Jump to content

Talk:Lists of state leaders by century

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SEE ARCHIVE: Talk:State leaders by year/Archive


So, I disagree with a lot of Ugen64's suggestions (see above). At any rate, I don't particularly care about the name, but I think Jiang's probably right that things will get very cluttered if we try to include all incumbents on this page. john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the 2003 format to the 1816 format. The divisions by geography make sense, and would be particularly helpful for 1816; just having all the German states listed together would make the whole page alot easier to manage. I also think heads of state and heads of government might as well be listed together. On the 1816 page the non-heads of state are grouped at the bottom, even though the list above doesn't even mention limiting the entires to "heads of state". I'd also be in favor of reversing the order of the 2003 page, putting national leaders at the top and leaders of international organizations at the bottom. I think anyone looking at the article would likely be more interested in national leaders than who's running the International Maritime Organization. But maybe that's just me. -R. fiend

If we do have the HoS and HoG on the same page (as it seems we are going to), they should be listed together. -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think both of those are good ideas. What I do think, however, is that we need to figure out how to format colonies. I think that putting them with the colonizing country's entry would quickly become unwieldy (especially for something like the British Empire), but I'm not sure what would be the best way to do it. Any ideas? john 23:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we even want colonies? Is a colonial governor much more important than a state governor or provincial premier? Perhaps they should be sent to a separate sub-list, similar to 2003 Canadian incumbents. - SimonP 16:52, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I just made some changes in the 1816 list. Mostly I incorporated the non-heads of state into the main list, which I believe there was somewhat of a consensus to do. I'd like to see the entire list done more along the lines of the 2003 list. Are there any strong objections? We also do need to have a consensus on colonies. I wouldn't mind leaving them out, or having a link to a separate page (for example under "United Kingdom", after it lists Prime Minister and Monarch, it could have a link to its colonial leaders for that year). Others may object. I do think we need a specific format before we expand these entries to other years. My vote is for the 2003 format, perhaps with minor changes. -R. fiend

I like the idea of a separate page. 1816 British Empire incumbents, or something. john 18:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good, but perhaps we can have the colonial governors for every nation's colonies on a single page. If we're going to have a page for for the British Empire we're going to need one for every nation that has even a single colony, which I think would be sort of a waste. So how about under every such nation there are links that all go to the same page, like Colonial leaders in 1816 or something? -R. fiend

That probably works. john 21:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I quite like the bolding of country names as was done on List of state leaders in 1939. It makes things much clearer. - SimonP 02:37, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Now that I've seen it, I like it too. -- Jonel 02:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we want the separate North and South Americas (2003) or the single category (1816)? -- Jonel 03:27, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need a fixed standard. In the years before the Caribbean states gained their independence one entry should be fine, while afterwards it is probably better to split them up. - SimonP 03:43, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
That sounds like a good way to do it. -- Jonel 03:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Sovereign Military Order of Malta[edit]

What are we doing with this bunch? They aren't a sovereign state, as they have no territory. However, their current placement as a Catholic Church is erroneous, as they are an order rather than a church (we probably need a subhead for Catholic lay orders for the time when there were lots of orders like this). I'd move it, but I'm not really sure where to put it. Ideas? -- Jonel 02:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Sovereign Military Order could go with countries, I think. They have sovereignty over their headquarters building in Rome and over embassies in various countries. john 02:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Didn't know that they actually had sovereignty over their headquarters building, or that they had embassies at all. In light of that, I suppose we should count them as a state. -- Jonel 03:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


What is our policy going to be on the China/Taiwan issue? Officially, Taiwan is still part of China (at least, according to the UN and something like 179 out of 182 countries). We need to both a) maintain NPOV and b) reflect the current situation. Please check the 2003 list for both my original placement and Jiang's suggestion, then talk about those or make a new suggestion of your own. -- Jonel 01:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV
The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are de facto separate sovereign states, but claim each others' territory just like how North and South Korea claim each other's territory. Since the ROC has all the characteristics of a sovereign state (until the 1970s was recognized by most countries as one), we ought to regard it as such.
Whether Taiwan is part of China depends on the definition of "China." Few would object to it being considered part of China if we defined it as Greater China, but most taiwanese would object if we defined it as the People's Republic of China.
I believed my change to the 2003 list was minor because I was just rearranging. While the Republic of China can be considered legally and officially to be part of China, Taiwan is its common name and someone looking for its president would naturally search under T. Most people dont even know that the government in Taipei is officially of the Republic of China, and someone looking for Taiwan might get confused. We don't have consistency on this issues, with the ROC listed under "c" in some places and under "t" at others.--Jiang 03:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The naming conventions page suggests that we should not use the term Taiwan at all here and refer to that government solely as the Republic of China. I realize that would be confusing for some, but the official name of the state is Republic of China and the ROC constitution lays claim to the entirety of China including mainland. Therefore, the two should be under separate entries in our list, but both alphabetized under "c". -- Jonel 03:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why not something like "Taiwan: (see Republic of China)"? -Rwv37 03:18, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "Taiwan (Republic of China)." Taiwan is the conventional short form for the Republic of China and the current government (since 2000) has been going around referring to it as such. It might offend some Blues, but given how the news media has all but ignored "Republic of China", we cant go too wrong. Whenever we refer to the ROC on wikipedia, we use either [[Republic of China]] on [[Taiwan]], [[Republic of China]] (Taiwan), [[Republic of China|Taiwan (ROC)]], or [[Republic of China|Taiwan]]. "Taiwan" is always included in some way. As long as we dont removed the reference and link to "Republic of China" completely, we should be fine.

