Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2024

Can we swap smth/smone for Discrimination?

Swapped with Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Discrimination is the general concept that can include racism (that we already have in the list), sexism, ageism, ableism, religious discrimination etc.; it also includes individual discrimination, structural discrimination, instututional discrimination... so it's the one of the core concepts. And, when we look in the relevant academic literature, we can see the importance of the topic only grows.--Reprarina (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Discrimination can be introducced in "Human rights". And it's necessary to explain more your proposal : "Smth" and "Smone" don't us give the possibility to understand it.--Toku (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)  Support I'm not sure what should be swapped but I agree it's a pretty fundamental category of human interaction. AsimovtheCat (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Swap Vienna for Toronto

Not swapped (support : 1, opposition : 7)

We list both Vienna and Austria on the list and I think one of the two should be removed. Vienna seems to be redundant to Austria. Toronto should be added because there is no Canadian city on this list and at the very least, would add Toronto since it is the powerhouse of the Canadian economy. I would also be interested in knowing what the significance of Bogota, Brussels, Cape Town, Rio de Janeiro, and Tehran are to this list. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose Vienna is not only the capital of Austria but also is the city where many people from the list were born/lived/died (Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Mahler, Mozart, Schubert, Freud, Schrödinger, Wittgenstein), also it was one of the most important cities in Holy Roman Empire.--Reprarina (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. --Toku (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. --ThomasPusch (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina. -Theklan (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)  Oppose: Vienna and Austria are actually important for different reasons. While Austria has mostly historical importance as the core of the eponymous empire that was a major player in the European politics for well over a century, Vienna has been (and, I daresay, stays) one of the foremost cultural capitals of the world. As a Canadian, I would certainly like to see Toronto included, but objectively it is of less economic importance than some U.S. cities that haven't actually made it to the list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Reprarina and Deinocheirus. Also will add that Vienna has a large impact on international events with a large UN presence. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Weak oppose per above, and I’d consider taking Toronto’s high GaWC ranking into account. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Added Kyoto, Japan and Taipei, Taiwan

Both Kyoto in Japan and Taipei in Taiwan are important historical cities in Asia. can't you add? Amkjmltpsjmej (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you propose to remove to make place? I also think they do not have so much importance outside their respective countries. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather see Osaka get added than Kyoto, as it is the main city in the Kansai region. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove Venezuela, Add Colombia

Swapped with enough support (support : 5, opposition : 0)

Colombia has a much higher population and GDP than Venezuela. Interstellarity (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Support per nom. Colombia also beats Venezuela in land area and oil production, and Colombia supplies around 70% of the world's cocaine. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Support --Thi (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC) OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Support per nom. J947: 00:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC) As nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Animism, Remove Fundamentalism

Animism is a term coined by anthropologists to describe the basic spiritual beliefs of indigenous cultures. This to me seems more "fundamental" than Fundamentalism, the theory of following religious texts literally.

Support

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
2.  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3.  Support Per nom. --Toku (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
4.  Support Add Animism, but move Religious Fundamentalism to Social Sciences: Politics Ideology section. If space needed in Social Science section, vote to swap Fundamentalism for Nobel Prize from the International Organisation section (Nobel is not an Intl Org, it's just a Swedish private-corporate, non governmental award). --AntekVeganova (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Fundamentalism is not religiously important. But fundamentalism is politically important. The spread of fundamentalism has caused widespread political turmoil and religious intolerance in both Christian and Muslim countries. Fundamentalism is a very important keyword to explain the current chaos in the world.--Opqr (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

   I suggest in this case we move Religious fundamentalism to Social Sciences: Politics in the Ideology section, what do you think? Can vote to swap the space with Nobel prize in International Organisations in same section (as Nobel prize is not an Intl Organization, just a Swedish private, non gov. award) AntekVeganova (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

2.  Oppose per Opqr.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Animism is not universally accepted term in anthropology, it has received some criticism. Fundamentalism is important religious topic. --Thi (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

If we remove both Zen and Yoga, there will be no more "Spiritual practices". I think Meditation is vital, but I'm not sure what to propose to swap out. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think "Spiritual practices" are important at all, so it's perfectly fine to remove them all from this list.--Opqr (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Meditation and Yoga can be moved to Art and Recreation, Sport section. If place is needed to keep them, I suggest one of the less significant German biographies could be taken out, such as Social Science section Max Weber or Heidegger (that section seems unfavourably dominated by German philosophers that did not prove globally significant). AntekVeganova (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying! I support your suggestion, AntekVeganova :) LightProof1995 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Mandarin Chinese, Remove Chinese language

The fact is that "Chinese language" is actually not a language but a group of languages. The Chinese language on the list is almost as if there were Indo-Aryan languages on the list instead of Hindustani. It's even the definition in the article Chinese language: Chinese is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China. Mandarin Chinese is more accurate analogue of other big languages in this list.

