Talk:List of state leaders in 2016

Merge into List of state leaders in the 21st century

@OpenFuture:, @GoodDay:, @Neve-selbert:, @Zoltan Bukovszky:, @TracyMcClark:, @TracyMcClark: --

There are far too many "List of state leaders in 0000" pages. The state leaders in 1960 is very nearly the same as state leaders in 1961. It is very combersome to verifiy, maintain, and navigate the hundereds of pages like this. For earlier times it should merged into lists of state leaders by century. For more recent centuries, they can split by either decade or another method.

Based on WP:CON at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century and elsewhere-- and the concerns at What is the purpose of this series of articles? above-- I propose these pages (namely 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001) be merged into List of state leaders in the 21st century.

This has been done form 10th century AD back to 16 century BC or so. tahc ^chat 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

For the more recent centuries they ought to be redirected to the relevant section at List of state leaders by year (i.e. redirecting List of state leaders in the 21st century to List of state leaders by year#21st century). I like the idea of organising the state leaders by decade (i.e. List of state leaders in the 1980s etc.)--Nevé–selbert 09:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I see no point in deleting these existing articles. If you find it cumbersome to maintain those articles, then don't maintain them. (I can take care of that, as I have done in the past.) Plus the exponential growth in the number of independent states during the course of 20th century would make a complete, global list, encompassing an entire decade, impractically long. ZBukov (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any benifit to maintain many similar articles. These articles are certainly very similar. Based on my work, I can tell that even in the most recent decades, chunks around 20 years in range will be perfectly fine size pages. You will find that a page for all the leaders in a decade is barely any longer than the page for all the leaders in a year.

What is impractical, is have one editor maintain and improve. The 1016 year-range pages that we are looking at.

Let's say someone discovered yesterday that Obiri Yeboa (uncle of Osei Kofi Tutu I) ruled the Kumaseman State from 1615 to 1675, and someone goes and adds this fact to one page, the List of state leaders in 1650. Your plan is to "maintain" all the other pages by editing the other 60 "by year" pages, one by one. What if it is discovered two years from now that his name should be spelled differently, will you then change all 61 pages one-by-one again? Why? These pages do not look well-maintained even now, so how will you ever find the time for this?

Even if you do want to do this, Wikipedia policy is to NOT maintain groups of pages that are all similar to each other-- and you cannot Own Wikipedia pages. tahc ^chat 17:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm under no illusion of owning any article. My message was that if one editor doesn't feel like contributing to these articles, he is under no obligation or pressure to do so. It is the 20th and 21st century states and leaders that I'm competent in, so I only meant those articles (sorry for not having failed to mentioned that above). Though I haven't reviewed the 1901-1917 articles yet (you can see the difference between the 1917 and 1918 articles). ZBukov (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You said "...if one editor doesn't feel like contributing to these articles, he is under no obligation or pressure to do so" Which articles are "these articles"? tahc ^chat 20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built by voluntary cooperation, therefore this statement is true of every editor and each article. ZBukov (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So we can convert the 11th to 19th century articles but (until you retire from Wikipedia) not the 20th and 21st century articles? The articles 1918 to 2016 do seem to be in good shape, but it still seems like you are asking us keep over 100 articles against Wikipedia policy. The lists would all be content forks with each other and with the "consoldated" or "by decade" lists. Furthermore, keeping the "by year" lists would prevent us from directing readers to the "consoldated" or "by decade" lists. tahc ^chat 20:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your action is abusive. It is no reason to do it. Please revert as quickly as posiblethe lists for 2016 and 2017 Bogdan Uleia

While I think that we ought to redirect these articles to List of state leaders in the 21st century, it is quite clear that there has not been a consensus established for this and that tahc's actions in doing so were premature at best. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not make those articles into re-directs. You've no consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The new articles are redundant, arbitrary and uncalled-for, what's more they contain less information than the articles they seek to replace. Therefore this redirect is not acceptable. ZBukov (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What is WP:Consensus?

