Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Leaders by year/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ought we italicize the quasi-sovereign entities to distinguish them from governmental positions of the main entity? - Jonel 03:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...you mean like

• Germany -
  • Emperor -
    Wilhelm I, German Emperor (1871-1888
    )
  • Chancellor - Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany (1871-1890)
  • Bavaria - Ludwig II, King of Bavaria (1864-1886)

?

I note that "Middle East" is being listed as a continent? Wouldn't it make more sense to put Egypt with Africa, and the other countries in Asia? Also, should the Ottoman Empire be put in Europe or Asia/Middle East? I tend to think Europe, since its capital was there.

Depends on whether we're doing continents or geographic regions. A case could probably be made for either, but we need to decide on one. I think continents would be best (meaning we'd have to move those countries). As for the Ottoman Empire, we should probably use the same criteria as for Russia/USSR. -- Jonel 17:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think continents is better, since the Middle East was the only non-continent used, and is difficult to define.

I quite like keeping the Middle East, or Southwest Asia, as separate. It is a historically and culturally distinct area and reduces the long list of countries under Asia. - SimonP 04:24, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

The examples don't follow the prescribed format. Again, I don't see the point of listing out the terms "President" or "Prime Minister" out twice. If it's not called by its generic term in English, then it's inappropriate for us to use it.

Why don't we instead label the positions "head of state" and "head of government" as is precribed by this project page?--Jiang 06:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was just using Head of state and head of government as generic terms, rather than as the specific terms. But that would be fine, I think, and would make it easier for years in which the title of the head of state or head of government changes.

I like the idea of using HoS and HoG. What's the plan on formatting that when they are combined or separated (i.e., a country goes from absolute monarchy to constitutional or from a Pres/PM system to a single executive)? -- Jonel 17:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For semi-presidential systems such as France, we should also use "Head of State/Government" to indicate that the HoS is not a ceremonial leader.--Jiang

Not sure about that. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government; using the notation HoS/G for the President followed by HoG for Prime Minister sets up a conflict that we simply don't need. Both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the CIA World Factbook simply list the President as HoS. -- Jonel 02:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How else do we tell whether we have a semi-presidential or parliamentary system? In a semi-presidential system, the president and prime minister share the responsibilities of running the government (e.g., in France, the president does foreign policy and the pm does domestic policy). There's no conflict - they're dual heads in whatever responibilities they're assigned.

The other examples are based on what we have at

What;s wrong with listing out HoS and HoS? Not doing so is being redundant when we could have avoided it. "President" could either mean a ceremonial head of state of a powerful HoS/HoG. Whynot make it clear which kind of leader we're talking about? --Jiang 06:32, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because it's very unclear in some cases, especially as you go further back. By the way, is your description of the French system accurate? My understanding is that it's more accurate to say that France is a semi-presidential system with a powerful head of state who pretty much has his way when the president has a majority, but when he doesn't, the president is much closer to a ceremonial head of state, although still obviously more powerful than most who hold such office. During cohabitation, didn't Foreign Minister Védrine report to Prime Minister Jospin as much as to President Chirac?

My description of the French system is probably inaccurate. My point is that restricting the HoG label to just one person in these cases is just misleading.

Let us agree on a format before we start more pages so we don't have to do things multiple times. What is the point of listing titles twice on the same line again? We could just avoid all this ambiguity by not labelling at all - just start the line with the name unless there is a succession/multipl holders of a title. --Jiang 23:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think a uniform format looks better, but I don't feel all that strongly about it. For instance, it looks odd to have -

• United Kingdom
  • Monarch -
    1. King of the United Kingdom (1830-1837
       )
    2. Queen of the United Kingdom (1837-1901
       )
  • William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1835-1841)

Furthermore, even if we do that, there remains the question of what to call the offices when there are multiple holders in a year.

It will simply reduce the number of instances where we'll have to decide and where our decision will be visible. I find the format:

• Prime Minister - William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1835-1841)

to be even more odd. Why state that he is PM twice? We should set up a poll to settle this, hopefully in the next couple days. --Jiang 02:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the redundancy; consider one the office and one the title. While they'll usually be the same, the won't always be. I think we do need something before the name of the officeholder, and just taking either "Head of state" or "Head of government" isn't always 100% accurate, and sometimes seems too general. It seems under the somewhat redundant system there is the opportunity to use regional terms (such as Kaiser, Tsar, Taoisech, Emir, etc.) while still stating the general term, (Monarch, Prime Minister, etc.). If the only problem with that system is that usually the term "President" or such is listed twice, then I don't think it's really a very big deal. That's my opinion anyway. -R. fiend

Largely agree with R. Fiend.