Support

1.  Support as nom--Reprarina (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   Is it allowed to vote for your own suggestion? It seems like cheating by adding a fake vote in support, to be honest. It is a given that you support your own suggestion. AntekVeganova (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yes it's common here. Reprarina (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

2.  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose In other words, are you saying that Mandarin is the official language of China, and that Mandarin is also designated as the official language of the United Nations?　It is different.　Chinese is designated as the official language.　Even if it is actually Mandarin, the international community treats it as "Chinese."　Don't underestimate generic terms.　If I follow your suggestion, Arabic would have to be changed to Modern Standard Arabic, and English would have to be changed to American or British English. That's so ridiculous.--Opqr (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   Even if it is actually Mandarin, the international community treats it as "Chinese." But not the linguistic RSs. Linguistic RSs view Chinese language as a group of non-mutually intelligible languages. The article Chinese language physically can't be an article which say many enough things about Mandarin Chinese. I won’t say anything about the Arabic language, but the situation with the English language is completely different. Reprarina (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose There are more Chinese languages than just Mandarin, for example Cantonese. Chinese is a general group that covers all the dialects and groups of Chinese. Seems the suggesting user doesn't quite understand linguistics and is unfairly in favour of just Mandarin. Also the user votes in favour of his own suggestion, which is dishonest. AntekVeganova (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

   "There are more Chinese languages than just Mandarin, for example Cantonese. Chinese is a general group that covers all the dialects and groups of Chinese." And the same can be said about other groups of languages. We have no articles in the list about groups of languages, only about languages. Should we make an exception for Chinese group to be included in the list, and for Mandarin (a big language) not to be included? Why should we? Reprarina (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

3.  Oppose per Opqr. --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose Most of Chinese languages that are locally spoken in much part of the world—especially in Southeast Asia—aren't Mandarin (see Language Atlas of China). Also Mandarin already included in Chinese languages. Mbee-wiki (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

   Quite the same can be said about, for example, Japanese language and Japonic languages. Should we exclude Japanese language for Japonic languages?--Reprarina (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

5.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
6.  OpposePer Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

• I would support swapping Hindustani with Indo-Aryan languages, and listing Chinese languages and Indo-Aryan languages under a new header called "Language families" LightProof1995 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Chinese (d:Q7850) is listed under "Specific languages". It sounds like the nomination rationale for removal is that it doesn't fit into the section because it is a group of languages rather than a language. I think a group of languages can fit. If necessary, we could rename the section name as "Specific languages and groups of languages". whym (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Prison, Remove Capital punishment

Is the capital punishment actually a more important topic than prison? Prisons are everywhere (terms are diverse, but the concept is quite international), the death penalty is not everywhere. Imprisonment affects much more people than the death penalty.

Support

1.  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2.  Support per nom.--Ideophagous (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose The death penalty is a very important element in the history of justice. It is still present in many societies. Personally, I think "Prison" should replace "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Best regards, --Toku (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Again, the rationale is understandable but I feel that capital punishment is more prominent instance of legal penalty. --Deinocheirus (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
3.  Oppose To answer your question about whether capital punishment is or is not more important than prison, we can consider the objective measure of views in the past 30 days, because they are similar articles. Prison has 27,102 and Incarceration has 7,209 views on English Wikipedia, totaling 34,311 views, while Capital punishment has 98,195. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Warsaw, remove Brussels

There is some Western European bias on this list, and Belgium has less than a third of the population of Poland. Brussels doesn't have much going for it other than the EU and NATO. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "other than EU and NATO"? I hope you're joking. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Brussels is the capital of the European Union. Until Poland becomes a big player within it, no to Warsaw. The Blue Rider 00:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Per Yerpo and The Blue Rider. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Per Yerpo. --Algovia (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Hildegard of Bingen, remove Antonín Dvořák

Aside from the problematic European bias in the composers section, Dvořák is not really influential enough to be on this list. He was certainly an important composer, but there are already many romantic era composers on the list who had more influence on the direction of classical music as a whole. Hildegard of Bingen, on the other hand, has had more of her work survive to the modern era than any other medieval era composer, and was also an influential philosopher and polymath. AsimovtheCat (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support per nom. She's a notable female polymath, and this helps with gender bias. She also beats Dvorak in page views. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Is Hildegard of Bingen really important enough to be on this list? She doesn't seem to have done anything significant enough in the fields of music, natural history, or medicine to be included on this list. As a religious figure,she does not seem to have left as important a footprint as Thomas Aquinas or Augustine.I don't think she's more important than Dvorak at all.--Opqr (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

   I guess I'm in agreement with that. I just don't feel like Dvorak is important enough to the trajectory of classical music to warrant an entry here. I'll spend some time thinking about a more suitable proposed replacement I guess. Or I will just leave it. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose. As for composers, I would rather agree to exclude Stravinsky (who is definitely not as important as Chaikovsky and maybe not even more important than Glinka, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich and Rachmaninoff) than Dvořák. Hildegard of Bingen would unproportionally increased the presence of Chistian religious figures in the list, and we cannot put her on a par with Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, Aurelius Augustine and Martin Luther. It's better to add Bible than Hildegard of Bingen, after all. Reprarina (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity what do you feel Dvořák has done to merit inclusion on this list? I'm not trying to just wage war against Dvořák to be clear, I just don't feel like he was very influential overall. AsimovtheCat (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Support for removal. --Thi (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Incorrect proposal, Hildegard of Bingen is not really a musician. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Per Nicolas Eynaud, the proposal is not valid. --Algovia (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Hildegard of Bingen is not really a composer or a musician. I think this proposal doesn't respect the guidelines for changes in the list ("swapping like for like (category switch only with reason"). A valid proposal should propose a swap in the "Religious figures and theologians" category (?) or in "Philosophers and social scientists" (?). Best regards, --Toku (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not support adding Hildegard of Bingen, but is there some metric that can be used to determine composer influence? I feel like composers like Rachmaninoff, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich, or Stravinsky could be more appropriate to include here rathan than Dvořák, but I don't really know the best metric to determine that. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is views. From English Wikipedia's Vital page FAQ:

"In order to see a page's view counts (in the past 30 days), one can click on "Page information" on the right of the page. In theory, the amount of views a page receives points to it being critical to Wikipedia's structure. However, this is hardly the case. View counts are by no means a definitive marker of vitality and should be approached with caution. In general, view counts should only be compared across similar articles. Recent events and popular celebrities tend to receive views that aren't necessarily "critical to Wikipedia's structure views" as the popularity of these pages is temporary and often irrelevant to Wikipedia's other articles."