The alphabetization is to facilitate finding an entry. Listing it under "C" won't help much. User:Rwv37's suggestion would work, but we would have to create an extra line in the page.--Jiang 03:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Why does Ummah get a listing on (for example) the 2003 page, saying "Caliphate defunct since 1924"? Or to put it another way, if Ummah gets that listing, why doesn't everything else that is defunct get such a listing? I'm not advocating the latter - I'm bringing it up as a means of illustrating that the "Ummah" policy, applied fairly, seems untenable and unreasonable. -Rwv37 09:34, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted. There are a number of claims to the Caliphate, but since there is no one definite Caliph, the Ummah should not be listed. -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sovereign states with no clear incumbents[edit]

How about independent nations with no clear incumbents? For example, Vermont declared its independence in 1777 (and was not part of the USA), but it did not have a governor until 1778. Rather than just leave it off of the 1777 page, might it not be nicer to list something like "Vermont - Government by convention of citizens" or "Vermont - No clear head of state or government" or some such? -Rwv37 17:48, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Independent (at the time) nations should always be listed. It would be best to find out who was in charge of government and list that, even if it is a group. -- Jonel 17:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. For instance, France in 1793 had no clear head of state, so we should just say National Convention (1792-1795) I think for the US from 1776-1789, we should say "Congress", or whatever, rather than the president of Congress. john 18:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Continental Congress. But, please, NOT President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was NOT the Head of State. RickK 03:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


If we list colonies, we should list them separate from the independent state under different section heading. This way, people don't get confused and assume that certain colonies were independent.

What is the criteria for including a non-sovereign entity? --Jiang 03:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think colonies, as such, should go on separate colonial pages, separate from the main page. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the kind of protectorates which had their own monarch, but were were under de facto foreign control. Or semi-sovereign rulers of areas theoretically part of the Ottoman Empire. john 02:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is the Ottoman Empire situation similar to Germany in the late 1800s? If so, I could see that format being kept for the Ottomans. As for protectorates with their own monarch, I suppose the distinction is sovereignty. I'm thinking they'll probably end up on the colonial page, and we'll have to stretch 'colonial' to mean any dependency. -- Jonel 03:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


We've been listing communist party leaders. Should we really be listing non-governmental positions? They not officially HoS nor HoG. --Jiang 03:09, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They should only be listed when they are at least de facto HoG. -- Jonel 03:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Communist party leaders of such countries were usually de facto head of government or head of state. I mean, should we really have a list of 1939, where the only soviet leaders listed are Kalinin and Molotov? Or in 1956, where we get Voroshilov and Bulganin, but no Khrushchev? Mao would be gone after 1959. And so forth. john 03:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


<From User talk:Docu>

Why are you changing all the State leaders by year pages to show "seven member Swiss Federal Council" instead of the name of the president of the Swiss Confederation? Whatever the details of Swiss government, the name of the President of the Confederation (many of whom we even have articles about) is clearly more useful than the same thing for every year. john 07:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The way some of the list are done sugggests he is the Head of State. I feel it's preferable to not list him(her) if not all members are listed. The later can be found with List of members of the Swiss Federal Council. -- User:Docu
So have no useful information about Switzerland, instead of having partial useful information.

What is we did it like

? The page lists people who aren't heads of state, anyway, and the President of the Confederation seems to fulfill some of the responsibilities of a head of state - at least as much as, say, the various Communist states' "Presidents of the Council of State" or what not. john 08:07, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the ideal format, but this version of 2003 or the addition I just made to 1939] may be reasonable. I'm not sure about earlier years though. -- User:Docu

It's time to stop with this nonsense of listing the seven members everywhere. What do you think "President of the Confederation" means? Obviously he is the head of the state. A primus inter pares is still a primus. --Wik 08:34, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
It's indeed preferable not to list them everywhere (afterall, it's even one more than San Marino), maybe we'd better list none and refer to the detailed list. If it's really obvious, maybe you want to edit the related articles. You could quote the CIA as reference. BTW what's the translation for "pares"? -- User:Docu

primus inter pares means "first among equals". At any rate, if the President of the Swiss Confederation is not the Head of State, then what is he? My understanding is that his special responsibilities as president are entirely of the "Head of State" variety. He "undertakes special representational duties," says his article. How is this different from what the King of Sweden does? john 17:57, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The usual theory in the related articles is that he is not (Head of State). As for the King of Sweden, I'm not sure to whom he is equal. Anyways, for the purpose of the otherwise useful list, it may be easier to just copy the usual Factbook fields and avoid debates. If you want to list just one person, the President of the Confederation is ok. -- User:Docu

</From User talk:Docu>

Page Locations[edit]

Suggestions that have been made:

  • Heads of state in XXXX - overly limiting
  • XXXX incumbents - vague, questionable grammar
  • List of national leaders in XXXX - nation is an awkward term
  • List of governmental leaders in XXXX - long, vague
  • List of heads of state and government in XXXX- long
  • List of state leaders in XXXX - vague

Can we just decide where the hell we're going to put this stuff? I'm sick of all these pages being constantly moved around. john 19:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are there any objections to settling on a "list of governmental leaders" series, a separate "list of religious leaders" series, and after 1950 a "list of international organization leaders" series? Can we start moving pages, creating index pages, and linking from the year articles using these titles? - SimonP 19:21, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Why not "List of heads of state and government"? "Governmental leaders" is a lot more vague. john 21:42, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would accept that, but what about just "List of state leaders?" Brevity is a good thing. - SimonP 23:01, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
My only concern with that is ignorant people not knowing the distinction between "state" as used in international politcs and "state" as the U.S. states. But I do think that that title is the best one I've seen.