I'll cave in. Kaiser, Tsar, Taoisech, etc. are rare cases. Most often, the title used in English is the standard President/Prime Minister. Are we to label the German chancellor a PM too?

We should reduce redundancy by always going by the precise title, eg, "President of the Government" instead of "Prime Minister of Spain" since PM will already be labelled on the same line. This will require closer investigation. --Jiang 05:09, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget about

If we're missing something, add it. -- Jonel 17:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please follow my edits so we can get it right the first time. --Jiang 01:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm typically going to use the earliest year that I've worked on (right now, the 2001 one) when I create the year before it. So, it's good that you made your edits to the 2001 one. If you do make edits to one, please do follow through with the later ones (i.e., 2002, 2003, and 2004 in this case).

It is inappropriate to be labelling the PRemier of the PRC as de jure HoS and the CPC General Secretary as de facto. That implies the premier is some sort of puppet. There is a clear relation between the two - the party, under the general secretary, makes the policy and the government, under the premier, executes them. I just changed the label to "Communist Party leader". This should be self explanatory.

Looks good -- Jonel 02:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also split the rival/successor governments of Afghanistan in 2001. --Jiang 01:29, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't be needing

What's the difference between being an officially listed "participant" and some guy who works on these pages? I'm the latter, so I guess I'll be the former too if there's no real further responsibilities attached to it. Anyway, right now I'm working on 1981, primarily using a 1982 almanac, which is somewhat problematical. I suspect this whole project will take quite a long time. Anyway, I'm pretty new here, so expect alot of mistakes, and bear with me. -R. fiend

I'd say both you and Jiang should be on there, as well as anyone else who does work on the pages more than minor edits. -- Jonel 02:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No responsibilities. I think it's just to have an idea who's involved in working on the stuff. BTW, do you knows of rulers.org and worldstatesmen.org? Both have (often the same) lists of world leaders from 1700.

john

03:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I strongly advise against using worldstatesmen.org. Not only is it unreliable, it also lists full names without indicating what the common part is and which part may be totally obscure, and we want to have the common forms here, e.g. Edward Natapei instead of Nipake Edward Natapei Tua Fanua'ariki. --Wik 01:51, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have yet to notice any discrepancies between worldstatesmen.org and either our own lists of leaders or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. As for the common name issue, you just have to use a little common sense of your own. If you aren't sure whether the name given is common or obscure, do a Google search or check an encyclopedia. -- Jonel 02:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

That's not what people have been doing; I've seen a lot of those inappropriate long names being copied here. There's no need for Google checks; just use rulers.org, which lists the common forms. --Wik 02:10, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

How can I get on the list of participants; as I have done a lot of work on creating the ]]British rulers by year]] section, which I have almost completely done on my own, and I intend to continue?--Jammydodger 19:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Add yourself in the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year. Jeltz talk 21:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, where possible, to add the specific dates of changes of power that occur during the year in question. As is done at

I agree. Do it where possible, but don't sweat it if you can't find dates, especially for older transitions. -- Jonel 14:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How are we to deal with Ottoman vassal states, as Algiers before 1830, Tunis before 1881, Egypt from 1805-1914, Wallachia and Moldavia 15odd-1856, Romania 1856-1878, Serbia 1818-1878, Bulgaria 1878-1908, the Crimean Tatars whenever-1783, and so forth? Ought they be listed on their own? Or under the Ottoman Empire? Or on a separate page?

They should be on the main page. To be a useful list de facto independence should count for more than de jure independence.

De facto independence is rather a judgment call, though, isn't it?

john

05:09, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd go for main page, but include a comment on their vassal status. It's more convenient to a reader looking for a particular country - and certainly de facto independence applies to a lot of these. - Mustafaa 07:46, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

About the independence thing... de facto is definitely what readers will want, but if the writer will be making that judgment call, there should probably be a note of exactly what call you're making (i.e. a note in parentheses to indicate the event signifying independence)

Vonschlesien

07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we deal with protectorates of imperial powers that had their own native rulers? Egypt under the British, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Laotian kingdoms, Morocco, and Tunis under the French, and so forth? Should they be listed on their own, on the colonial page, or what? What about places that were both subject to the Ottomans and under de facto colonial rule, like Egypt 1882-1914 or Cyprus 1878-1914?

