Wikipedia talk:List of articles all languages should have

From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.

History is about humans after the invention of writing (excuse me my bad english)... Why dinosaur? Manuel Anastácio 01:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, "History is the study of the past." Dinosaurs happened in the past, and are therefore part of history. There is an English word "prehistory", but it is generally thought of as part of the history of the world (and Universe) as a whole, rather than distinct from it. Similarly natural history, which would probably include dinosaurs. That is how it is generally used in common English, anyway - for example "the history of this planet", "the history of life on Earth", etc. There is no other word which I know which can cover human history and pre-human (or just non-human) history. - IMSoP 16:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No way... It is not true... May be in English (but I doubt it). There are two uses to the same word: the scientific and the vernacular... History of the Planet, etc is vernacular, not scientific... I will modify the portuguese version (where I belong mainly)... There are other errors in this list but... OK. It is your list... Manuel Anastácio 18:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I have tried to fill this list out, systematize it a bit more, and, in particular, make it less Euro/Anglo/Americocentric. I hope this is an improvement. -- Anon. 25 August 2004

Contents

[edit] Simple or Meta?

Just wondering, this list and the one at meta seems to have diverge quite a lot. Which one am I supposed to follow? Aurora 06:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of the lists on every language that has them have diverged quite a lot, because it was discovered that there is no possible way any group of people can dictate to every language in the world what it "should" have. The speakers of that language are the only ones who will ultimately make the decision on what their wikipedia "should" have, and not all of the lists are going to end up being Hollywood-centric like the one at meta, which is only used as a starting point, if at all.
On a related note, the list at meta used to link all of the articles on it to the simple English articles, even though a good many of them don't exist here yet. I spent months working on those specific articles here, to get them useable to speakers of foreign languages as starting points, in case anyone was using the meta list. Unfortunately, a certain user recently declared that Simple English Wikipedia was "mediocre" and changed all of the redirects to Main English, making all the months work I'd spent here seem almost a waste at one stroke... I tried to revert him over this and some other contentious neutrality issues about changes he made to the content, unfortunately he had been in chat discussions with an admin at meta who supported him and actually had me blocked for a week from meta for revert warring. He did not seek any consensus or discussion, his philosophy regarding major disputed changes, like what wikipedia to link, is apparently "change first, discuss later". In fact not long after calling Simple English "mediocre", he even signed up for an account here and began editing... Blockinblox 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] presidents and prime ministers

I think that an article for every president of the U.S and prime ministers or presidents of other countries should also be a must for any wikipedia. -Redfalcon

[edit] Adam Donaldson Powell?

Who is Adam Donaldson Powell? It was added by an anonymous user and English Wikipedia doesn't have anything on him. Archer7 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] short

While it claims a thousand topics, this list is a couple hundred short. Does this same kind of list exist on another part of Wikimedia? Rmhermen 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I followed the above link - and found the other list - which seems to be a couple hundred past a thousand. Rmhermen 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What about: Politicians: Henry VIII, Margaret Thatcher, Chairman Mao. Music: Elvis, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones. --Kingboyk 09:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just now I counted 975 items on this list. --Hoziron 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Please say if you agree with the protection or semi-protection of this page. It will avoid nonsense/useful changes on the list. If we protect it, any further changes should be asked here. -- aflm (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Some deliberation before making changes is probably worth encouraging. Freshstart 23:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Freshstart. A change to a Wikipedia: page like this should probably be discussed, and protection might encourage that. --Keitei 23:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree, per above.--Tdxiang 08:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral

I agree with whatever they say at en:Wikipedia:Vital articles, which at the moment doesn't have any protection on it. But isn't the definete list at meta? --User:LBMixPro<talk|to|me> 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In theory the meta list should be definitive, but given that it was protected over a month ago, apparently more over a content dispute/edit war than any other concern, plus that protection (IMHO) has been seriously abused by one editor that continues to make edits to it because they technically can (despite it not being kosher per policy/guidelines), it seems seriously compromised to me. (I hadn't even checked before voting above, but a quick scan of recent events over there gives me the willies.) Freshstart 00:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. I don't know whether the above is neutral or just a comment. Mine is neutral. I think protecting the page to make sure people talk about changes here first is not a bad idea, but it does kind of go against the thing that is/was at the bottom about adding what seemed important. Besides, I would guess that vandals of this page are not very common, and can be easily dealt with by our butt-kicking, Wiki-blackbelted admin vandal fighters. You guys are great!  :D So I'm okay with it either way. --Cromwellt|talk 05:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over

We have almost created all the pages. Only few are left. I am sure that we shall complete them very soon. Now, we should improve all these pages. --Bhadani 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

We have done this - all the pages are now there. Few minutes before, I wrote six pages: Counter-Reformation - Decolonization - Dissolution of the Soviet Union - Meiji Restoration - European Convention on Human Rights - European Court of Human Rights. With this first part of our work is over. Now we should improve all these 1000 pages. --Bhadani 16:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)