Yes, that's fine, and better than governmental leaders, which implies that, say, foreign ministers should be included. john 23:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it.
I highly dislike the format used at 2004 incumbents. Listing it by position held instead of country makes it really hard to find stuff. We should go by the format used at 2003 incumbents. --Jiang 23:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We REALLY need consistency here. It seems "incumbents" has been rejected as a title, but now our 2 prototypes are "List of state leaders..." and "List of government leaders...". Can we agree to one and change all years to that title, before we have to deal with even more alternate titles appearing? And Jiang is right, the 2004 page should be changed to the format of the 2003 and 1816 pages, which I think are finally just about formatted the same (excpt for the titles). -R. fiend

Considering that people who are interested in this list ought to know enough to realize that 'state' has the sovereign entity meaning, I would say "List of state leaders in XXXX" should be what we go with. So, is there any objection to the tripartite pages?:

  • List of state leaders in XXXX
  • List of religious leaders in XXXX
  • List of international organization leaders in XXXX

-- Jonel 01:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. - SimonP 01:47, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

There are still quite a few "heads of state" pages (1871-79, 1904, 1913, 1914, etc.), should these be moved to "List of state leaders in XXXX" and expanded, or are we still doing separate "heads of state" pages? I think they should be moved, for reasons that have been discussed previously. Objections? -R. fiend

They should be moved. -- Jonel 20:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Does anyone have any objections to using List of state leaders in 2003 (and the other two 2003 lists) as a template? If so, please note them. If not, I will begin using it to create more year pages tomorrow. -- Jonel 03:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is some redundancy in the current format:

  • Guinea
    • President - Lansana Conté, President of Guinea (1984-present)
    • Prime Minister - Lamine Sidimé, Prime Minister of Guinea (1999-2004)

Why list the positions twice? The following will do:

  • Guinea
    • Lansana Conté, President of Guinea (1984-present)
    • Lamine Sidimé, Prime Minister of Guinea (1999-2004)

--Jiang 03:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The redundancy is due to multiple people consecutively holding the offices - Without it, transitions of power could be confusing. I'm open to suggestions on how to fix that. -- Jonel 03:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, ideally the official titles that appear after the names will be links:

Having the positions stated first also makes it easier to read. And in some cases the two titles may be worded differently, for example Ireland: Prime Minister - so-and-so, An Taoiseach. In this case I don't think a little redundancy is a bad thing. -R. fiend

I'd suggest that generic titles go in the first part, and the specific, official titles go in the second spot, assuming they're different.

WikiProject:Leaders by year?[edit]

Should we start a WikiProject for this? john 02:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. This is certainly just as ambitious as anything else on the WikiProjects page, and it would be nice to have a solid format placed somewhere. -- Jonel 03:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've created it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. So far, I've mostly put the format we've agreed upon in out discussions here. john 03:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

System of Creation[edit]

Would anyone object to, say, going back chronologically and completing this project country by country (so I would do China for every year one time, then someone may do England etc.) - rather than specific years. I feel this could be far more efficient - thus putting the project up sooner. If anyone does agree to this - I would recomemnd working back chronologically, so as to ocmplete the most current years sooner - China would be a good start as it has such a long history. --OldakQuill 18:46, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd be up for doing this. I think Jonel has been going (forward) chronologically). China from 1912-1949 can be quite complicated though, especially during the period (1918?-1928) when there are two different regimes calling themselves the "Republic of China". I'd say that up to 1928 the "Warlord" Republic in the north should get top billing, but that the Nationalist regime should be mentioned too...at any rate, I can do Britain, France, and Germany, at least.

Yes, we should list all contending governments as long as they controlled some land. Both the Taliban and United Front are listed at the 2001 article...
The Japanese puppet government in China during WW2 should be added too. --Jiang 00:46, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only problem with doing it country by country rather than by year is that its very easy to overlook minor counties; pages may appear complete after several people have gone over them, while some minor entities no one thought of slip through the cracks. But it probably is more efficient. I have no strong objections to either way of doing it. And there will be many difficult and complicated situations, as mentioned above; I think we need to deal with them on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, no one thought of Wikipedia entries when establishing governments and running nations. -R. fiend 01:00, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a good point - but for this reason, I have been using "List of countries" to fill in entries... capitals and hence systematic. The same problems could occur with year by year constructs.--OldakQuill 08:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth century but Twentieth Century[edit]

Someone must know whether "Xth Century" is an exception to our rule about caps in headings... Robin Patterson 00:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny pedantic point[edit]

Although the 21st century (and indeed the new millennium) were widely regarded to have commenced on January 1st, 2000, historically, and according to all of wikipedia's XXth century articles pre-21st century, the new century began on XX01, not XX00. That means the table of centuries in this article is incorrect. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Quite true, and well spotted. It is a minor point, but as an encyclopedia we should be expected to get it right. Unfortunately that will mean a major overhaul of the entire format. If we're going to to a major revision, I have a suggestion for another major change, and that is a complete reversal, with the most recent years at the top and the distant ones at the bottom. I think this makes sense, as there is basically no solid beginning point of this list. Besides, people will probably be more interested in the past couple centuries than the years around 2500 BC (not that we're there yet, but it would be nice if eventually went back that far), so it makes sense to have the former at the top. That said, I don't especially feel like volunteering to rewrite everything. I don't suppose there's anyone that does? And I guess we should get a consensus on both these proposals first. -R. fiend 22:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with at leats the first point about millenia, but I'm not tottally sure of which way is the best one. Burrently I think that it's fine either way, but if we eventually get more years then it would be best if the most recent ones were at the top. Jeltz 20:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • True, but we are getting more years added all the time. I was surpirsed how this list used to be stagnating around 1700 but recently quickly went back to the 13th century. The purpose of the list is to eventually and ideally list state leaders for all years back to, well, back to the time state leaders first existed. I think it would be easier to reverse the order sooner rather than later (it would have been much easier several months ago, but too late now; I shoul dhave mentioned it earlier). -R. fiend 21:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion for the new order: User:Jeltz/test. What do you think? Any suggestions? Is this a change that people want? Jeltz 12:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice! I like it. If no one objects in a couple days go ahead and use it. -R. fiend 16:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and use it! You'll never know if people would object unless you put it in a prominent, in-your-face context. :D And I'd suggest removing those bullets you have for every decade. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 19:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the suggestion it looks better without them. Jeltz 21:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Help!! It seems that the name of Iltutmish, sultan of India, is misspelled on every page from List of state leaders in 1211 to List of state leaders in 1236. I've changed a few of them already. But if each person changed just two of the pages, about 10 people or so would be able to change the entire thing. So please help!! -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 03:36, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the rest of them. Jeltz 09:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. :) -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 13:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Colonial governors in 1211???[edit]

Does that any sense or is it just me? Shouldnt this be remove until the times that colonies actually existed ?[[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • By the way, i find this a bit pointless, but since its there, i'll add the portuguese kings to it. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Likewise no international organizations from that era are coming to me either, but maybe I'm not thinking hard enough. -R. fiend 16:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Middle East[edit]

Please cast your vote at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Leaders by year#Vote on Middle East on whether we should use "Middle East" as a separate heading! -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 02:53, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Different ways of doing this[edit]

There are two ways of working on this project:

  1. Going by country. Pick a country that you know very well about, and add it for as many years as possible.
  2. Going by year. Starting from a relatively "complete" year (let's say the 1103 page), and going forwards or backwards, keeping track of every single country in the list.