We can compare views across the composers you list because they are all "similar articles" in that they are all composers:

Rachmaninoff views: (English: ~50,000. Russian: ~37,000.) Avg 43,500 views

Debussy views: (English: ~49,000. French: ~10,000.) Avg 29,500 views

Schumann views: (English: ~40,000. German: ~14,000.) Avg 27,000 views

Shostakovich views: (English: ~47,000. Russian: ~44,000.) Avg 45,500 views

Stravinsky views: (English: ~36,000. Russian: ~14,000.) Avg 25,000 views

Dvorak views: (English: ~33,000. Czech: ~11,000.) Avg 22,000 views

Hildegard views: (English: ~37,000. German: ~18,000.) Avg 27,500 views

One could average/sum across even more Wikipedias of different languages to get even more feel of their global importance. Looks like Shostakovich and Rachmaninoff stand out the most in this initial analysis. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I would personally support replacing Dvořák with either Rachmaninoff or Shostakovich (I'd lean towards Shostakovich as a composer representing a different style from Rachmaninoff and the other Romantics). Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Sociology, Remove Thought

We have too many concepts of psychology in the list, including those ones which can be problematic to translate on some languages, such as mind and thought (these words can be translated very differently into other languages). Concepts from psychology are chosen in an Anglophone-centric way - the list does not include consciousness, psyche and activity, but includes mind, behavior and thought. This is hardly an internationally recognized hierarchy. At the same time, sociology is not even on the list as such.--Reprarina (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose "Thought" has 129 interwikis in wikidata. It doesn't seem to be an English or an American view. But I think you're right about sociology, it could be in the list. --Toku (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose per above. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both are listed at English Wikipedia's Vital-3 list LightProof1995 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Manila, remove Bogota

South America is overrepresented on the list and the Philippines is the second most populous country in Southeast Asia. Even Lima would be better than Bogota. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

 Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support per nom, especially if we are adding Colombia LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

:  Oppose We have almost 20 Asian cities in the list already and just 4 South American cities. The ratio is as lopsided when we look at the countries subsection (16 to just 3). I don't think reducing South American representation in the list is a good idea. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Since we added Colombia, no need to keep both the country and its capital in the very limited list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You’ve got to be joking. South America has 5.5% of the world population and 8.9% of the cities on this list. Asia has 60% of the world population and 42% of the cities on this list. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Algae, remove Marine mammal

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, opposition : 0)

Both Algae and Marine mammal are hodgepodges from a cladistic point of view, but Algae is a more important, more ancient, more fundamental hodgepodge. It should be noted that users are not enthusiastic about writing the article "Marine mammal" - this article is written in only 73 languages. "Algae" is written on 115. There is a big field of science about algae - phycology (algology), which has a long history.--Reprarina (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Support  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Algae account for approximately 50% of global carbon fixation, and have a major impact on the world's ecosystems and climate. The large amounts of oxygen produced by cyanobacteria caused a dramatic change in the atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago, triggering the great prosperity of life that continues to this day. I agree because algae are very important in this way.--Opqr (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Per Opqr. --Algovia (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Makes sense. --Deinocheirus (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom and Opqr. Marine mammal doesn't belong when we already list Cetacea. I was going to propose swapping Marine mammal with Elephant, but this work too. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Johannesburg, remove Cape Town

While it doesn't have the historical importance Cape Town has, the fourth-most populous and largest African city economically deserves a spot on this list. Johannesburg is ranked α- on GaWC, and Cape Town is ranked β. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support as nom. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Support per nom, Johannesburg is the largest metro population in South Africa, and exceeds Cape Town's by ~10 million. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Soviet Union, remove Cultural Revolution

Swapped with enough support (support : 6, opposition : 0)

Is the Cultural Revolution in China 1966-1976 really so important that it should be included not only in the extended list, but also in this list?.. The absence of the Soviet Union in the list seems extremely strange to me. The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, launched the first human into space and was the main enemy of the United States in the Cold War which is included in the list. The Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world from the end of World War II until the mid 1980s. The extended list contains a lot of articles that are directly related to the Soviet Union (Great Purge, Holodomor, NKVD, Gulag, Population transfer in the Soviet Union, Chernobyl disaster, Dissolution of the Soviet Union), so I guess the core article should be included in this list. Support  Support as nom.--Reprarina (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom LightProof1995 (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)  Support. One of the most important historical states. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Per nom. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Averroes, Remove Martin Heidegger

Islamic Golden Age is still underrepresented in the list. Thw article about Averroes was written in more Wikipedias than about Heidegger (Averroes has 107, Heidegger has 105). According to this indicator, Heidegger is an outsider among Western philosophers and humanists on the list. He has even less Wikipedias than Carl Jung (107), Baruh Spinoza (114), Friedrich Engels (125) and Noam Chomsky (138) who are not included. Averroes returned Aristotle to the Middle-Aged world. So I guess he is the missing link of the great philosophers on this list.--Reprarina (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

I support the removal, but I'd rather see Islamic Golden Age itself added. I don't think Averroes should be included over Avicenna or Alhazen. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Avicenna is in the list. Reprarina (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Thank you for correcting my error. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think adding the Islamic Golden Age is a good idea because it is just as important as the other golden ages. Reprarina (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any specific ones in mind? LightProof1995 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Murasaki Shikibu, Remove Geoffrey Chaucer

We have lack of Asian writers of post-classical period, we have lack of women, especially in post-classical period. Murasaki Shikibu is ahead of Geoffrey Chaucer in the number of Wikipedias (137 for Shikibu versus 134 for Chaucer). The Tale of Genji has much big number of Wikipedias than The Canterbury Tales (94 for The Tale of Genji versus 57 for The Canterbury Tales).

