaca, Remove Lake Tanganyika

No need to list this African Great Lake when we have Lake Victoria listed, which is the largest one. Lake Titicaca, on the other hand, is the largest freshwater lake in South America, and therefore should be listed. It's been important for fishing for civilizations like the Tiwanaku and the Incas for centuries. It also was a sacred lake for these cultures, playing a significant part in Andean mythology.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Why not, but I preferred the swap South China Sea for Lake Tanganyika. So, I don't support the proposal. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap. Please see this proposal for more details. Moreover, Lake Titicaca is an interesting geological structure, but it's not a strategical area (compared to South China Sea or Baltic Sea). --Algovia (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap.--Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

(Reasons for choosing Titicaca over Maracaibo): Lake Maracaibo is larger, but since it partially connected with the ocean during the last glacial period, it is debated if it still counts as a lake. Therefore, Lake Titicaca can be considered either South America's largest freshwater lake, or South America's largest lake. While Lake Maracaibo is important because of its oil reserves, Titicaca's cultural and ecological importance gives it more views: Lake Titicaca received ~30,000 views on English Wikipedia in the past 30 days, compared to Lake Maracaibo's ~9500 views and Lake Tanganyika's ~23,000 views. Lake Titicaca is also geographically unique as the world's highest navigable lake. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Add South China Sea, Remove Baltic Sea

The Baltic Sea is not as important as the the South China Sea for several reasons. First, the seclusion of the Baltic Sea makes it not a major trade area. The largest port in Russia, Novorossiysk, is on the Black Sea, and the largest port in Sweden, Gothenburg, is on the North Sea. Compare this to the South China Sea, which accounts for a third of all major shipping trade routes, giving it global geopolitical importance. Second, the Baltic Sea is relatively shallow, and ecologically simple: 90% of biomass in the Baltic Sea is the common mussel. Compare this to the South China Sea, which is able to host deep-sea creatures such as the Bull Shark, and is is home to the critically-endangered Giant Clam. Third, countries are in dispute over the natural resources of the South China Sea. The competition over fishing and oil and natural gas deposits in the area has given it regional geopolitical importance as well.

Support

1.  Strong support In honor of Brian Boru LightProof1995 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Baltic Sea is an important historical region and a major geostrategic area of ​​the present-day world. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap. Please see this proposal for more details. --Algovia (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Baltic Sea has very high historical value in addition to strictly geographical/economic one. Prefer to add South China Sea instead of Lake Tanganyika. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Favorable to the South China Sea / Lake Tanganyika swap.c--Toku (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2025 (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)
3.  Support Per nom and Ideophagous. While Analytical Chemistry is indeed important (I took an Analytical Chemistry class in college), Phosphorus seems more important. (Consider pageviews: ~6,000 for Analytical Chem vs. ~34,000 for Phosphorus in past 30 days on English Wikipedia) LightProof1995 (talk) 15:02, 27 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)
4.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose I think the different domains of Physics and Chemistry are more important. But, the proposal is not wrong : Phosphorus is an important element for organic chemistry, biology and ecology : we should find a solution to integrate it. --Toku (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we could keep one of Inorganic chemistry, or Physical chemistry. "Physical" and "Inorganic" can be seen as 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 the word "physical" is synonymous with "material" or "inanimate", and therefore is synonymous with "inorganic", but they are different fields. "Physical", relating to ***SEX***, is actually more synonymous with "animate" or "organic", so my connection of "physical" to "inorganic" makes even less sense when scrutinized. 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. (Vital-3 lists Physical, Organic, and Inorganic chemistry; along with Phosphorus, Silicon, and Sulfur. It does not list Tin, which is listed here.) LightProof1995 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

After writing out more of my thoughts here, I'm now supporting the proposal. I assume this is the only chemistry-field-for-element swap Reprarina wants to make, and I think that's okay. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

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)
•  SupportToo many great man. --向史公哲曰 (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2025 (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)
5.  Oppose Stability is a good thing for this list. --Novaria85 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2025 (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 Lung, remove Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

It seems to me unreasonable to include an article on lung disease before an article on the lungs. By the way, the article on lungs has 172 language sections, and the article on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has 93. Lungs is just a more basic concept.

And yes, this is a suggestion to switch from medicine to biology. But a medical specialist will first study the topic of Lungs, and only then move on to studying the topic of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I believe that medicine is unlikely to lose from the inclusion of the lungs.--Reprarina (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--Reprarina (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support The rationale seems solid. --Deinocheirus (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
3.  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose There is already "Respiratory System". Then, I'm not convinced by a swap between two categories. --Toku (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

   I'm not sure the Respiratory system is enough. Why not exclude the Ear, Eye, Nose and Taste on the basis that there is a Sensory system then? Reprarina (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Bible, Remove "Dream of the Red Chamber"

The texts listed are Arabian, Japanese, Mesopotamian, Greek, Indian, Persian, and two Chinese: "The Art of War", and "Dream of the Red Chamber".