So far I've been going with option #1, because I have absolutely no confidence with my knowledge of the history of any country other than China, and I'm afraid that I'll mess something up. Just trying to add the rulers for Japan along with China has taken me forever as I struggle the learn the differences between the Emperor of Japan, the Shogun, the cloistered ruler, the Sessho and Kampaku, and keep track of the civil wars, rebellions, figureheads and de facto rulers, and all sorts of other complications. I can't imagine doing this for 50 countries at a time.

But now the thing is: I've realized that once we go with option #1, we end up with a lot of almost-empty articles, and it's extremely hard for someone to do #2, since they'll essentially be trying to work around the work that's already there. Adam Bishop, for example, has been trying to do the lists for 1104 and 1105 by copying from 1103. If 1104 and 1105 had been empty beforehand, it would've been relatively straightforward for him; but I've already gone through the 12th century with a motley collection of East Asian regimes, meaning that he'll have to end up splicing my stuff into the list. And that's a chore, especially if he has to do this repeatedly for every single page he updates.

So, what does everyone think about this? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 06:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly with you in terms of reluctance to work on countries whose histories I'm not too familair with. There's plenty of confusion, partilarly as you go further back when things weren't always as clear and official as they tend to be now (not that that's always the case even now). For that reason I've been sticking to major European powers mostly, and I'm really not as knowledgable on all them as I'd like (the U.S. is also easy, bit was completed long ago). My overal M.O. was to pick a nation or two and do their monacrhs for one century. I was mostly working on the 18th and 19th, and got quite a bit done. I've been leaving out prime ministers and the like (as their turnover slowed down the easy copy and paste I was doing with the monarchs) but trying to come back and do them afterwards. I've been meaning to pick up where I left off with Spain; their tendency to have a minimum of 5 P.M.'s in a year was proving grueling work. I actually haven't even looked at these pages in a while, so I should probably check them out and see how their progressing.
Anyway, the country-by-country rather than year-by-year method sort of seems better to me. Having a couple dozen major countries spread out over hundreds of years seems more useful in the interim than a hundred coutnries cataloged for only a couple dozen years. (Though I certainly wouldn't discourage Adam from doing what he's doing.) I also find it's just plain easier, and, as you said, we can pick our areas of expertise. The disadvantage of this method is that it's easy to overlook minor countries, giving the appearance of completion on some pages, whereas if it's done by year, an oversight of an entire year would be easy to spot and rectify. -R. fiend 19:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I personally prefer doing it country by country but I suspect that it might be more effective to do many countries at once. One some years there are a myriad of small kingdoms (most of them which I ahve heard of). I have no idea if they were sovereign at that time. Jeltz 20:13, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

legendary / mythical rulers[edit]

Although this problem is still far from becoming critical, I think that as we work backwards in time we'll eventually run into rulers that may or may not have existed... e.g. Xia Dynasty kings of China, the pre-Yamato emperors of Japan, and so on and so forth. Since their very existences are disputed, what do we do with them? Also, what happens to kings that likely did exist but do not have clearly assigned dates? Many early kings fall into this category. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:43, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good question, and while I know nothing of the Xia Dynasty kings of China, nor the pre-Yamato emperors of Japan, I think we need to yield to experts in such subjects. There must be some sort of historical protocol for handling such things. As as Eurocentric westerner, I'm tempted to think of King Arthur, who is obviously so widely discredited that he shouldn't be included at all. At some point (clearly I have no idea exactly when) we might have to just say "prior to this time records or so unreliable that we cannot say who who was ruling", and leave it at that. That being said, I think we should try to sort of concentrate on having more complete listings for the more certain years (mostly the latter half of last millenium) before we worry too much about times that exist in the mythological records more than the historical ones. Of course, I should probably put my money where my mouth is. -R. fiend 00:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The fact remains that these leaders could have existed. I agree - when any leader on a particular page is significantly questionable a disclaimer should be added to the top "Due to the nature of historical records dating from this time, one or more leaders listed here may not have existed, or may not have served in the capacity described." For truly mythical leaders such as King Arthur (as distinct from questionable legendary rulers) it may be interesting to include a section at the bottom of pages listing Mythical rulers such as Arthur, etc. --Oldak Quill 17:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is so difficult an issue. All we have to do is put some sort of mark (perhaps a *) after their name, to denote that the history is unclear, that their existence is disputed or unsure. The individual articles on these rulers should provide adequate further discussion into the issue. For mythical rulers where no information exists as to when they might have ruled, they have no place on a list of state leaders by year, and so they will not show up on the lists. Bantman 21:38, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I went through the lists of rulers of 2nd and 3rd millennium BC and did just that, i.e. I added a "(legendary)" to the respective lists; it is hard, though, to draw an exact line where legend ends and were history starts. The Roman kings may be regarded as "half-legendary", so can some of the early English kings in the 6th or 7th century etc. In general, though, it should be possible to give an impression where we rely on actual historical records and where on heresay and legend. --Proofreader (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCE vs. BC[edit]