@Super Nintendo Chalmers:, @GoodDay: Consensus is not voting on what people want but what makes Wikipedia better based on Wikipedia policy. When I proposed this change as needed, I pointed out how it was both better and required by Wikipedia policy. Keeping things as they are just because they are the result of work is not required by Wikipedia policy. As of 21 November 2016, no one objected except Zoltan Bukovszky, but Zoltan had no counter argument for these issues and largly admitted so with this edit.

If any one has an idea of another way to not violate Wikipedia:Content forking then let us know. tahc ^chat 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't make them into re-directs, as they're part of a series of List of state leaders in Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@tahc You completely misunderstood my message if you presumed it to mean that there is no argument against deleting these articles. What I pointed out was that you seem to be the only editor in over a decade who thinks that these articles contravene the rules in any substantial and important way. And that alone should have made you think (but it apparently didn't). And I repeat, the article which you alone created (as no-one else saw the need for it) is inferior to the ones it seeks to replace. ZBukov (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is largely because other editors have lacked interest it fixing the issue. Just because I and others do have a willingness now does not mean it was just fine before.

We now see you still have no argument against deleting these articles. tahc ^chat 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of all List of state leaders in Year articles, in exchange for creation of the necessary List of state leaders in Xth century articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I agree to this in theory. There are two issues. (1) They will need to be broken down into 10 or 20 year spans to (for the 20th and 21st or so) and (2) it may take a long time to covert them ao we need to convert them all over with redirects as we go. tahc ^chat 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a huge task to perform. A Rfc in the proper venue, would be the best route to take, as a consensus would be required for such changes, when they involve so many articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

While it involes many lists, all the pages/lists are of the same type in the same format. I am not sure why a WP:Requests for comment is requiered. I have also have never begun a RCF before. Maybe this is something you want help begin. tahc ^chat 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If I knew which WikiProject these articles were under, I'd begin an Rfc there. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year is said to be defunct.

I would go with Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. tahc ^chat 20:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why would you put an RFC there, you'd put it here, and possibly notify other projects. As long as you classify the RFC correctly, bots will summon comments from outsiders. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay on this. It's a good idea, but it needs to be done properly - an RfC here (Seems as good a place as any) with a clear proposal. Consensus isn't about voting, I agree, but it does require some level of agreement among editors - which was clearly not established with the discussion above. So I propose:

1. We come up with an agreed idea as to what we want to put in the RfC

2. We put that to an RfC

Out of interest tahc, what's wrong with deleting these and redirecting to century articles? I don't see any loss of detail between List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in the 21st century, unless I'm missing something? Or is it just that with an increased number of states, we need to have fewer years per page? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: This is worded as a question to me-- yes? I would say there is no loss of detail. My design was to have no loss of deatil. Maybe Zoltan Bukovszky made the claim and you intented to ask him. He may point out that things like Puerto Rico are not listed because it is only for leaders of sovereign states and Puerto Rico, etc. are not sovereign states.

As for the RfC, I the guess we need to (1) explain how the current lists of state leaders are problomatic and (2) how we propose to fix it. Does someone want to create a draft RfC somewhere first?

Again-- my understanding of RfC is they are need for issues that affect multible projects, but this affect only one project. Is there something I am missing as to why a RfC would be helpful? tahc ^chat 18:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think an RfC is just a way of highlighting that we have an issue that needs discussing, and trying to attract more voices. Of course, no-one may come but if we start it here and then publicize it at varioud politics and history projects we may get more voices.

Re - loss of detail, I was responding to ": I agree to this in theory. There are two issues. (1) They will need to be broken down into 10 or 20 year spans to (for the 20th and 21st or so)" in particular, but I think the discussion has moved on:) Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there loss of detail?