I don't think we should list two Chinese texts, when there are no other civilizations with more than one text listed (especially since it is now India, not China, that is the most populous country in the world)

I had never heard of "Dream of the Red Chamber" before noticing it on this list. "The Art of War", however, I know as a widely influential text in the history of war.

Comparing pageviews for the two Chinese texts, plus the other "Four Classic Chinese novels", on various Wikipedias, suggests "Dream of the Red Chamber" is China's most popular novel in China (or at least, by readers of Chinese, since Wikipedia is banned in China), but "The Art of War" is more popular everywhere else.

"Dream of the Red Chamber" is a novel about love within the context of Chinese philosophy. The Bible, however, in Wikipedia terms, is at least the "Western consensus on the meaning of love", if not more so than just the "West", given its global impact (e.g. the year). As the holy book of the world's largest religion, Christianity, it has been the cornerstone for a large number of civilizations, philosophies, cultures, and institutions: The Catholic Church, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Spiritism, The Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ethiopian Empire, the Red Cross, etc.

Consider the great determination and perseverance of Christian missionares throughout history to spread the Bible's word to all peoples all around the world, and I'm sure you'll agree its exclusion on the "List of Articles Every Wikipedia Should Have" is completely unjustified.

The Bible's influence on other Abrahamic religions also deserves a mention: the Hebrew Bible is composed of the same books as the Christian Old Testament, and the Quran alludes to Biblical narratives.

The Bible's most memorable impact to China is the Taiping Rebellion, a civil war started by Hong Xiuquan, who proclaimed himself to be Jesus Christ. It was the bloodiest civil war in history, and had global repurcussions. So, even the average person in China—where the population is mostly Buddhist, Taoist, or irreligious, and the place where "Dream of the Red Chamber" is most known—has likely heard of the Bible.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose We just added Protestantism and removed Trimurty, I very much doubt that it is necessary to continue the Christianization and de-Asianization of the list. It is true that there are two Chinese texts on the list, but considering the antiquity of the Chinese civilization and the fact that this country is still larger in population than the USA and Europe combined, why should not we have 2 Chinese texts in the list? All the more so because there are more than two thousand years between these two texts. And then, are we planning to add the Bible and not add the Quran? That would not be a very good idea. In practice, the Quran means much more to ordinary Muslims than the Bible does to ordinary Christians, they memorize it in the original en masse. And demographic trends (the percentage Muslims in the global population is increasing) indicate that Muslim issues will only grow in importance.--Reprarina (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   That's why I followed this with a proposal to replace a Christian article with a Hindu one!! Why accuse me of De-Asianation when I did that?? India has more population than China, yet has only one text listed. So, why not include the Vedas over "Dream of the Red Chamber"? Russia is the country with the largest land area, why not include "War and Peace"?

   "the Quran means much more to ordinary Muslims than the Bible does to ordinary Christians" I take offense at this one, Reprarina. The Bible to Christians is SACRED, HOLY, DIVINE, RIGHTEOUS, JUST, PERFECT, LOVING, CARING, PEACEFUL, WISE, IMMACULATE, HONORABLE, THOUGHTFUL, INSIGHTFUL, NECESSARY, BLESSED, VIRTUOUS, RIGHT, COMFORTING, GENUINE, ADMIRABLE, EXEMPLARY, MORAL, ETHICAL, BRILLIANT, SUPERB, SUBLIME, AUTHENTIC, COMPELLING, MAGICAL, INFLUENTIAL, and GOOD!!

   The reason Christians don't memorize the entire Bible is because it is much, much longer than the Quran (The Quran has ~77,000 words, yet the Bible has ~780,000 words!) And yes, we can certainly add the Bible and not the Quran, seeing as currently the Mahabharata is the only religious text listed. We can only add one religious text at a time. Do you think the Quran seriously belongs on the list, but the Bible doesn't, when Christianity is the world's largest religion, while Islam is the second-largest, and as I said before, the Quran references Biblical narratives, like you're supposed to already know the Bible before reading the Quran??

   This is how the Bible introduces Adam in Genesis: "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

   This is how Adam is first mentioned in the Quran: "He taught Adam the names of all things, then He presented them to the angels and said, “Tell Me the names of these, if what you say is true?”"