I'm no partisan in the date format dispute, and I voted against making BCE mandatory. However I am annoyed by people switching to their preferred format without good reason. Originally this series used BCE (the first page created where this was an issue was List of state leaders in 500 BCE). Should we move them back? - SimonP 20:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • My own personal priorities for date formatting would be as follows (in order):
    1. Internal consistency - If we have one article at XXXX in 500 BCE, they should all by YYYY in ZZ BCE.
    2. Wikipedia consistency - These articles should use the same format as the general year articles, i.e. 500 BCE or 500 BC. (note - I haven't checked to see which of those is a redirect, because I really could care less)
    3. Any other considerations.
  • -- Jonel | Speak 21:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This change was made in December last year [1] and I believe that we have used BC since. I use Jonel's second priority as a reason for supporting the use of BC and also the reason that we use BC for the moment in this project. No reason to make a change that goes against the general wikipedia use (from what I have seen BC is more common than BCE). Jeltz talk 22:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Status 8th Century[edit]

This century should now be mostly complete, except for parts of the following lists:

List of Khazar rulers (701-732)
Göktürks (701-731)
Palenque (701-729)
Kings of Ailech (701-772) Irish sub-kingdom
Kings of Mide (766-772) Irish sub-kindom
Chalukya (701-757)
Rashtrakuta (754-774)
Maitraka (701-767)

Proof-reading is also required Fornadan (t) 18:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings[edit]

Any reason we wouldn't use 15th century instead of Fifteenth century so as to order the table of contents chronologically? Dystopos 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emperors of Tibet (and general comment about spelling)[edit]

Argh!!! I just realized that someone has spelled the names Khri-srong lDe-btsan and Khri-lde gtsug-brtan wrong on EVERY SINGLE PAGE from the year 680 to 785!!

The "lDe" is small l - capital D - small e, NOT capital I - capital D - small e.

In the future, please CHECK your spellings before replicating them across a hundred pages!! -- ran (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of this kind of list is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders in 1946. Kappa 07:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign States that span geographic regions, and how to list them[edit]

I'm updating the list using option #1 above (adding leaders for the states I know a bit about).

I think that a state like the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines), should be listed in each of the Geographic locations they held, as unlike the colonial powers of later Europe, the Byzantine holdings tended to be contiguous. To list them only in Asia, Europe, or the Mid-East would miss one of the significant features of the Byzantines: their long term strategic location as a buffer for the rest of Europe during the 'so called middle ages'.

I don't know of other empires (other than possibly the early Arab states that may have included Mid-East, Asia, and African holdings)than spanned multiple geographic areas, so I don't think listing them in all three locations would cause an undue duplication of entries.

waste of time[edit]

does anyone else think all the sections for state leaders from the thirty-second second century BC to the second century BC are a complete waste of time? i dont think they will ever be expanded: there's just no information available. Benji64 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say maybe back to the 6 or 7 hundreds BCE it's worth it, but it does seem really really silly to be giving every year once you go much further back than that. I mean, how many dates from the 2nd and 3rd millennium BCE do we really have firmly pinned down? We get a few from Sothic Cycles and other celestial events, I suppose, but honestly, if the articles on years drop down to decades beyond a certain point, why are the articles on leaders by year notdoing the same at the very least? --Iustinus 05:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree about the extra dates, especially considering the date policy. Should they switch to decades at some point? Granburguesa 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first centuries of the 3rd millenium BC only had the Egyptian king who is known to us today. It should be noted however that recent archeological research suggest that the Harappan culture in India and Pakistan is as old as Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Perhaps there will be some new leaders coming on. For the late 3rd millenium and subsequent millennia, there are multiple state leaders at the same time: first the different Mesopotamian city states and Ancient Egypt and then several states in the Middle East, India, Pakistan and China. To give you a notice of what is possible in this serie of articles, just look at List of state leaders in 411 BC and List of state leaders in 1339, which i have created. Problem is that we need much of debate on how to portrait questionable leaders as described by me in Talk:List of state leaders in 1339.--Daanschr 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to solve the length issue[edit]

As we all know, this article is way too long. There are several possible solutions:

  1. Keep this article as it is but place everything after the 1st century BC into a heading of (something like) "2nd century BC and older" and include only those articles that have links (and possibly include subheadings for each century that has date). This would result in an article of roughly 55kb. Note that Religious leaders by year uses this format.
  2. Split into two articles (State leaders by year (years AD), State leaders by year (years BC)), the latter of which will only keep the dates that have articles -- resulting in one article of roughly 50kb (the former) and one article of about 5kb (the latter).
  3. Split into 6 articles by millenium (State leaders by year (21st century and beyond), State leaders by year (11th century - 20th century), State leaders by year (1st century - 10th century), State leaders by year (10th century BC - 1st century BC), State leaders by year (20th century BC - 11th century BC), State leaders by year (21st century BC and older) -- resulting in 1 article of about 5kb (the first one), 2 articles of roughly 25 kb each (the next two), 2 articles of about 3kb each (the next two), and 1 non-existent article (as of now).
  4. Same as #2, except the latter three articles are combined into one article that would have a size of about 5kb.
  5. Some brilliant idea I haven't thought of.

I've added a vote for it below. mwazzap 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 1[edit]

  1. mwazzap 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 2[edit]

  1. AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 3[edit]

Idea 4[edit]

Different idea[edit]

I don't like the first solution. We should assume that in the future there will be people who fill in all the gaps.--Daanschr 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say we adopt the same format used by year articles: list every single year individually to 499 BC. After that, switch to doing individual decades (501 BC redirects to 500s BC), from 500 BC to 1699 BC. From 1700 BC and on, we could then go by century (though I confess that might not be a great idea for this particular project). This would greatly shorten the page, and it would also eliminate the ridiculous claim to accuracy: most dates from the era we are dealing with here are not known with perfect precision. And why should articles on state leaders by year strive for more specificity in this regard than do the articles on the years themselves? --Iustinus 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Iustinus; there should be articles for every year going back to some point, and then every decade further back, and then every century back to the first known state leader. Anomalocaris 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The year pages could give an indication of what leaders ruled where on what time. I think it would be even better to get maps of every year, so people can't only watch the names of the leaders, but also the territory they ruled. There are far too little volunteers to work on this though.--Daanschr 07:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 5[edit]

Category:Years in Ireland - This method automatically break the years into 200 year batches AND automatially indexs years into Hundreds of years. However the year index bar could to with a tidy up. Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 11:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 6[edit]

Here is a new idea based on the way complex folder/directory structures are maintained in computer systems.