I will try to counter the potential argument “We already have the Tale of Genji in the list, so we don’t need Murasaki Shikibu” - rather, on the contrary: if we have the Tale of Genji, but don’t have The Canterbury Tales, then maybe the author of The Tale of Genji is more important than author of The Canterbury Tales? By the way, The Canterbury Tales are not included in the expanded list. In addition, Murasaki Shikibu's creative heritage is not limited to writing The Tale of Genji. She wrote also 128 poems and The Diary of Lady Murasaki.

Other English-language writers in the list (Dickens, Austen, Byron, Joyce, Shakespeare, and Twain) have more Wikipedias than Chauser. Chaucer significantly increases the Anglocentrism on the list, being an English writer with relatively few Wikipedias.--Reprarina (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose “We already have the Tale of Genji in the list, so we don’t need Murasaki Shikibu” I oppose this proposal for this very reason. There are currently several literary greats on this list who are credited with only one great work.　Dante and Cervantes.　However, this list includes Dante, but not “The Divine Comedy“, and Cervantes, but not “Don Quixote“.　Only one work and author can be on the list. There are no duplicates. Why is Murasaki Shikibu the only one allowed to list both authors and works?　 Murasaki Shikibu is famous for both diary literature and waka poetry, but he was only one of dozens of writers who excelled in these two fields at the Japanese court at the time.　Murasaki Shikibu's achievements are basically all due to his writing of “The Tale of Genji”.--Opqr (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   Why “Dream in the Red Chamber” is on the list, but Cao Xueqin is not on the list, I understand perfectly well - the novel is significantly ahead of the author in the number of Wikipedias (97 for the novel, 47 for its author). I don’t understand why “The Tale of Genji” is on the list, but Murasaki Shikibu is not on the list - in this case, the author is significantly ahead of the novel in the number of Wikipedias (94 for the novel, 137 for its author). Reprarina (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   The reason you just gave is a reason to exchange The Tale of Genji and Murasaki Shikibu, not at all a reason to exchange Chaucer and Murasaki Shikibu. There is no reason to overlap Murasaki Shikibu and The Tale of Genji.--Opqr (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   Like for like rule. Reprarina (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

   The main reason for removing Chaucer is that the list is Anglocentric. Reprarina (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose per Opqr, and per your initial argument, I agree we should only have either the artist or their work. So I'd support removal of the Iliad. I proposed swapping Murasaki Shikibu for Tale of Genji at Vital articles (English) and it failed; consensus at the time was to have no works of art at all and only the artists. I also oppose removing Chaucer, the father of English literature. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   I don’t see anything wrong with the presence of both Homer and the Iliad. The presence of Homer as a poet is not a reason to downgrade the status of the Iliad as a poem. Reprarina (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   It's not a downgrade; only an acknowledgement that with limited space for our encyclopedic list, we need to at least consider all aspects of a category before deciding we can have overlap on purpose. There wasn't even consensus to list Iliad over Odyssey in the archives. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   And I think this would be the wrong approach. And in this case, I believe that the presence of both Homer and the Iliad in the list and the absence of the Odyssey is completely fair. Although since ancient times there actually has been an ultra-elite opinion: Hesiod and Works and Days are more important.<> Reprarina (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   Precisely, Chaucer is important for English literature, but is he really a writer who is very well known outside of English-speaking countries? Reprarina (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   Well, if the other encyclopedias followed the recommendations of this list, he would be :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

   In my opinion, there is a lot on the list that is considered important mainly by the English-speaking intelligentsia. And since the page is in English, this is difficult to avoid, but highly advisable to avoid. Reprarina (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Notable women missed, see HPI by Pantheon.World

Dear wikimedians, out of +200 people the only women we list are: (please correct me if I something missed) Beauvoir, Simone de; Elizabeth I; Joan of Arc; Frida Kahlo; Kulthum, Umm; Dietrich, Marlene; Monroe, Marilyn; Austen, Jane. So we list just 8 women among 200 all biographies. This inspired me to show for you th top 30 the most memorable according to HPI which was made by pantheon.world. Some which we list (for example Dietrich is not among top 30 most memorable by HPI because of this alghoritm is quite conservative against recenrism), if we have so few women in comprasion to men, then I beleve some of them or many of them (depend what quota for biographies we would choose) could be candidate for the list.

https://pantheon.world/explore/rankings?show=people&years=-3501,2023&gender=F

1. en:Mary, mother of Jesus - 91.17 HPI index as of 2022
2. en:Marie Curie - 90.71 HPI as of 2022
3. en:Elizabeth II - 90.46 HPI as of 2022
4. en:Cleopatra - 89.95 HPI as of 2022
5. en:Joan of Arc - 89.59 HPI as of 2022
6. en:Elizabeth I of England - 87.64 HPI as of 2022
7. en:Frida Kahlo - 86.54 HPI as of 2022
8. en:Hurrem Sultan - 85.98 HPI as of 2022
9. en:Queen Victoria - 85.80 HPI as of 2022
10. en:Nefertiti - 85.45 HPI as of 2022
11. en:Marie Antoinette - 85.12 HPI as of 2022
12. en:Marilyn Monroe - 85.04 HPI as of 2022
13. en:Grace Kelly - 84.60 HPI as of 2022
14. en:Maria Theresa - 84.31 HPI as of 2022
15. en:Angela Merkel - 83.94 HPI as of 2022
16. en:Agatha Christie - 83.91 HPI as of 2022
17. en:Catherine the Great - 83.49 HPI as of 2022
18. en:Anne Frank - 83.42 HPI as of 2022
19. en:Empress Elisabeth of Austria 83.26 HPI as of 2022
20. en:Margaret Thatcher 83.20 HPI as of 2022
21. en:Mary I of England 82.97 HPI as of 2022
22. en:Hillary Clinton 82.95 HPI as of 2022
23. en:Florence Nightingale 82.36 HPI as of 2022
24. en:Kösem Sultan 82.27 HPI as of 2022
25. en:Coco Chanel 82.18 HPI as of 2022
26. en:Hypatia 81.91 HPI as of 2022
27. en:Anne Boleyn 81.86 HPI as of 2022
28. en:Édith Piaf 81.76 HPI as of 2022
29. en:Saint Barbara 81.68 HPI as of 2022
30. en:Aretha Franklin 81.57 HPI as of 2022