As a positive suggestion, I'd suggest that British India, which was never a colony, but an Empire. be listed on the main page rather than the colonial page, at least from when direct British rule started after the mutiny in 1858. Before that, I think the colonial page is appropriate.

Another positive suggestion - subpages should be created to deal with these. One has already been created to deal with the Holy Roman Empire statelets in 1747 (

Good idea, there are far to many of them to list on any of the main pages. - SimonP 04:24, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that states of the German Confederation and North German Confederation, at least, be listed in the main page, but grouped together under the umbrella organization. The same could perhaps be done with the abortive German Empire of 1848-1850. For the German Empire of 1871-1918, I'm not so sure. Perhaps a separate subpage would be the best idea for that.

All of the pages are now being called "State leaders by year" rather than the wonderfully more encompassing "political leaders by year". Tribal, unbrodered areas such as North America prior to

I think state leaders is a fine title. Political leader is extremely vague, and includes many more than just heads of nations. Are heads of international organizations not also political leaders? Cabinet ministers, sub national leaders, union bosses could all be considered political leaders but not state leaders. A state is merely "a political entity not subject to any higher political authority" and both the Huns and Celts and other tribes would qualify. - SimonP 21:49, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, state leaders is, I think, also vague, and is not a term in general use. So I'm not a huge fan of it. But I'm just so sick of moving it around, and no one has come up with anything that's decisively better, that it's fine with me.

I have despaired of finding a title that is at once specific enough to cover only what we want to cover, short enough to make it useful, and general enough that everyone we want to include gets included. However, like John, I'm really not interested in moving these things around anymore. I do think 'state' is better than 'political', however. -- Jonel 23:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am decidedly of the opinion that "Middle East" ought not to be a category in the regional division. Egypt should go in Africa, and the rest of the countries in Asia. What do others think?

I think it can be useful, but obviously not as clear cut as continental entries (which can also be difficult, i.e. Turkey and Russia). It is, historically and ethnically, a somewhat separate entity from the rest of Asia. (If we go by merely physical features there is little difference between Europe and Asia.) Perhaps we should vote on it. Should we choose to keep it I think there needs to be a consensus on what is or is not included. -R. fiend 01:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I vote for no Middle East section. It's too loose a definition, and would lead to the need of constant vigilence to make sure that it's consistent across years. As for the issues of Turkey and Russia, it's always seemed to be very standard across a wide range of sources that, if you must pick a continent for each of them, Turkey is in Asia and Russia is in Europe. So there you go, problem solved. As for "little physical difference between Europe and Asia", the Caucasus Mountains beg to differ :) -Rwv37 02:03, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've previously stated my support for the Middle East as a separate category and I still think it is a good idea. It is as distinct a region historically, culturally, and geographically from the main mass of Eurasia as Europe is. - SimonP 02:27, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

The Indian subcontinent is quite distinct from East Asia. The Maghreb is utterly distinct from sub-Saharan Africa. There is not all that much in common between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago (certainly the latter is more like the South American nation of Guyana than it is like the US, Canada, or Mexico, and Guyana, in South America, is more like most of the British Caribbean countries than it is like Argentina). And how distinct is Iran (Middle East) from Afghanistan (Asia)? Of course the Middle East is a unit of note, but it's not a precise one, and as RWV notes, we'd constantly have to make sure that we were being consistent about what constitutes the "Middle East". Also, in the current scheme, the Middle East is the only non-continental unit of all the sections in the list. As to Turkey and Russia, of course Russia goes in Europe. I think the Ottoman Empire ought to go in Europe, since Constantinople was a European city, and the Sublime Porte ruled large territories in Europe until the last ten years of its existence, but that modern Turkey should go in Asia, since Ankara is in Asia, but who knows?

When you say that the Middle East is the only non-continent included that is based only on the western breakdown of the continents. We tend to separate Europe because most of our ancestors are from there. The Middle East, in fact, has a shorter border with the rest of Eurasia than does Europe and has just as much claim to be a separate continent. - SimonP 19:54, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes. But there are, throughout the period under discussion, tons and tons of countries in europe. Up to 1918, the Middle East consists of the

I'm basically for keeping the Middle East as its own section, but I'm not adamant about it. There are so many countries in Asia that I find it somewhat helpful to have them subdivided such, and the Middle East does have its own character. But I guess we should probably have a vote. Who gets to vote? Absolutely anyone or those who are working on these pages? Should the Middle East triumph, john is certainly right that we need to set clear definitions. I think its more or less accepted that the Middle East stretches no further east than Iran, and, I for one, still think Egypt belongs in Africa. -R. fiend 07:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd be against giving the Middle East its own section - but how about doing subsections of Asia? Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, SE Asia - that would make Asia a lot more navigable. It's a huge continent, after all. I wouldn't oppose splitting Africa as well, and the Americas could also be split. - Mustafaa 07:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I would definitely rather divide into more subsections than having Middle East as the only non-continental unit. On the other hand, this would require more work...