The article is already divided into centuries, so why not move each century to its own individual article with a title like "State leaders of the 20th Century". Then, modify this article so that it is a simple list of centuries. As an example, to locate the leaders in 885, a user would navigate like this:

  1. Open the State leaders by year article.
  2. Select 9th Century. That opens the State leaders of the 9th Century.
  3. Select 885. That opens the List of state leaders in 885 article.
  4. The leaders in year 885 are displayed

This would not be that difficult to do. It would result in 53 new Wikipedia articles, each a simple cut-and-paste from the parent State leaders by year article. When all of the sub-articles are finished, then the parent would be modified to delete all the century sections, which would be replaced by a list of the 53 centuries, each with a wikilink to that century's article (list of years). Comments please? Truthanado 02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by that. A user could easily find what he's looking for by revealing more information at each step in the navigation. It would also have the added benefit that a knowledgeable user could immediately go to the "State leaders of the 20th Century" (or whatever century he wanted) and then easily find the leaders for any desired year. Did that answer your question? Truthanado 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hide and show features, like on templates. I was asking if this is what you were referring to . see here to the hide and show feature on the template. However, i now know what you mean. -AMK152(TalkContributionsSend message) 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Pages[edit]

I do not know much about wiki but wouldn't the easiest way to collaborate on this be dynamic web pages and a database. I am going to assume that wiki doesn't allow dynamic pages but even so it may be easier to collaborate off-site. You could have a table for countries/states and a for each coutry's/state's subparts (states, provinces etc.) if you are breaking it down that far. You could also list the start year and end year that country/state existed so that it would only be displayed in year pages where it existed. Then you could have a table of leaders and their start date(s) and end date(s). Then a script could generate pages for each year. While these pages would have to be copied over individually by hand at least it would be easy to keep formatting/order consistant and if spelling errors or factual errors are found it may be easier to fix them.

Of course it would be much easier if wiki does allow dynamic pages ;)

Mystic eye 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good idea, and your assumption is unfortunatly correct. Wikipedia doesn't support databases. This kind of information woul ideally be in a databse since that would mean less inconsistencies and better ability to search. Jeltz talk 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki doesn't allow any scripting at all? Javascript? PHP? I still think it might be easier to host the database offsite and have it generate webpages for you which would, admittedly have to be copied by hand. At least for the main part of this project while the largest amount data is being entered and formatting is being debated... Failing all that though, maybe the place to start would be to make a list of all the countries etc that you want to include, debate the start times and end time of each one and then make a master list for each year that people can fill in. That way the countries would be in the same order and there might be agreement about what info is needed. Just a few thoughts <lol> Feel free to ignore me.

It would be good to use Regents of Nations by Peter Truhart for a start. I don't think there are enough users to put the data on Wikipedia though. We need a bunch of people with an awful lot of freetime who would be interrested in puting down the same set of names year in year out. What could be a nice starter is to make sure all state leaders since 1945. I began with this project, but i got too much bored.--Daanschr 18:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Soviet Union?[edit]

Why isn't the Soviet Union in the Head of State timeline 1922-1991? --Nasu288 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be please be bold and add them in. Davewild 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All of the centuries are mismarked, you fools. "The 18th Century" would refer to the 1700's...that the 1800's as posted in this article. Proving once agian there is little scholarly significance to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The centuries are marked correctly. The 18th Century started with year 1701 and ended with year 1800. That is what the article has. Truthanado 02:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side note[edit]

I made a fair number of link repair edits to the pages for individual years that indicated I was fixing links to "Japanese", when the target page in question was "Bohai". Just noting my error here so I don't have to make a large number of null edits explaining the situation. I don't think it should hurt anything, but I apologize for the misleading summaries. Dekimasuよ! 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head of state / Head of government[edit]

Do the articles for each year include both heads of state AND heads of governments? NorthernThunder 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule they should do though I am sure there are plenty that at present do not. Davewild 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Suggestion for dividing BC from AD[edit]

That's unnecessary. The AD or CE years are only being added to at the rate of one new one per year, and the BC or BCE years have only been compiled back a little past 100 BC, so there's very little confusion of a red-link BC years with a blue link AD. Besides, the Roman Empire (Augustus Caesar) spanned that 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD period. There was little difference between the first centuries BC and AD, when the ancient world was at its height. Mandsford 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose split, article is not ungainly as it is. Chris 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Redlinks[edit]

I am trying to remove REDLINKS from this article. Kathleen.wright5 02:12,22 September 2007 (UTC)

Red links are okay in this article because there will eventually be articles written to correctly wikilink to. Reverted to version prior to red links being removed, after discussion. Truthanado 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we will have blue links going all the way back. Far enough back, we simply have no information, and perhaps never will. bd2412 T 14:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The List of pharaohs goes back to 3200 BC so that would be a reasonable starting point for the lists. --Proofreader (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th century and earlier[edit]

Prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state leaders in 3150 BC, I have eliminated the year tables for the 7th century BC and earlier and replaced with links to appropriate decade, century, and millennia lists. The decade lists for the 800s BC through the 1650s BC already existed, so I thought better to link to them directly. There were no existing lists for the 7th and 6th centuries BC, so decades would probably make sense there too. There were also no lists for the 18th or 20th centuries BC, and the sole link from the 19th century BC was for 1900 BC, which I moved to List of state leaders in the 19th century BC and copied to List of state leaders in the 20th century BC (since both leaders listed there spanned both centuries). The list is still over 100KB, but could be made smaller by condensing the lists for the 2nd through 6th centuries BC into decades. I have not done so because I wanted to seek consensus for that, as there already are a few existing year articles for these time periods. DHowell (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding leaders in exile??[edit]