Apart from the top 30, there is one woman which could be interesing candidate but s not listed: Sun Tzu. The "most memorable according to HPI" woman from east worl is ranked here as 46-th with 80.47 HPI index, it is weak i comprasion to west women but very strong resjult if we for example take into account that Wikipedia is blocked in China and Chinese Wu Zeiten (which according to some sources [1] is wealthiest woman ever) is ranked 121-th.

How many women we could have? I believe we could have at least 15. According to PAntheon.World the most notable missed woman is Mary, Mother of Jesus as you clearly see.

I had also o my mind to create list of listed men with weakest HPI but will try start analyse it bit later when I receive bit more time. Best and warmest regards Dawid2009 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sun Tzu is male. When using data, please consider carefully whether the data is reliable.--Opqr (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Of these 30, Nightingale is the only new person we need to add to the list. However, Nightingale is neither a scientist nor a politician, so I don't know where to put her on the list.--Opqr (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We also already have en:Rosa Luxemburg and en:Marie Curie. I see in the list several figures of a comparable scale to those already in the list, but they are objectively few. Most of the female political figures are known thanks to their association with even more famous men (Nefertiti, Anne Boleyn, Roxelana, Marie Antoinette, Empress Sisi, Grace Kelly, Hillary Clinton) or are rather ordinary politicians whose gender is their only difference from literally hundreds of others (Merkel, Elizabeth II, Mary Tudor). We also don't have ordinary saints in the list (note that there are no apostles or evangelists, neither Solomon or David), so there is no need to include Mary or St. Barbara. Hypatia is most known by her violent death, as opposed to the scientists on the current list who are included due to their important contributions to the sciences. So maybe we can talk Margaret Thatcher - but note that neither Reagan nor Gorbachev made the cut, and she isn't more prominent than them. Maybe we can talk Catherine the Great or Maria Theresa - but note that Friedrich the Great didn't make the cut, and the scale is once again the same. Maybe we can talk Agatha Christie - but without Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Poe or Georges Simenon on the list it would be very hard to argue for her inclusion. I agree with Opqr that Florence Nightingale's contribution is unique, and I can also see some potential for Coco Chanel, but this is all. And don't forget that adding somebody to the list means excluding somebody else, so you have to come with a good reason why any of the candidates is better than somebody already on the list. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Modern figures like Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel should not be included here. It would be better, then, to include someone whose elevated encyclpedic value has stood the test of time. One such person could be Mary Wollstonecraft, who can be considered a forerunner of Simone de Beauvoir in a certain sense, or perhaps even more foundational. Reprarina (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think Cleopatra is more vital than Kwame Nkrumah and Umar (Aren't either Abu Bakr or Ali both a no-brainer over Umar? I am not Muslim, so I am not sure). I also think Catherine the Great is a potentially better choice than Peter the Great -- she has over double the page views on English Wikipedia than him. There are probably more swaps that could be made; I agree 8/200 is not accurate of women's contributions to history and society. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to replace Peter for Catherine. It's not an equal replacement. Maybe Stalin can be a better candidate if replacing Russian polotical leader for another Russian political leader is the only option. Tucvbif (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Stalin would be a better choice, however Stalin is already listed. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter the Great changed Russia much more seriously than Catherine the Great. Reprarina (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed "far better" to "potentially better". I think the swap is worth considering. Peter changed Russia in a foundational way, setting up the groundwork and military, while Catherine continued his work, focusing on the sciences and arts. Wouldn't it be better to have one dictator-militaristic Russian leader, and one cultural one, instead of two dictator-militaristic ones? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Catherine the Great was quite militaristic. Her era is associated with Partitions of Poland, with Greek Plan and such fugures as Grigory Potemkin, Fyodor Ushakov and Alexander Suvorov, while the writer Alexander Radishchev was repressed. Reprarina (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What do yo mean when say «dictator», especially related to monarchy? Catherine came took her power not in peaceful and legitime way, many historians believe that she killed her husband. She turned peasonts literally to slaves. She established demarcation line for jews, dissolved authonomy of Zaporizhzhia, suppressed many riots.

Peter, for comparition, provide reforms in fashion and etiquette, grammar and education, calendar, industry, church e.t.c. He popularize potato, tobacco, cofe. He, at the end, emproved relationship with Western Europe. Tucvbif (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I agree we should keep Peter. I think Catherine deserves to be listed alongside Peter. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay so earlier I stated I felt in an ideal world, this list would eventually match the "Vital-3" list at English Wikipedia. I'd now like to retract that statement. Perhaps all of you already know this and if so I am very sorry I am just now understanding as a newbie, but perhaps there is more value in asserting the two lists would necessarily be different as an ideal goal. For example, maybe the consensus is to list Catherine at Wikipedia Vital-3, and list Peter here, but not list both leaders side-by-side on either list.

