Talk:Lists of state leaders by century

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sovereign Military Order of Malta

message: 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)
thread_title: Ummah

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sovereign states with no clear incumbents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dependendcies

message: 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)
thread_title: Communists

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Should we start a WikiProject for this? john 02:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject:Leaders by year?

message: Someone must know whether "Xth Century" is an exception to our rule about caps in headings... Robin Patterson 00:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nineteenth century but Twentieth Century 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tiny pedantic point 

message: Does that any sense or is it just me? Shouldnt this be remove until the times that colonies actually existed ?muriel@pt 13:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonial governors in 1211???

message: 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):
*# Internal consistency - If we have one article at XXXX in 500 BCE, they should all by YYYY in ZZ BCE.
*# 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)
*# Any other considerations.
* -- Jonel | Speak 21:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BCE vs. BC

message: 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)
thread_title: Status 8th Century

message: 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)
thread_title: Section headings

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emperors of Tibet (and general comment about spelling) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  waste of time 

message: As we all know, this article is way too long. There are several possible solutions:
#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.
#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).
#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).
#Same as #2, except the latter three articles are combined into one article that would have a size of about 5kb.
#Some brilliant idea I haven't thought of.
I've added a vote for it below. mwazzap 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *Is this like a show and hide feature? -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message)  21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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(Talk • Contributions • Send message)  20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ways to solve the length issue

message: #mwazzap 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea 1

message: # AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message)  15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea 2

message: *User:Daanschr
*myselfalso 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea 3

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Different idea

message: :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)
thread_title: Idea 5

message: 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:
#Open the State leaders by year article.
#Select 9th Century. That opens the State leaders of the 9th Century.
#Select 885. That opens the List of state leaders in 885 article.
#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)
replies: text: *Is this like a show and hide feature? -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message)  21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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(Talk • Contributions • Send message)  20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dynamic Pages 

message: Why isn't the Soviet Union in the Head of State timeline 1922-1991? --Nasu288 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be please be bold and add them in. Davewild 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Soviet Union? 

message: 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 76.100.143.201 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mismarked 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Side note 

message: Do the articles for each year include both heads of state AND heads of governments? NorthernThunder 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Head of state / Head of  government 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oppose split, article is not ungainly as it is. Chris 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion: Suggestion for dividing BC from AD

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing Redlinks  

message: 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)
thread_title:  7th century and earlier 

message: 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)
replies: text: Remove all of them in the itnerests of consistency. Either they all stay or all go.Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing autonomous regions?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Availability of a data table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge list here to ''"List of state leaders in the 00th century"''