As it turns to be, user Zoltan Bukovski or ZBukov (talk page) keeps insisting that we "Do not add leaders in exile since they weren't de facto in control of their countries." Now, I would like to remind you that the name of this article is "List of state leaders" and it says nothing about the necessity of "having de facto control". IMO, it's rather de jure that should be followed. Sometimes a real ruler does not have any de jure power, but could be mentioned also. The big issue here is that Zbukov has reverted my edits for nearly 50 years several times now, resulting a very very unconvenient edit war. Now, I am the kind of person who keeps adding Estonia-related info on Wikipedia and I am very familiar with my national history. This user however seems to think that Estonian governments in exile do not deserve a place in these articles and keeps reverting my edits, I honestly don't have enought time to keep competing with him, so I turn to this talk page. He has made a lot of contributions to these articles, but doesn't seem to care to discuss his VIEWS about these articles not needing de jure leaders. Is anyone else AGAINST adding them to these articles, or is it just me - wanting to stay correct??? H2ppyme (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult issue, but personally I am inclined to say they should not be included in the lists. I think we should be including the relevant entries as per the List of sovereign states by year, while also including those who have de-facto control of their area (to avoid the obvious disputes over Kosovo etc.). Keeping states on during a war (such as the states occupied during the second world war) is one thing but am not inclined to have government in exile other than for that specific exception. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To inform you more, the Estonian government in exile was formed only in 1953, before that, the official positions were held by men who were either imprisoned by the Soviets DURING THE WAR, or who had fled abroad. So where exactly goes the border? keeping leaders of occupied states during war (in exile then, but the seats were similarly held by imprisoned leaders) and not keeping leaders of occupied states after war. And when talking about war - do you mean until the end of world war II - Japan surrendering - that had nothing to do with Estonia. Or should we take into consideration that world war II ended for Estonia DE FACTO in 1991? So if anyone wishes to improve these articles, think first - we should follow official seats, not who you think had the most power over a specific country at some point of time. And another interesting thing - The Republic of Estonia NEVER CEASED TO EXIST during or after World War II, it is still the same republic. This of course might seem hard to understand for some users not familiar with official politics, but this is the official view of the Estonian government. To say Estonia ceased to exist is POV. H2ppyme (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read Occupation of the Baltic states again (and some of the talk page - I have read the article before) before I commented here and I still stand by my opinion that we should stick to de facto control in order to avoid having to get into disputes over who is de jure leader of an area (such as Kosovo, Palestine, Western Sahara, Abkhazia etc.). However if others disagree and there is a consensus that it should be included then I am fine with that. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't mean that part as a direct reply to you :). What I meant is that people with real knowledge in these matters should say their opinion, I do consider myself more or less as "intelligent" in politics (Estonia-related at least), but would like to hear what others think as well...H2ppyme (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that I don't seem to care to discuss my VIEWS about these articles not needing de jure leaders. Well, I have explained my opinion at length on your own talkpage (see: Estonian governments-in-exile), so maybe you should take the trouble to read it and reply to the arguments instead of just angrily repeating your opinion over and over... Reading through your talkpage it seems you've already had a very similar argument with someone else on pretty much the same topic. How many more people do you need to tell you that we should be sticking to facts instead of theoretical considerations which have no relation to the realities on the ground? It just makes no sense to put someone into a "list of state leaders" list who wasn't in control of his country at the time. Your insistence on sticking to legal succession of leaders would practically result in not having any leaders in Africa since they usually get to their positions through coups d'état. And following your logic Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha should still be included as King of Bulgaria since he never legally abdicated as is the case of most deposed monarchies. I hope this demonstrated sufficiently where your approach leads. And I'm afraid very few people will share your opinion that the Second World War ended for Estonia in 1991. I have the feeling your definition of "people with real knowledge in these matters", whose opinion you seek, will only include those who agree with you... ZBukov (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I have left is to say again that they would be needed here, because they were "leaders of their country", in these matters what is de jure, matters. For example List of heads of government of Norway, where you can see the de facto leaders, aswell as de jure leader during World War II. So why exactly should we include governments in exile for Norway, Poland etc when we exclude the governments in exile for Estonia?? By "knowledge" I meant people who generally edit articles with political background, not only people who happen to "think" ; I don't neccessarily mean you with this statement, I have just experienced that many people don't know what they are doing... H2ppyme (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can someone be "leader of their country" when
a) they don't exercise control over their country and
b) they aren't even present in the country or are in prison?
You still haven't bothered to react to my argument that following your opinion that "what is de jure, matters", Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha should still be listed as King of Bulgaria since he never legally abdicated...
If you looked at the List of heads of government of Norway which you brought up as an example of a list that includes de jure leaders, you should have noted that those people ruled during World War II, and as it has already been pointed out, the World War II is regarded as an expectional case where by consensus governments-in-exile are listed. ZBukov (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, exceptional case. So, should we include Estonian prime minister in duties of the president until 1945? He was in exile... And continue on with no mention of Estonia although "leaders" were in exile for a lot longer. Stopping strictly at 1945 would be quite silly in that case, don't you think? H2ppyme (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my opinion on your talkpage about how long I think Estonia should be included in the list. However you still haven't answered my questions:
-What definition of "state leader" includes absent or imprisoned people claiming to represent a non-independent country?
-Do you think that leaders who lost their power by illegal means (revolution, coup d'état) should still be included in the list? ZBukov (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing autonomous regions?[edit]