If so, I think it could make discussion easier. For example, Vital-3 lists the following articles:

Neolithic Revolution, Green Revolution, and History of agriculture, along with 9 more "History of..." articles. Here we list none of those articles, but we do have Irrigation and Plough, which are not listed at English Vital-3. Such a great difference between the lists maybe points to differences being necessary. For example, maybe there is consensus Irrigation and Plough should be listed here instead of History of agriculture, because we want countries focusing on growing crops instead of learning about the history of them. But at Vital-3, there is obviously more emphasis on history and agricultural history. If we say we want the lists to eventually match, that is probably ignoring the fact the value in that they are two different lists.

So, I will no longer be focused on getting Catherine up here, since she is listed at Vital-3. Maybe she belongs here too, maybe she doesn't. Either way, what other women are listed at Vital-3 and the list posted above in this discussion, but not on the main list? Both Cleopatra and Hatshepsut are currently listed at Vital-3 but not here, but Hatshepsut may get removed. Would it be better to consider adding Hatshepsut here over Cleopatra, if Cleopatra is listed there? LightProof1995 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree, that women are lacking in this list, I can see how hard it is to decide which men to exclude instead.

Maybe we could finish and revive the List of biographies of women every Wikipedia should have to tackle the gender bias in the Wikipedia, give small wikis a list of important women and larger wikis an incentive to improve women’s biographies. Flaverius (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The best candidates for exclusion are those men who are from the Western and especially English-speaking world and at the same time have relatively few Wikipedias. Those that are mainly known in the Western and especially English-speaking world and not outside it. Reprarina (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Florence Nightingale, Remove Umar

I'm a little hesitant about this suggestion, but I'd like to suggest a change to Nightingale and Umar.

Nightingale was a great figure who established the concept of nursing and left a great mark on medicine, hygiene, and statistics. The question is, in which category should we put her?

Although Nightingale contributed to medicine and statistics, she was essentially a social activist rather than a scientist. Therefore, I think she should be classified in the political leader category rather than a scientist.　

Of the 39 people currently in the political leader category, I believe that the three who are somewhat less important are Umar, Nkrumah, and Rosa Luxemburg.　Rosa Luxemburg is less important, but not completely unimportant and should not be removed as the proportion of women in the list needs to be increased.　Nkrumah was a leading figure in the African independence movement of the 1950s and 1960s and should not be removed to reflect the history of sub-Saharan Africa on the list.　Umar is a representative of the development of the early Islamic state, but his importance is somewhat less because Muhammad, the founder, is already on the list, and the Abbasids, the descendants of the Islamic state, are also on the list. Therefore, I think we should add Nightingale and remove Umar.--Opqr (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as nom.--Opqr (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Strong support Abu Bakr or Ali are better choices for this list over Umar, as I've stated before. So Umar doesn't belong at all. Florence Nightingale is a great choice and helps balance the gender bias. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I fear that the addition of Florence Nightingale will disproportionately increase the British presence on a list that is primarily aimed at an international audience. I don't think Umar is insignificant to this list. I think that the percentage of Muslims in the world is growing, so the importance of Umar is only increasing.--Reprarina (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose The proposal is not clear. Nightingale is described as « a great figure who established the concept of nursing and left a great mark on medicine, hygiene, and statistics » but she is proposed to join the list as a « social activist » or a « political leader ». Why not ? But, in this case, is it possible to describe what she has done in this area ? Because Umar is not just « a representative of the development of the early Islamic state », he is the one who leaded the first Islamic expansion outside Arabian Peninsula, created the first administration of the Caliphate and initiated the compilation of the Quran. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose It can be argued that Umar had a greater effect on the development of early Islam, than most other historical figures apart from Muhammad himself. Among people with an Islamic background, Umar is practically a household name, whatever people think of him. The list already has some Western bias to begin with, and on that basis, there was little enthusiasm in my language community, to join an editing campaign I started, to create and improve the articles on this list. Let's not make it even more biased. Ideophagous (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per N. Eynaud and Ideophagous. --Toku (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose This proposal is not valid ("swapping like for like (category switch only with reason"). --Algovia (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding. I consider Nightingale to be a social activist, a great figure involved in politics and social change, so I am proposing an exchange within the category of politician. I haven't switched categories.--Opqr (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both Florence Nightingale and Nursing are listed at English Wikipedia's Vital-3 list, but neither are here. I think Nursing is critical globally and should be listed here, if not alongside Florence Nightingale. I supported this swap before even seeing Florence Nightingale is listed at Vital-3 because of the worldwide importance of nursing and Umar's relative importance to Islam compared to other figures. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Data on the number of page views in Russian Wikipedia over the past year - Florence Nightingale - 70,688, Maria Montessori - 78,068, Virginia Woolf - 117,359, Margaret Thatcher - 370,057, Golda Meir - 441,142, JK Rowling - 446,837, Taylor Swift - 582,697, Queen Victoria - 633,560, princess Diana - 1,049,843. I have a strong suspicion that Florence Nightingale is not the best candidate to correct the gender bias in the list without falling into Anglocentric bias. Reprarina (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

English views:

Florence Nightingale: ~100,000

Maria Montessori: ~24,000

Virginia Woolf: ~154,000

Margaret Thatcher: ~236,000

Golda Meir: ~124,000

J. K. Rowling: ~214,000

Taylor Swift: ~4,200,000

Queen Victoria: ~511,000

Princess Diana: ~463,000

View counts are not everything. At English Wikipedia Vitals FAQ, other considerations besides views include Coverage, Notability, Importance to other articles, and No (Western) bias. No one is going to suggest Taylor Swift, talented as she is, and receiving 4.2 million views, is a better candidate for this list of articles all Wikipedias should have other Florence Nightingale, because being a great singer-songwriter is not as notable, or as special, or as important as founding the modern nursing movement. The same goes for all other women listed here. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Then first we need to add nursing to make it clear what the significance of being the founder of the modern nursing movement is. Reprarina (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree we must necessarily add Nursing before Florence Nightingale. No one has suggested a swap for Nursing, but here we have a perfectly good swap proposal to get Florence Nightingale up there. I think we should consider each proposal as they appear. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In general, when Osama bin Laden, in the number of languages in which there is an article on Wikipedia, is ahead of Umar, Abu Nuwas, Umm Kulthum, Hafiz Shirazi, Naguib Mahfouz, Zheng He, Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn Khaldun, Salah ad-Din, Suleiman I and Al-Ghazali, this trend is not only sad, but also not entirely healthy. I will very much object to the tendency to exclude figures from the Muslim world from this list, especially such important ones as Umar. On the contrary, I believe that their number should be increased.--Reprarina (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Add Wetland, Remove Lake Tanganyika