   As you can see, the Quran is intrinsically linked with the Bible. Muslims also believe Jesus to be a great prophet. The average Muslim would likely agree with the inclusion of the Bible of this list, even over the Quran, because they read both!! LightProof1995 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   Anyway, in this section we are not discussing the proposal "Add Bible, remove Thomas Aquinas" but the proposal "add Bible, remove Dream of the Red Chamber". Reprarina (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   Yessss...... If the "evaluation-by-civilization" wasn't worthy, perhaps a thorough investigation of these two texts is needed. I asked AI to summarize both the "Dream of the Red Chamber" and the Bible, and that's how I confirmed both are about "love". But, I didn't actually read through the entire plot of "Dream of the Red Chamber", nor have I gone through every Book of the Bible to summarize their contents and compare their overall gist in regards to the "meaning of love", and compare that to how love is defined in "Dream of the Red Chamber". I suppose I will have to, and perhaps as many of us Meta-Wikipedians as possible should, so we can best grasp this proposal :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Per Reprarina + Bible is – at least – very present in Abraham, Judaism, Christianism, Protestantism and Catholic Church. --Toku (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC) --Toku (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   There are two Schools of Thought: one, I have been proposing: We should reduce redundancy in the list, since we have limited space. However, this came into conflict with the other School of Thought, proposed by Reprarina: Articles should be related. I feel both "Schools of Thought" must be considered properly. Here, it seems you are invoking the Pioneer of the "Articles Should Be Related" School of Thought by saying there are already articles related to the one I am proposing, so we don't need any more. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Add Vyasa, Remove St. Thomas Aquinas

After reading the Bhagavad Gita recently, I feel swapping Trimurti for Protestantism needs to be alleviated with the inclusion of another article on Hinduism.

The Bhagavad Gita is Vital-3 on English Wikipedia, as well as the Vedas, and the Bible.

Vyasa astonishingly wrote both the Mahbharata epic, of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of, AND he compiled the Vedas! I found my copy of The Bhagavad Gita at a music festival, when I went there to see Odesza, who I'd never seen before, and I used all my money to do so. This book was at a stand at the festival where you can "swap" an item for another, and so it is magical to me. The back of the book says, "The Bhagavad Gita is universally renowned as the jewel of India's spiritual wisdom".

Within this book, Krsna, an avatar of Vishnu, is described as the one who controls the Universe. The book delves into three types of yoga: Karma Yoga, the Path of Action; Bhakti Yoga, or the Path of Devotion; and Jnana Yoga, or the Path of Knowledge. It says these paths will fulfill one's Dharma, or sacred duty, and therefore one will break free of the cycle of Samsara, to become Divine in the next life (or something like that).

I feel we need to list the attributed author of 5/6 of Hinduism's major texts, especially when there are no other Hindu religious figures listed. I think among the Christian figures listed, St. Thomas Aquinas is the least known, and shouldn't be listed over St. Paul or St. Patrick.

Support

1.  Support As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Vyasa has 62 language sections. Despite the formal authorship of Mahabharata and formal compilation of Vedas, there is not too much interest to the personality of Vyasa in the world; he is too much legendary for that. For comparison, Kalidasa (he is on the list) has 137, because he is interesting to people in the world and as a person, although he also has a certain level of being legendary. Murasaki Shikibu (she is not the list), author of The Tale of Ganji, has 141. And yes, we already have Mahabharata (but we don’t have, for example, Ramayana and Vedas), so, in my opinion, Vyasa is definetely not the best choice.--Reprarina (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   I agree. I didn't realize he had so few language sections, nor that he is considered legendary. I thought he was a historical person? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose I don't think swapping Trimurti for Protestantism needs to be alleviated with the inclusion of another article on Hinduism as the list doesn't work like that. It's the list of the fundamental articles for every wikipedia. --Toku (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

   I suppose I also wanted to counter my proposal to add the Bible to the list. That plus Protestantism, really did seem like "too much Christianization" with "De-Asianization" to me, like Reprarina suggests. In this regard, it seems you disagree with Reprarina. I think I am in agreement with you on this, Toku. My proposal to add the Bible seems more authentic and thought-out than my proposal here, which I mostly made to "counter" or "alleviate" my previous proposals. So, thank you for your insight here, as I find it a good and productive way to think about the list :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Why does the Religious Figures section have so few people in the first place, compared to other Biography sections? What about characters such as Noah, Mani, Guru Nanak, John the Baptist? Do we really need 21 "Composers and musicians", and 32 "Authors, playwrights and poets", AND 12 "Film directors, screenwriters and actors", yet only 10 religious figures?? Isn't that just way too many "Artists"?

Maybe we can re-evaluate some quotas so we're not floundering trying to make proposals within "one category" without some "reason" that is never seemingly good enough to justify the "switch between categories"? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the reason is that religious figures are often known only to a particular religious community, and the list is designed to include those who are known worldwide. Sikhs are ~0,4% of global human population, why should we have both Sikhism and Guru Nanak in the list? Reprarina (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

For the same reason you feel both "Homer" and "Iliad" should be listed. It's your own philosophy!! LightProof1995 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)