I added autonomous regions of countries earlier, but I'm having second thoughts. Do you think it makes sense to keep them on the state leaders list, or should the list only include independent countries, unrecognized countried with de facto control and 'colonies' (overseas and external territories, associated states, dependencies, etc)? The regions in question are: Rodrigues (Mauritius), Príncipe (São Tomé and Príncipe), Southern Sudan (Sudan), Zanzibar (Tanzania), Hong Kong and Macau (China), Mindanao (Philippines), Gorno-Badakhshan (Tajikistan), Karakalpakstan (Uzbekistan), Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan), Åland (Finland), Adjara (Georgia), Mount Athos (Greece), Gagauzia (Moldova), Azores and Madeira (Portugal), Crimea (Ukraine), Kurdistan (Iraq), Nevis (Saint Kitts and Nevis), Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago), Bougainville (Papua New Guinea). I'd like to hear your opinions! ZBukov (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above would not apply to the Kingdom of the Netherlands where none of the constituent countries (Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, Aruba) are subjugated to the other so they are legally equal and there is no central (Kingdom-level) government above the governments of these countries. ZBukov (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all of them in the itnerests of consistency. Either they all stay or all go.Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey guys, ive been working pretty hard on this project for a while now. See here for my current status. Right now im wondering from which year i should include the Archbishopric of Mainz. Its not clear to me when it accumulated enough territorial possessions to constitute a state. Can anyone help me? Omegastar (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say start counting German states other than stem duchies and marches only from the beginning of the 13th century or so, but I'm not sure I can present evidence to justify that. john k (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well for secular states i wouldnt put i limit on them to not include them before a certain time, because i prefer to base their inclusion on their territorial possessions rather then a certain year. The case with eclassiastical states in the Holy Roman Empire is much tougher as many articles dont show what territory they possessed, and often mix up their religious influence with their secular influence. Other eclessiastical states that ive come across sofar that should be included at some point are the Archbishopric of Cologne, the Archbischopric of Liege, the Archbishopric of Trier, the Bishopric of Utrecht and the Bishopric of Salzburg. There are undoubtedly more. Dooes anyone else have ideas on when to include them? Omegastar (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three main archbishops (Cologne, Trier, Mainz) were secular rulers from pretty early times. But when you're talking about feudal states, it becomes difficult to say what level of rule qualifies them for inclusion in the lists. There were 300 or so state-like entities in the Holy Roman Empire in 1789, not even counting minor polities like the imperial knights. We can't, and shouldn't, include all of them in List of state leaders in 1789. I think our general consensus has been to limit the listing of German states to the electorates, with perhaps the largest most important non-electoral secular princes included as well. If we want to limit to electors, starting in 1256 or 1257, which was the first major election in which votes only went to the seven major princes later codified in the Golden Bull of 1356. Perhaps a series like List of rulers in the Holy Roman Empire in 1789 could be created for the other states, so as not to weigh down the main article. (On the other hand, it'd seem a shame not to include major princes like the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel or the Duke of Württemberg). In terms of the territorial development of the various ecclesiastical states, I don't really know very much. The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mainz mentions that the archbishop granted the city of Mainz a charter in the early 12th century; presumably his territorial rule over the city had begun some time before then. Both that article and the 1911 Britannica one suggest Boniface's appointment as archbishop in the 8th century as the key moment, but if that is the case, then one should probably view French bishoprics like Reims and Soissons as states, as well. On the whole, I think the collapse of central authority in the empire in the mid 13th century is probably the best place to start, because before that time the archbishops would clearly have been seen as dependent on their feudal lord, the Emperor; after that time, they began to acquire more and more of the characteristics of modern states. john k (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we cant include all states. Ive worked on over 400 of the state leader pages now and ive come across so many small states and territories where i had to dig deep to decide wether to include them or not. The problem is, is that Europe has always had many, many states, both small and big. And because some small European states are still sovereign in their own right, they are included in the state leader list. But then, it would not be fair (in my oppinion) to exclude similar sized states that were not sovereign (in the medieval era), but rather part of a larger state. During the middle ages (especially during the early middle ages), the difference between an independent state, and a state that was part of a larger fuedal state was minimal. My inclusion of states has been pretty large sofar, but i do try to limit myself to states that had significant importance/possessions. Omegastar (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think leaving most states out of the main list and creating sublists for the Holy Roman Empire and the like might be the best way to do this, as it keeps the main pages from getting too cluttered. I admit that I am thinking of this largely from an early modern/modern perspective rather than that of the middle ages. If the size of the smallest current state is the minimum, then virtually every state-like entity that has ever existed has to be included, given how tiny Vatican City is. john k (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other states have diplomatic relations with Vatican City. Not true of most of the multitude of state-like entities that have ever existed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Availability of a data table[edit]

I am working in a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and we are gathering information about the political situation of different countries over the world. Our purpose is to investigate changes in political systems in the history such as head of states. After surfing on the net, we have considered that this page, wikipedia's article, is the most complete source. Is there any possibility to get that information in a table or in a way that we can work later on with the data? Jmeabe (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Response to third opinion request (User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2011/Jun#Update on Lists of state leader by years? On making a change to how pages falling under the Lists of state leaders by year project are written. (the discussion is actually longer, but im not sure if im supposed to link all parts of it). 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)):
There are generally three data entries, the person, the position, the entity. The person may be unknown or uncertain, or nothing significant may be known about them. In such cases they will not, as an individual, support an article. If so they should simply be named. There might be a link to a list of rulers of the entity or to an article about the [early] history of the entity. In some cases, such as Æscwine of Wessex, they may support a short article and contain information that they were probably not the only ruler, relevant for this discussion. We may know the position only in a generic sense, perhaps "king"; in that case there should be only the unlinked term. The role of kings vary widely, particularly in modern times, and if information is available to support a separate article there can be a link, even a red link, to an article such as "King of Wessex", or to "List of monarchs of Wessex" where presently King of Wessex redirects. However that article has no significant information about the role "kings" played in Wessex. Information about the role played by kings in Wessex is not broken out as a separate section in Wessex but several sections there contain information about them. Thus in the example chosen there is no clear better choice in terms of information useful to a reader. There should be a link to the correct historical entity. The guiding principles should be to create appropriate entries and links for each particular set of ruler, position, and entity while keeping the entry for each set of data simple, useful and transparent. Applying these principles to the instant conflict, what is appropriate for individual entries in different historical eras varies widely, thus broad rules specifying specific content are inappropriate. What is appropriate is careful attention to individual entries taking into consideration the amount and nature of the information available and its usefulness to readers.—User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion does not address entries for entries for recent historical eras which seem to be in an adequate standardized form. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list here to "List of state leaders in the 00th century"[edit]

It is suggested that pages such as "List of state leaders in 1... 100" be merged into pages such as List of state leaders in the 1st century. Please discuss at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century. tahc chat 22:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]