After I mentioned having the Middle East as a subsection I knew someone would make a point about further subsections (either proposing them or using them as an argument against the Middle East). All I can say is if the Middle East borders are difficult to define, then making 3 or 4 other subections will be a nightmare. I think I saw some reversion war earlier about Mongolia or something being transfered from "East Asia" to "Central Asia" and back ad nauseam, which is a taste for what we might have to deal with. Even if we eventually were to reach a consensus on present nations, we'd have to open discussions up for earlier ones every time we needed to add one. Too many subsections is worse than too few. I think the Middle East is a more easily defined and familair term than "South Asia", for example. Separating it makes Asia a little more navigable, without getting carried away. -R. fiend 08:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know... Afghanistan, of course, is the problem there; is it Middle East, South Asia, or Central Asia? But South Asia actually seems rather better defined than the Middle East to me; Afghanistan is the only country in dispute there, whereas for the Middle East Afghanistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and sometimes even Libya (!) and Turkey are in dispute. - Mustafaa 08:34, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Asia is so unnavigable - it has no more countries than Africa or Europe. And for earlier years it clearly has fewer countries than Europe does.

It strikes me as strange to have a category called "Africa", and not to see "Egypt" listed under it. Egypt is in Africa, no? I also think that this might be misleading to people stumbling upon one of the pages, especially since "Middle East" (and therefore "Egypt") is not listed until pages and pages past the end of "Africa" (at least in the relatively complete lists). We'll constantly have people happening upon the page, and adding Hosni Mubarak to Africa. And how about Egypt before the rise of Islam, does that still belong in "the Middle East"? Plus, why Egypt but not Libya? Why Iran but not Afghanistan? Hey, I'll even go so far as to say why not Pakistan? All in all, I think this "Middle East category" is an interesting idea in theory, but in practice it is fraught with problems, especially relative to the little benefit that it might give. As to the point that the "continents", as currently defined, are somewhat arbitrary and perhaps even Eurocentric, that's all well and good, but frankly, they are the longstanding and well-known de facto standard. -Rwv37 21:26, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think Egypt belongs in Africa. Still, I like the Middle East section. As far as other borders go, I don't think either Afghanistan or Pakistan belong, I think the former particularly is about as "Central Asia" as you can get. Those two seem to be refered to as Middle East only when people ignorantly define the Middle East as "areas with problems involving violence and Muslims". In light of that Iran is somewhat questionable, but has a strong precedent for being considered Middle Eastern. As far as "South Asia" being more clearly defined I guess that's because it's basically India (OK, OK, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal are the only ones that come to mind, and three of those were one country for a while). John has a point that Asia is no more cluttered than Europe or Africa, but there is little we can do without creating terribly artificial divisions to do anything about that (we could do Eastern and Western Europe, but that has problems too, and is unecessary). As artifical as the Middle East's borders may be at least there's a significant precedent for them. If we have a vote and Middle East goes out the window that's fine. I don't volunteer to move them though. -R. fiend 22:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with just about everythin Rwv37 says. At any rate, what's the point of a "Middle East" category that, until the 20th century, will consist of Persia and some small, quasi-independent Arabian emirates (and maybe the Ottoman Empire). I just don't see why this is worthwhile.

I certainly see your point, and for earlier dates when there was just a single power we probably should leave the Middle East off. We could bring it in say, after WWI or something when theres alot more states there (sort of like what I think we're doing with the Americas, pre-Latin American independence). Of course, in the Middle Ages there were quite alot of different states, between the various Muslim powers, the remenants of the Byzantine Empire, and the Crusader states, so we'll have to think about that (assuming we eventually do the Middle Ages, which I would like to). Anyway, we should have a vote, and soon. I'll certainly abide by the the result. -R. fiend 18:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Middle East certainly doesn't look like "just a single power"... if anything, splitting Asia and the Middle East has shown me just how deprived the rest of Asia can look when all the myriad Muslim and Christian kingdoms are stripped away from it... -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 19:31, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think the most urgent priority right now is making sure the stuff we have is all formatted properly - divided by continents, names bolded, and so forth. I'd also suggest that those going through and adding should be sure to be adding in a complete manner - not just adding heads of state when there are heads of government to be added, for instance. Once a nice template is in place, it'll be easy for anyone to come and add a country they want to add, or what.