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: The „List of state leaders in the 20th century” misses a lot of countries in their entirety (e.g. Soviet Union, Germany, the entire Eastern Europe, Persia, Ottoman Empire, vast sections of Africa, Oceania), is oblivious to successive states that existed in the same country (e.g. the Malagasy Republic preceding the Republic of Madagascar, Dahomey preceding Benin, post-independence Commonwealth realms like Ceylon, Dominion of Pakistan, Kenya, Uganda, etc), and includes a fictitious country (Derg). It selectively includes some non-independent countries without giving a hint about their status (e.g. Sultanate of Egypt, Beylik of Tunis, Brunei before 1984), and doesn’t mention others (e.g. French Polynesia or Cook Islands). It selectively includes some partially recognized, non-UN member states (Taiwan, Kosovo), but not others (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Western Sahara). Both articles miss the heads of state of North Korea, miss the members of the Federal Council of Switzerland (while it’s the council who is the head of state there, not the President of the Confederation), miss the Governors-General of Commonwealth realms, miss some acting leaders (e.g. of Italy, Israel, Vatican, etc) and miss the correct titles the leaders held (e.g. several leaders of Chad were not presidents, and the head of government of Andorra is not titled prime minister). Confusingly the new articles have several entries for the same country without making any connection between them (e.g. try to get your head around the different Congo entries in the 20th century article where, by the way, one Congo is even missing), consequently the new articles miss the name changes of countries (the dates of which are listed in the existing articles), not to mention small miscellaneous errors like referring to the 2000-2006 Prime Minister of Tonga by his subsequent regnal name which he did not have at the time, by listing a Belgian monarch as ""Albert II of Belgium" yet his successor only as "Philippe", and referring to one British Prime Minister only as "Salisbury". Furthermore the proposed articles are broken up into strange sections like „Southcentral Europe” and „Northcentral Africa”. These are ways in which the two proposed articles are substantially inferior to the ones they seek to replace. I guess this is what editor tahc characterised above as "no loss of detail" (which gives the impression that whoever put the articles together isn’t really familiar with the topic). ZBukov (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A. There are not any "two proposed articles". There are a number of actual (but quite incomplete) articles (or lists): from the 11th to the 20th centuries AD; and a number of complete articles (or lists): the 21st century and the centuries from the 15th BC to the 10th centuries AD. (Of course any lists before the 20th century AD is unlikely to ever be totally complete... but they are complete in that they should have at least as many states as the (by year) lists that they do or did replace.)

B. Since the list of state leaders in the 20th century (1) is not done and (2) I never claimed it was done, much less claim it had no "loss of detail" and likewise (3) it had and has no redirects made to it from the "by year" lists... I would think that is not what Super Nintendo Chalmers was asking about.

Europe for the 20th century is almost all not done, yet. While I (currently) have some more data (names only) for pre-21st century Europe and Oceania in my own sandbox-- including the Soviet Union, Germany, etc.-- but that data would not complete the 20th century. Only the 21st century was meant to be complete.

The protectorate status (e.g. Sultanate of Egypt), the minor headings for grouping related states (e.g. Congo), and the editing of names (e.g. "Salisbury") can and will also be indicated better... after we cover the 21st century.

C. There are some errors in the 21st century list... and I am glad to know about them so I can fix them... but I am supposing that Super Nintendo Chalmers also did not mean this per se. I think he meant to ask was either something like (1) how the change in format purposely lost useful on-topic data or (2) how the change in format purposely and irrevocably lost useful on-topic data. My unintentional errors and oversights are part of the Wikipedia process, and as such are neither purposeful nor irrevocable.

Thank you for pointing out that I never added the non-UN member states like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic; the editing of names (e.g. Albert II and Tupou VI, then known as ʻAhoʻeitu ʻUnuakiʻotonga Tukuʻaho).

As for "acting" leaders, I am also sure I left out some if they were already left out the list that I acquired the leaders from. I also seem to have left out the heads of state of North Korea, (Kim Jong-il and Jong-un (under that role-- they are still listed as the Chairman of the Workers' Party), because looking at it even now it is very unclear what the current title is for the North Korea "head of state". It changes every few years and the different Wikipedia articles do not agree. Please discuss these with me at Talk:List of state leaders in the 21st century, or the like, if need be.

D. Some data was left off by design, but is open to redesign while still having the data in the "by century" format. The data is in no way irrevocability lost, so long as we have the WP:consensus is to keep it in.