No need to list this Great African Lake when Lake Victoria is already listed. Also, of the three major African Great Lakes, Lake Malawi is arguably most important due to it having the highest fish biodiversity of any lake in the world. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) No individual lake is more important than the concept of a wetland. Wetlands are seen worldwide: the floodplains along the Nile and Amazon, the swamps in the Sundarbans and American South, and the bogs in Siberia and Ireland are all wetlands. Being neither truly aquatic or terrestrial, wetlands are a biome of their own. Because of this, wetlands provide unique ecological benefits not seen in other biomes. Wetlands also protect coasts, purify water, and restore groundwater reservoirs.

Support

1.  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
2.  Support OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks for your support OhnoitsvileplumeXD I too am a Pokémon fan ! LightProof1995 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced by the need of a swap between two different categories. --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

   Wetland would also go under Geography. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose Also not convinced. --Toku (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

   We can consider an objective measure in views.

   Lake Tanganyika: 18,024

   Wetland: 22,343

   LightProof1995 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Invalid proposal (swap in the same category). Best regards, --Algovia (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

   There’s no need to say this is an invalid proposal. It’s in the same category: Geography. Even if it wasn’t, the rules clearly state a swap between isn’t invalid if there is a reason. Best regards, LightProof1995 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

4.  Oppose Lake Tanganyika is important in Africa and in Bodies of water category. I'm not convinced by the need to reduce this category by one article. But, maybe, if we want to swap "like for like", we can question the presence of both Ocean and Sea articles at the beginning of Geography section of the list. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   Wow, how did I miss that? You’re right, maybe swapping out “Sea” would be a better swap. On English Wikipedia, there is consensus the “Ocean” and “Sea” articles should be merged, but never will be due to the difficulty. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutre I agree with removing Lake Tanganyika because it is not that important. Also, adding some general geographic concepts isn't a bad thing. However, I don't think the concept of "wetlands" is that important, so I won't state my pros and cons at this time.--Opqr (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks very much for your vote and reasoning :) the importance of wetlands is unfortunately not well-taught in schools. It's something you'd only learn about at a university or professional level. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know what is more important, wetland or meadow or plain.--Reprarina (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Reprarina. Grassland isn't listed either. Maybe we need to achieve a consensus on which to add: wetland, grassland, plain, or meadow. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like plain is too much of a generic term (Oxford dictionary defines it as simply "a large area of flat land with few trees" which includes everything from deserts to grasslands to tundra) and meadow is a common language term and isn't fully defined encyclopedically which may lead to significant inter-Wiki discrepancies, including the possibility of completely missing in some languages. So I'd say the choice should be between grassland and wetland. Deinocheirus (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If everyone keeps being so strict on “switching between categories” when they’re referring to sub-headers under the same category, I’m afraid we’ll only be able to choose one or the other, in a swap out for Sea. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Add African Great Lakes, Remove Lake Victoria

Should we really list only one or two African Great Lakes, when all five North American Great Lakes are listed as a single article, and we have limited space? The Great African Lakes are special in that they were all formed by the Great African Rift. All of them are known for the rich fish biodiversity, especially cichlids, with Lake Malawi having the most. The fish populations in the lakes are important for the local populations and fishery economies in adjacent countries.

Support

1.  Support as nom LightProof1995 (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I don't think Lake Victoria is that important, so I agree with its removal. However, I would object if Africa's Great Lakes were to be included instead of Lake Victoria. As I said last time, the major lakes of Africa's Great Lakes, Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Malawi, all belong to completely different water systems and are not interconnected. In other words, the African Great Lakes is a meaningless classification of ecologically and economically unrelated lakes forced together based solely on geographic and geological commonalities. Compared to the African Great Lakes, Lake Victoria is much more important. I strongly oppose cramming unimportant concepts into this list just to save space.--Opqr (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for voting. Sorry I missed citing your excellent reasoning for adding Algae to the list; I've cited your reasoning as well now. Please see https://www.britannica.com/place/East-African-lakes to read about how these lakes are connected hydrologically, geographically, ecologically, and economically; along with what I said before. Best regards, LightProof1995 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

2.  Oppose since Lake Victoria is listed at WP:VA. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Opqr. --Toku (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I think the point of Opqr is right. African Great Lakes is just an expression but not a reality in ecology, in economy or in culture (maybe the Great African Rift would have been more relevant, but not sure). --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Dentistry, add Surgery

It is not very clear to single out dentistry from all medical specialties (then it is strange that teeth are not on the list). Surgery is a more important thing from the point of view of preserving life, and partially includes dentistry in itself.--Reprarina (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom --Reprarina (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I agree surgery is important, but as teeth is not in the list, I think dentistry should remain because it allows to express this notion. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   I am against the compensation approach. On the contrary, if teeth are not very significant for anatomy, then dentistry is not very significant for medicine. The importance of topics in different sections are interrelated with each other. Reprarina (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Los Angeles, Add Toronto