The presidents of Afghanistan were added w/o the Prime Minister. I added them in from 1975 to present. Someone needs to add the for years before... --Jiang 05:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. I would like to say that [[President of Afghanistan|King of Afghanistan]] is outright misleading. It's okay to link to a redirect, given that an artilc on the Afghan monarchy should be written. --Jiang 06:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Does there really need to be an article called "King of X" for every entity X? I noticed that for example, 1800 has a listing "Abu Dhabi - Shakhbut bin Dhiyab, Shaikh of Abu Dhabi (1793-1816)" in which an article was written about the person Shakhbut bin Dhiyab but not for the office Shaikh of Abu Dhabi. Could we just have redirects to the country article? --mdmcginn 11:29, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

In most cases I think good articles can be written on the position (e.g. Prime Minister of Canada) and that they should be left as red links. - SimonP 19:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Someone should link each of these leader pages to the corresponding year page. --Jiang 02:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

They already are. The

That;'s what i meant. --Jiang

Ah, gotcha. Yes, we need to do that...anyone want to volunteer ;)?

john

06:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I've been doing that here and there as I come across these pages. Now I notice that some of these have an early and very incomplete list of Heads of State at the bottom, and I've been deleting them as I add the links to the state leaders pages. I hope no one objects. -R. fiend 17:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

As I go through some of these European states back into the early 19th and 18th centuries, I notice that there frequently weren't formal "Prime Ministers", but that there were often informal leading ministers, or what not. The foreign minister would oftentimes, for instance, be seen as rather like a prime minister. And so forth. How are we to deal with this kind of thing?

Something like this:

• United Kingdom:
  • Monarch: Ugen the 64th, King of the United Kingdom
  • Head of Government: John Kenney, Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom

-_- ugen64 03:57, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I know we already have WAY too much going on here for the few of us active here to handle, but I think at some stage we need to address the number of dead links, particularly for offices. Plenty of the smaller nations in particular have no entry for "Prime Minister of....". It would be nice if somehow those could start getting done. I also think there should be some consistency. Some links we are writing now have to be piped to "List of Prime Ministers (or whatever) of....", while some pages that are titled "Prime Ministers of..." are just lists anyway. I think, eventually, we should get rid of the "Lists of..." pages and change them just to the office, which will have list at the bottom, and hopefully at least a short blurb about the office itself at the top. The only reason I'm mentioning this now when we're too busy already is that having some of these first might make these state leaders pages easier to write. And perhaps it will help consistency. Comments? -R. fiend 17:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Certainly right. I was going through and making pages like that from the

I'd prefer them both under the title "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland", if people object to this or don't want to have to combine pages, then I think they should link to the office. That's what people would probably assume it's linking to anyway, and it's easier for us not to have to pipe all these links. Each of those pages should have a link (probably right at the top) to any separate list pages so they're still eay to find. All new pages of this sort, in my opinion, should have at least a stub about the office, and a list underneath. -R. fiend 19:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

One step ahead of you, guys. I've done Prime Minister of XXXX pages for:

1. Prime Minister of Angola
2. Prime Minister of Burkina Faso
3. Prime Minister of Cameroon
4. Prime Minister of Cape Verde
5. Prime Minister of the Central African Republic
6. Minister of State of Monaco
7. Prime Minister of Chad

I've mostly used the Encyclopedia Britannica, rulers.org, the CIA World FactBook, and our own main/government pages for the countries to find the info for them. They could certainly use some more information, and there are plenty of offices that I haven't gotten to yet. -- Jonel 19:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Looking good. I think this is exactly what we need! -R. fiend 19:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

What do people think of taking pages where only a list of... exists and not an office (i.e.