For example, I also purposely left out overseas territories (and most non-sovereign states) like Puerto Rico and French Polynesia, as off-topic (unless we rename the list). For earlier centuries, I have mostly tried to exclude any states that has never been a sovereign states (.e.g Puerto Rico) but try include states that are currently sovereign states (Sultanate of Egypt). We should certainly all agree on one consistent way to handle such territories and the like, but if this is of interest to you now, please open this as a new topic or sub-topic for the discussion. (Note well: it is sometimes unclear in early times if and/or when a state became a protectorate-of/vassal-to another state.)

I purposely left out leaders that were not heads of state, nor heads of government (or for communist states, heads of party) as off-topic. Since Governors general are not in themselves heads of state nor heads of government, I did not add them. Can we assume that you consider a vital role in every Commonwealth realm? As vital as the monarch herself? If the monarch is a figurehead how is the governors general more vital? Does this need to be on a state-by-state basis? If this is of interest to you now, this would also seems to call a new topic or sub-topic for the discussion.

E. Now an then Zoltan Bukovszky and I seem to disagree on the data, but such data is also not purposely lost. In fact, though you do not seem to like the continents being sorted by sub-area, such information is added detail, not any loss of detail.

Also, many or most states with a separate head of government have a non-English term for it. Sometimes this is translated in a consistent way (such as prime minister or premier) and sometimes it is consistently left as it is (Taoiseach). Sometimes the name of the role is not handled any one consistent way in English. None-the-less, most Wikipedia Andorra articles use the term "prime minister" for the head of government. In fact, it is unclear what you even think the correct term for the Andorra head of government. tahc ^chat 00:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

D. The article title "List of state leaders..." says nothing about sovereignty, therefore in itself it is no grounds for excluding non-sovereign states. ZBukov (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You should be justifying why you propose to diverge from the current consensus about including the Governors-General. Which, by the way, is evident in other articles about this topic. ZBukov (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zoltan Bukovszky:-- are you saying that you want to include all non-sovereign states? If so, then you have left off many more that you included (e.g. Florida, Manipur). If not, then please clarify your plan under a new discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in the 21st century. Thank you.

I don't need to justify dropping governors general (anymore, yet) because I gave a reason and asked you for any reasons you have to do keep them. If we want to do anything with consistency then we ask why it is done this way or that. While we do confirm final decisions by consensus, we start by asking for reasons. Why is that way better or worse that this way? Old consensus (if there was any) can change so we still ask "why are do it this way." I did give a reason why I dropped them but but never heard why they are kept in some of the "by year" lists.

While I do consider the List of state leaders in the 21st century a kind of merge of "by year" lists it is also a continuation of the earlier "by century" lists. Trying to match the "by year" does not trump trying to match the earlier "by century" lists (nor vice-versa). Different nations with governors general should either (a) be handled the same or (b) have a reason for handling them differenly. Different centuries with governors general should either (a) be handled the same or (b) have a reason for handling them differenly. To do any of this, we need to ask "why are she including any governors general?" tahc ^chat 18:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as WP:consensus is concerned, we have no consensus that these two new articles are even needed. All the data which is missing, incorrect or inconsistent in them is already collected and sorted in the existing ones (including the correct titles of the North Korean head of state and the Andorran head of government). You shouldn't insist on fixing something that isn't broken, by replacing it with a controversial and patchy vanity project. You appear to be oblivious to the lot of discussion that numerous editors have put into deciding the content and format of the existing articles which you arbitrarily wish to retire and start from scratch instead. There is simply no need for this. ZBukov (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If your plan is to ignore the Wikipedia policies that the "by year" lists violate, it does not then make those policies disappear. tahc ^chat 18:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You alone appear convinced that there is some grave violation of policy here that mandates the deletion of the existing articles. Your opinion is not enough to adjudicate this matter. This is why it matters that you have no consensus on the inevitability of deletion. And you seem determinted to ignore the fact that these articles have been around for over a decade, so if there was some substantial infraction involved, it would probably have occured to the counteless editors who worked on these articles. ZBukov (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

OK - there's two things going on here: the extant century-based articles, and the potential articles that would be created by merging the year-by-year articles into century long or decade-long articles. There may be flaws to both, but these can be improved and would be if merged: the idea, as I see it, would be to consolidate the year-by-year articles into larger periods of time, in order to reduce the number of pages that we need to edit and to allow readers to more easily follow the changing flow of articles.

