Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/Archives/2012

Mass media - newspapers

The page currently suggests that every Wikipedia should have The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Two other named newspapers appear: The (London) Times and Le Monde (France). Three US newspapers as 'must-haves' seems overkill to me, albeit I'm sure it would be painful to choose just one. I wonder whether any named newspapers need be there, really. I confess I would be sad to see The Times go but then I'm born and raised in the UK, so I would, wouldn't I? --Bodnotbod 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We've got the space, so why don't we delete the Washington Post and add six non-American, non-French and non-British rags for a total of ten? Purplebackpack89 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Washington Post, isn't in the same level as the NYT or WSJ. With the four remaining Der Spiegel is the only other paper I think of as a major paper of record on an international level (though we might include the Times of India for example simply for its effect on its internal market). We should also have an article for "Wire service," though I'm not certain that that three main ones each merit their own article. And I think we should include The Economist; it's not a national newspaper of record, but it's pervasive and influential to a degree I'm not certain is true even of the WSJ.

As things stand in the proposal, we have a proposed quota of 40 mass media articles, and I think we can afford to nominate a few more individual publications or companies, including non-newspapers. Going beyond strictly print, I think we absolutely need to have Al-Jazeera, Xinhua, and the BBC. I will also nominate National Geographic, which is ubiquitous everywhere I've traveled, far more so than any other periodical I've seen, save possibly The Economist. --Quintucket 07:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to basics: a newspaper needs to be longstanding for it to be notable over all our wikis. Here the Times is unsurpassed (founded in 1785) and even the Washington Post is impressive (1875). Le Figaro, founded 1826, is an obvious candidate. One reason for having several U.S. newspapers is the general nature of their press as having no national newspapers. I have to say the Wall Street Journal does not leap to mind as one of three US newspapers; I would have thought San Francisco Chronicle (founded 1865 under a different name). Germany is a problem, because all their present-day leading newspapers were founded 1945 or later. This is understandable, of course, but means they do not have such a desirable historical scope. It's not enough, really, for a newspaper to have millions of readers if its historical influence is negligible. Top newspapers have influenced events, sometimes in a major way. How about Pravda? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What about more scientific journals such as Nature? newspapers are around now for 300-400 years? 60 years (and still ongoing seems to me as it could be relevant) So I wouldn't want to say that all the papers should be at least 100 years old or something, it should just be the most influential ones over time, with a currently still running one having a higher chance to achieve that same level in the future. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your point about still ongoing. Scientific journals are obviously not mass media, and it's difficult to see where they could go except for the overall Science section. The oldest continuing publication is the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1665), which is now split into A and B series. The oldest weekly science journal is indeed Nature (1869). It seems to me quite ludicrous to propose 89 constellations and leave out science journals entirely. In addition to the two mentioned, I would include Science, PNAS, and one journal each from France (Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, 1666) and Germany. The importance of journal publication to the growth of science cannot be overstated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Physics and chemistry

I see that physics is below the adjusted quota. Some possible additions are: en:laser, en:free-electron laser, en:synchrotron, en:synchrotron radiation.

Analytical chemistry is missing techniques that are more popular than en:Absorption spectroscopy. For example, en:Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. --Racepacket on Simple English 4 January 2012.

Vladimar Vystorsky

There is no article en:Vladimar Vystorsky. What is meant? en:Vladimir Vysotsky? --Wikijens (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It was misspelled somewhere. But I think it should be en:Vladimir Vysotsky. --MarsRover 16:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Voodoo

en:Voodoo is a disambiguation page. I assume either en:West African Vodun or en:Haitian Vodou should be in the list. --Wikijens (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

btw, it was discussed in the smaller list Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Archives/2008#Bad Voodoo entry. There are 3 possibilities. --MarsRover 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Author/Poet

I added these four Eastern Author in the Author list

1. Amir Khusro
2. Ghalib
3. Rabindranath Tagore
4. Saadi (poet)

(ذیشان امجد (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC))

Cities, World Heritage Sites

All cities have population over 2,000,000 Should add to the list. See the List of urban areas by population. The majority of World Heritage Sites Should add to the list.--Zhangzhugang (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a lot of world heritage sights to the english WP version of this list. thats a very good idea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)