I've been adding some British Prime Ministers to years that are missing them, and I'd like to get a consensus on a few things before I continue. First of all, some sources give PM's going back as far as 1714, while some (including this site) at 1721. How should we do it? I noticed someone for one year listed the office as: Prime Minister - Henry Pelham, First Lord of the Treasury, which is basically a more accurate title at the time. Should we use that for the earlier years? And if so for how long? It would clear up some of the redundancy people dislike, but a disadvantage is that it wouldn't link to the Prime Minister page, which is likely what people will be looking for. Also there are examples when the 2 offices are not held by the same person. Should we list the minister as holding both officies when applicable? The title "Prime Minister" didn't become official for a while, but it is the more useful term in most cases. Anyway, another thing, sometimes King George III is listed as: "George III, King of Great Britain (1760-1800/1820)". The years there are kind of unclear. I realize Great Britain became the UK in 1801, so having the King listed as "King of the United Kingdom (1760-1820)" is somewhat inaccurate, but is there a more clear way to illustrate what that slash is for? (Also isn't "King of Great Britain (1760-1820)" still accurate? As King of the UK wasn't he still King of Great Britain?) This I think will also be an issue for Queen Anne before and after the Union with Scotland in 1707. Anyway, another question: are we listing regents? I think someone removed a listing of the Prince of Wales during the regency under George III. Should it be put back? And finally, are we listing all the years someone held an office, or just the ones applicable at the time. For example in 1800 do we list "William Pitt, PM (1783-1801)", or "(1783-1801, 1804-1806)"? I like the latter, but for guys like Gladstone and Disraeli and such it will be alot of numbers. What does everyone think? -R. fiend 23:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know much about this situation, but my personal opinion is that if he was the "First Lord of the Treasury", he should be listed as such, and if the "First Lord of the Treasury" somehow morphed into the "Prime Minister" at some point, then the page for the "First Lord" should have a "see also: Prime Minister" link. As for regents, I'm all for listing them - they're effectively head of government, and this page isn't just for heads of state. However, that brings up another question: what about extremely temporary, but nonetheless official, heads of government, like Cheney was for several hours while Bush was undergoing a colonoscopy, and had signed over his powers temporarily? -Rwv37 13:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

If there was a clear de facto leader in that year, you should include him/her, even if he/she wasn't considered a "Prime Minister". As you stated, technically, the office of Prime Minister didn't exist until the early 20th century, so it's technically correct (until that time, I'm not quite sure exactly when) to note that Henry Pelham was 1st Lord, for example. However, it'd be confusing -- some PMs before the actual advent of the Prime Ministry used other titles, such as Chancellor of the Exchequer or Lord Privy Seal, rather than First Lord. Regarding George, if the year in question is between 1760 and 1800, it's simple just to say "George III, King of Great Britain (1760-1800). On the other hand, if it were between 1801 and 1820, you'd have to do something delicate, such as "George III, King of Great Britain (1760-1800), King of the United Kingdom (1801-1820)"... We are listing regents, and we are only listing years that are relevant (otherwise, as you noted, many British PMs would have a long list of dates...). Cheney should not be listed. ugen64 03:53, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I should say, at least in a lot of cases regents are effectively heads of government, but I guess this applies mostly when the monarch normally would be, rather than to the specific situation that you listed. -Rwv37 13:16, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me like listing all of the (very) temporary leaders would be nigh-impossible, as I don't think there are simply any records of them in other places other than the US. Even in the US, we probably only have records of these situations for the past 100 years (if that), so it would be difficult to expound on the topic. Regents, on the other hand, are very important because they play their role for a significant period of time. Cheney didn't really do anything during his brief assumption of powers, whereas the Prince of Wales most certainly affected British policies over his 9 year regency. Melonhead 04:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, I would like to do some things related to the Middle East, so I would like a consensus on the Middle East issue before doing so. I'm somewhat new here, so could someone please tell me what the process for having a vote is, or whatever it is that we do? Thanks. -Rwv37 13:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, unless what you are proposing is, in your opinion, liable to cause great controversy, just do it or, if you feel it's necessary, say something on this page to the effect of, "I'm gonna do blah blah, is that ok?" ugen64 03:53, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, just a heads up that you should be sure that any changes you make or standardizations that you make are consistant with wikipedia:timeline standards or else submit them to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years for inclusion in the standard. This prevents years from being haphazard, and provides a consistant interface to the timeline. Thanks! Theon 18:08, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I start adding the Portuguese Governors of Macau and British Governors of Hong Kong? If not, when I've got some spare time I'll sit down and have a go at them. - Chrism 23:08, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

At "Colonial governors by year" not "State leaders by year" though. --Jiang

I've done the Macanese governors from 1700 through to 1750, I'll do some more later. If anyone wants to start doing the Hong Kong ones, be my guest. - Chrism 09:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to find suitable categories for various lists (see