Perhaps due to the increased number of states, and amount of data, a decade-by-decade approach is best suited for after 1900? At that point, we could then delete the century long articles as duplicative? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are concerned that maintaining these articles would take up too much of your time, then why don't you just leave it? I mean why do you bother? A few of us are making quite a good job of keeping them up to date without making any demands on your time. ZBukov (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZBukov: Please try and engage in the current discussion. We discussed above already why the maintaining of these "by year" lists is not the only issue with them. tahc ^chat 04:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@tahc: Editor Super Nintendo Chalmers brought that up as one of the two reason why the consolidation would need to take place. That's why I pointed out that it's already taken care of so it doesn't actually burden him/her. Furthermore his/her message confirms that no-one else appears to share your opinion that there is some serious breach of policy which would mandate the deletion of the current articles. ZBukov (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

While I think 20-or-so-years sections could be better for the 20th-century, I can live with an all decade-by-decade approach.

I had already planned on changing the List of state leaders in the 21st century into the list of state leaders in the 2000s and the list of state leaders in the 2010s, but it would be easy to reformat the 21st century list into "by decade" lists. I propose (but do not insist) we reformat the century list into decade lists after we make any re-formats to it that we can. I propose this because it is much easier to divide lists by time period than to combine lists by time period.

I would also propose that the "by century" lists be kept to reference and made into disambig-esk page like Chronological list of saints and blesseds that link to the "by decade" lists. tahc ^chat 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Maintaining is a useful part of this discussion, for a few reasons. If articles are too fragmented, it makes it harder to correct errors across multiple years, which may emerge from data brought to light in the distant future. Furthermore, that a group of editors are available now to maintain a page doesn't mean that they always will be.

But it doesn't stand alone. There's a usability question too: decade or 20year long articles make it easier to see the flows and changes in leaders across the world for readers. As Tahc points out, it's not desirable to have multiple articles with very similar content where we could consolidate into a few - I think that forking covers this issue, though I think it's a question of judgement and preference rather than a clear case of policies being broken.

More to the point - I'm not sure why this needs to be so combative. Consolidating into decade-long articles after 1900 wouldn't remove the work that's been put into these pages from Wikipedia - it just combines them into an easier to use and easier to maintain series of articles for the long term of the project. It doesn't fundamentally change what's being done on a day-to-day basis, on the grounds that I'm presuming we'd keep List of current state leaders. It's just merging the content of these very similar articles into more practical ones. Furthermore - I want a discussion on this. If it doesn't happen, then fine. But again - I don't see why we need to be combative about it.

I suggest we launch an RfC at some point (I am happy to do this) to run for 2-3 weeks on the question of whether we want to combine into decade-long articles from 1900 onwards and into the future. I propose that these articles would replicate the content as in the year-by-year articles in order to best ensure that no content is lost. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers Why so combative? What frustrates me here is the combination of arrogance and incompetence. The original proponent declared that the existing articles contravene Wikipedia policy, therefore must be deleted, and simply dismissed the evident lack of consensus about it (and still doesn’t realize the significance of the fact that no-one seems to agree with his/her assessment). And this is compounded by the fact that the article tahc has put together is seriously inferior to the ones it seeks to replace. The editor omitted the governors-general because s/he doesn’t see the need (which implies s/he doesn’t really understand that position), missed leaders’ correct titles (which implies s/he didn’t check the authoritative sources), consequently missed title change dates, put successive regimes of the same country into separate entries (a detrimental change in format), therefore omitted state name change dates, missed the dates of independence of new countries, missed entire states without noticing, decided to omit dependent territories (probably due to a misunderstanding of the article titles) and missed acting leaders because of the sources s/he used (thereby admitting that actually s/he did not combine the existing, well-researched and discussed articles but created a new one from scratch instead). So the editor was happy to throw out all the meticulous work we have put into getting the details right in the existing articles, because either s/he doesn’t know, doesn’t agree or doesn’t care. (And what the editor claims to be added value, the rarely used sub-regions, is anything but, as it only makes the article more fragmented and confusing - so in my opinion it's actually another detrimental format change.) ZBukov (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZBukov-- You argument seems to be something like this: The data in the "by century" format is (right now) not a good as the data in the "by year" format. Therefore, the "by century" (and "by decade") format is itself bad.