I think we should add a Canadian city. We list 3 US cities and 1 Mexican city. I think it would be fair to include 1 Canadian city and two US cities. NYC is too important to remove, so it is a tossup between Los Angeles and Washington DC, but I decided to go with LA because Washington DC is the seat of government of the world's only superpower. Interstellarity (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose No Canadian city rivals the three listed US-American cities in popularity and importance. Because of the movie industry Los Angelos is among the most filmed and internationally known cities. Canada is already listed among the most important countries. But I don’t think any single Canadian city is important enough to make the cut for this limited list.--Flaverius (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per above. Even Chicago is more vital than Toronto. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Flaverius and OhnoitsvileplumeXD. --Toku (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose per others. Since the United States and Mexico have much larger populations than Canada, it is okay they have cities listed while Canada does not. Also, the urban metro population of Los Angeles is ~17 million compared to Toronto’s ~7 million. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Per Flaverius, OhnoitsvileplumeXD and LightProof1995. --Algovia (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Per Flaverius, Los Angeles and Toronto are clearly in different categories. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
7.  Oppose per Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2024#Swap Vienna for Toronto - the rationale hasn't changed since last year. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Remove Manufacturing, Add Industrial sector

Swapped with enough support (support : 5, opposition : 0)

I propose removing Manufacturing and adding Industrial sector. Manufacturing is available in in 93 languages, among those many stubbs and many translation of the article in Simple English, probably only for the purpose of this list. als:Industrie, fy:Yndustry, ht:Endistri, ia:Industria, af:Nywerheid are linked here, but would be better under Industrial sector. The article for Industrial sector is available in 132 languages, is usally longer article and the main article about industry and manufacturing in most language versions. Most notable exception is English, as is redirects from Industrial sector over en:Industry (manufacturing) to en:Manufacturing. I think the article Manufacturing is an anglocentric addition to the list. The overlap of manufacturing and industry is hard to diffenrentiate in many languages. Flaverius (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)  Support as nom. Flaverius (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)  Support per nom. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)  Support Britannica views manufacturing as a type of industry. So industry is probably a more general concept. Reprarina (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)  Support Per nom. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)  Support Makes sense especially given the opinion in the #Discussion subsection. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Discussion There are great difficulties in translating the concepts of manufacturing and production into other languages. Thus, on Wikidata there are not entirely correct links from manufacturing to manufacturing industry in other Wikipedias. Many Russian-language sources still do not differentiate between the concepts of manufacturing and production, translating them into one word производство. We perhaps need to include a concept that, on the one hand, is general, and on the other, translates well into other languages. In addition, even the English Wikipedia could not make two different articles about Industry and Manufacturing, making the first a redirect to the second, although the extended list requires both articles.--Reprarina (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Romania or Greece, remove Switzerland

I'm not sure if we need every major Western European country on here. We've got Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal on here already, not to mention Berlin, London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Vienna also being listed. It's between Switzerland and Amsterdam for me, but I'd prefer to make individual swaps between countries and cities. And while Switzerland is projected to hit $1 trillion GDP in 2026, tax havens are not something we should list in the majority of cases.

Our only geographical article covering the Balkans is Athens, and we don't list any regions other than the Middle East, so either Romania or Greece is the best non-city to cover the Balkans. It's a tossup between the two for me. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1.  Oppose Not convinced that Romania is more important than Switzerland. --Toku (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I'm opposed to this proposal, at least until the proponent choose between Romania or Greece. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

   I chose Romania, as stated in the comment below. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

3.  Oppose I'm surprised by this suggestion. Switzerland has a rather small population, but in every other respect it is one of the world's leading countries. Switzerland is truly one of the world's economic centers and, due to its unique political position, plays a major role in international politics.　To begin with, Romania's GDP is only about 40% of Switzerland's, and Switzerland is clearly superior in terms of national power.　From these points of view, Switzerland is more important.--Opqr (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I think it is important to have this neutral country in the list. Minoo (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• Please clarify, Romania or Greece. We don't vote for unclear propositions.--Reprarina (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll give the edge to Romania, since it has a much larger population and economy, and we already list many articles covering Greece's importance, most importantly Ancient Greece and Athens. I do understand that this is not a great nomination, so I will be met with strong opposition. OhnoitsvileplumeXD (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• I’d support your suggestion of Amsterdam or Netherlands for Romania or Greece LightProof1995 (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Swap Algeria out for Morocco

Morocco is the much more important country in history than Algeria is. Interstellarity (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. Interstellarity (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Is it a new part of Morocco and Algeria conflict on the web ? If not, Algeria is more populated, has a more important GDP and is more important in recent history than Morocco. --Tegest Vonis (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
2.  Oppose The nomination is not substantiated. In what ways is Algeria less important?--Reprarina (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Algeria is the largest country in Africa. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Minoo (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

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. To list the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, but not the South China Sea, is Western bias. The South China Sea is important polticially for everyone that does trade in the region, which is everyone!

Support

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Add Ali, Remove Umar

Ali is the second-most important person in Islam, not Umar. Ali is the reason for the Sunni-Shia split, and was one of the foremost scribes of the Quran. I also considerd Abu Bakr, but I believe Ali is the better choice due to his importance to both Sunnis and Shias.

Support

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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. To list the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, but not the South China Sea, is Western bias. The South China Sea is important polticially for everyone that does trade in the region, which is everyone!

Support

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Add Ali, Remove Umar

Ali is the second-most important person in Islam, not Umar. Ali is the reason for the Sunni-Shia split, and was one of the foremost scribes of the Quran. I also considerd Abu Bakr, but I believe Ali is the better choice due to his importance to both Sunnis and Shias.

Support

1. As nom LightProof1995 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)