Are people still working on this project much? I've been adding major European powers for the 18th and 19th centuries, and making some progress. If anyone wants to help out in any capacity that would be great. I think for those 2 centuries we've reasonably completed Denmark, France, Great Britain (UK), Holy Roman Emperors (note Emperors, not Empire), Russia, Prussia, Spain, and Sweden. I just started Portugal today. Some stuff needs to be cleaned up, but I'll work on that. One question though, what was the consensus on the actual names used? Are we using English translations? There seems to be some inconsistency. For Portugal I started using "Joao" for "John" (as per the "Kings of Portugal" article), but I'm thinking I should be using John now. Should the standard be that we use the names their articles are written under? -R. fiend 20:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll rejoin soon, I actually couldn't find where these pages were located until just now... -_- I think you should go by local name -- for example, take George Hanover. He would be "George I, King of Great Britain" under the Great Britain heading, while he would be "Georg I, Elector of Hanover" under the Hanover heading. Also, Kings of France would not be named "Francis" or "Henry"; rather, as I understand it, they should be "François" and "Henri". ugen64 03:55, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm. That's not what I've been doing, nor does it seem to be the usual procedure for these lists so far (though there is certainly a great amount of inconsistency). I think for the time the safest thing to do is list all leaders as they appear in their article titles. This will cause the least confusion and, to me, seems most appropriate for an English encyclopedia. I should point out that while this will usually mean we use the English translations of names, it doesn't always. While "Joao" will become "John" (to be honest I'm not even sure how to pronounce "Joao", nor write it correctly), names like "Ivan" (which I believe is considered the Russian form of "John") will not. And there will be those cases such as Kaiser Wilhelm, which is not translated to "William", as dictated by tradition. (Yet Fredrich Wilhelm of Prussia does appear as "Frederick William"; maybe we need some consistency here in the article titles.) If need be we can have a vote on this, if we can get people interested in working on this project again. Right now it seems to be stagnating. -R. fiend 21:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After a bit of to-and-fro-ing on

I agree, it would be wonderful, but I don't think its practical at this stage. Especially now that we're extending this project back several centuries there's a hell of alot to do just in making the lists. If they're going to be useful at all lots of other countries have to be added. I've been a bit lax on them recently, but I guess I'll soon get back to doing my share. I'd like to try to get more people involved. If we can at least get the leaders of the countries we can expect more people will be interested in for starters that will be a step in the right direction. The number of years deemed "complete" or at least near complete is a very small handful of the 800 or however we're working on now. But if someone does want to take up your suggestion and can do it well I'd fully support it. -R. fiend 01:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was just thinking: is it possible to automatically generate these lists? Perhaps we can have a series of "king of ..." articles all written according to a certain fixed format (e.g.

I have always thought this, but have never really written a bot. Perhaps if we find someone interested in the project with skills in Python - a bot can be developed, and our lives made alot easier. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 08:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was my first reaction to this idea - that it would surely be worth developing a system for automatically generating these lists - it surely can't be that hard, for a person with the right expertise. And then the project's work could focus on name changes and/or markup (of existing Wiki entries) required to make the system work. Though thinking in that direction begs far larger issues of moving Wiki towards something XMLish which is a kettle of fish the size of the Pacific... Rd232 17:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's becoming increasingly urgent to arrive at a decision now about this. Should we have a separate Middle East section in each one of the pages, or should we simply split it into Asia and Africa? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 19:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Tally: 1/4