If you can find any fault with the format itself, tell us why it cannot be made better. If a format "by century" or "by decade" is not the cause, then ask for any changes to the data that you think are needed. If you think having many lists with the same data and purpose doesn't contravene Wikipedia policy, then talk about why I should agree with you that it doesn't contravene Wikipedia policy.

If you want to keep "by year" format only because you consider it your pet-project, then you should avoid all discussion on improving the "by century" pages (as you have been doing, so far). Please note, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, we are supposed to disregard any editors that are not seek to improve Wikipedia.

If you think I am arrogant, then please note, I am asking you to show me why the data you want included or not is a better system, etc. Maybe I will even agree to your plan even if I prefer a different way, but I cannot agree to a plan that is not yet explained to me. tahc ^chat 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Sounds good. What do you propose we do now? tahc ^chat 21:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There's an RfC process which anyone is free to start. If no one else has done it then I'll do it at some point but can't promise when; equally, feel free to go ahead and start it!--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to take the initiative. Just let me know when it's up & running :) GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Spaming

In which there is a little unneeded argumentation

I see that User:Bogdan Uleia is currunetly spamming many individual user talk pages with his biased POV of this disagreement. This includes calling my actions abusive with I consider an unwarrented and personal attack. tahc chat 17:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with his characterisation. Your action is indeed arbitrary and uncalled-for. So the editor is right to call attention to it. ZBukov (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC) I support (and Wikipedia policy) support unbiased call for discssion and any fair notices to point editors to disuss things here.. Wikipedia policy dis-allows spamming of the sort Bogdan Uleia is engaging in. tahc chat 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Firstly, you are wrong at the beginning. The articles refer to Lists of state leaders by years not by centuries. If you want to write articles about lists by centuries, is your right but open a separate list. If you don’t know, such lists is redundant because they are some specialized sites as www.rulers.org or www.worldstatesmen.org/ which are better as an wiki article, But it is your option. If you want to make a link between your article and the articles linked to years, you cam use section “See also” and they are no problem. Concerning the maintenance, if that is too hard to you, way you begin to wrote a such article?. Secondly, you have no right to redirect and destroy articles written by others persons without a consensus. Yes, a consensus, because no one is able to detain absolute truth. It is no me only, but some other persons consider it is necessary to exist a consensus to do it. On the other hand they are more others redundant articles (List of current presidents List of current prime ministers, List of current sovereign monarchs, etc) and no one redirected an destroy them. They are two similar lists List of current dependent territory leaders and List of leaders of dependent territories but, in order to unify them, not to redirect was opened a discussion. No one decides himself. I think you have the impression you and only you detain the truth and , in this sense you can do any thing you want to do, however you destroy the work of others. That it is an abuse. I informed all the contributors, in order to knew in what way is treated their work. And, by the way, way are redirected only the articles about the years 2016 and 2017? Bogdan Uleia (talk) Bogdan/Zoltan/tahc: we can do this nicely, or there's no point in doing it at all. If you're going to start slinging personal attacks at each other, then I for one am going to remove this page from my Watchlist and leave you to it. You all have the opportunity to be the bigger person. If someone calls you abusive, ignore it. If someone acts rashly, then undo it and say what should happen instead. Can I suggest that we put the section spamming into a condensed box so that it's largely hidden on the talk page, and just leave this to the issues at hand. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, please do. tahc chat 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from

Please comment at Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from on a merge proposal for the many list of territorial governors in the 21st century. tahc ^chat 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of state leaders in 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160223222318/http://www.portalestoria.net/rulers%20countryby.htm to http://portalestoria.net/rulers%20countryby.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)