Asia, Africa, Middle East and North Africa

1. At least 80% of years currently have the Middle East as a section, and I see no reason to get rid of it. Moreover the alternate division is based on the Eurocentric seven continent division of the world that divides Eurasia between Europe the "foreign" bits. Since time immemorial the Middle East was viewed as a distinct region by its inhabitants, and when it was lumped into another area in Roman and Byzantine times it was considered an extension of Europe, not of Asia. The border of the Middle East is no vaguer than that of Europe, and the land border between the Middle East and the rest of Asia is actually considerably shorter than that between Europe and Asia. Geologically the Middle East has its own
   tectonic plate unlike Europe. In many ways merging Europe with Asia would be far more rational than merging the Middle East into Europe. - SimonP
   22:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
   • "Asia" has always referred to the Middle East, and was extended later to include South Asia and the Far East. Also, there are clear, conventionally-accepted borders for Europe, but not for the Middle East. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 22:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
     • You are correct about the etymology, what in ancient times was known as Asia is today known as the Ancient Near East. Are there clear borders for Europe? The edit wars that have waged over whether the Caucauses or Kazakhstan are European would argue otherwise. - SimonP 00:04, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
   • But it is generally accepted that Europe is bordered by the Urals and the Caucasus. What edit wars we have are limited to a few countries straddling the border. What are the borders of the Middle East? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:16, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
     • There is no official border, but since the earliest days of the Persians Empire the Near East has been demarcated as ending at the eastern edge of the
       Iranian plateau, a line which roughly follows the eastern border of modern Iran. Throughout history this has been one of the clearest human boundaries. Other than a brief period of Mongol unity I cannot think of a single land empire that has had substantial holdings on both sides of this line. - SimonP
       05:05, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
   • The
     Iranian plateau article defines the plateau as stretching all the way into Tajikistan. Also, what are the western and northern boundaries of the Middle East? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)
     ]] 05:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
     • Thank you for pointing out that error, a quick search found that no other source has the Iranian plateau stretching to Tajikistan. The northern boundary would be whatever the southern boundary of Europe is. Current consensus seems to be the Caucasus, though in the past other boundaries have been used. Traditionally the western border has been the western edge of the Nile Valley. The Ancient Greeks, for instance, placed Egypt in Asia with Africa beginning at Cyrenaica. - SimonP 06:10, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
   • Okay, so Iran, Azerbaijan, and Egypt are in, but Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Libya are not? What about Sudan? Turkey? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 06:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
     • Well Turkey and Azerbaijan would be issues with an Asia/Europe divide just as much as a Middle East/Europe one. As far as I'm concerned since both now claim to be in Europe (and to have always been in Europe) I will agree with them. As to Libya I personally support lumping North Africa in with the Middle East (the so called Greater Middle East) at least for the 18th and 19th centuries. Pre-colonial Africa had some 400 to 500 states and I consider this the best way of making the fairly distinctive NA ones possible to find. Pre 1600, when the NA countries are almost all of those that are known I would include them in Africa. As to the Sudan the fringe of the country has usually been considered Middle Eastern, but the vast bulk of the country is African and today Sudan is generally considered African. - SimonP 06:41, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Asia, Africa

1. I think it's a bad idea to set "Middle East" aside as a separate heading. Firstly, it will be hard to define the precise boundaries of the Middle East. (Should we include the Maghreb? Or Afghanistan?) Also, setting a "Middle East" precedent might cause a lot of trouble in the future, since people will start pushing for other regions like Latin America, Caribbean, and so forth that are equally hard (or even harder) to define. So it's better to stick to accepted, conventional, undisputed continents. As for pages that currently have a "Middle East" section: those can be slowly phased out. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 19:34, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
2. I was a proponent of a separate Middle East, but it's not worth the hassle at this point. After the discussion on whether it should exist comes the discussion of how to define it. I believe there was a Middle East section on the 1220 list, but I got rid of it because it was categorized by religion, not geography, and if that's how it's going to be done then we might as well not do it at all. Nor does it make sense to have a separate section for what will be only the Ottoman Empire for many years. -R. fiend 16:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Even though it sometimes might be better to split by cultural region I think that it's best to split by geogrphical regions because those doesn't change (at least not very fast). Jeltz 10:27, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
4. Middle east is a contemporary term with ambiguous definitions. This makes it nonsense to have the term Middle East on pages for 18th or 19th century. It's much more realistic to put both Pakistan and Iran in Asia than putting Iran in Middle East and Pakistan in Asia. --Pouya 21:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. I see no reason why Middle East should be the only non-7-continent geographical unit here. If we grant that, there will be no reason not to, say, move the Caribbean and Central America into the South America group, for instance - it seems to me to be more NPOV simply to use the standard continental divisions, which are hard to gainsay.
   k
   10:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think these links should only when these institutions appeared. Colonies and International Organizations in the 13th century?... I dont think so, and the links are making the whole project look a bit silly. Chhers, [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 12:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 14:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've been running a data drop and both "Monarch" and "Emperor" are used with Japan's emperor. For a consistency with other leaders, I'm changing them all to "Monarch". This is the proper format, isn't it? Revth 06:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another point,

According to

List of Emperors of Japan, we use "Hirohito" and "Akihito" for the last two emperors, and the "other" names (don't know what they're called) (Taisho, Meiji, Komei...) for all the ones before. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)

]] 15:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)