Talk:List of state leaders in 1339

message: Main source for most of the data in this article has been the set of books called Regent of Nations. I discovered that much of the data is different from the data on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has the name that much of the information is incorrect and i know from one case that Regents of Nations is incorrect as well. This means that all the data portraited here should be checked with scientific literature of the history of countries and original sources. 
There is one country which i didn't took over from Regents of Nations. Rügen was Pommeranian territory according to Wikipedia, while it is an independent country with its own state leaders according to Regents of Nations. Sind Sagar Doab should be deleted as well i think, because Sind was a province ruled by the Delhi Sultanate. But i'm not sure about that.
Problems that should be resolved are:
#Does a country exist? Like in the case of Sind Sagar Doab and Rügen, but also the small states in modern Iran.
#Are the state leaders and the dates of their rule correct? There could be raised doubts about Ifat, the Russian principalities, the states in modern Mexico and Scotland for instance. 
#Is a country completely independent? Is a country paying tribute or allegiance to another ruler, but is in reality virtually independent? Should a state be deleted, because it was more like a province then a state? Questions arise for the English feudal lords in Ireland and Wales. Was Vietnam paying tribute to the Mongolians?
#Are all states represented? There appear to be many more English lords in Ireland, but they weren't mentioned in Regents of Nations. German lordships, imperial knights and city states are not represented, while they were as independent as the counts, dukes and bishops.--Daanschr 12:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of Regents of Nations

message: Many of those European redlinks have destinations. They need to be either fixed or turned into redirects. Srnec 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks

message: South Asia is a recognized geographical/cultural area.  "modern India" presents us with the problem that what is now Bangladesh and Pakistan was integrally part of India until 1947.  Even Nepal is historically part of India at least until the 18th century.  Modern India also presents us with Kashmir which has disputed modern status, and does not allow us to group in the Maldives and Sri Lanka which has deep historical connections with the rest of south Asia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern refers to the modern present-day country. All 1339 capitals of countries that are under the banner of a modern country, are within that modern country. But, extra sub sections is a good idea.Daanschr (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Asia is better than "modern India" 

message: The other Asia sub-regions allow us to avoid overuse of modern terms and allow for sub-grouping in this largely overlarge sub-section of the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Asia sub-regions 

message: I am going to try to sub-divide Europe.  This will make it slightly more manageable.  I know I will do Holy Roman Empire, Balkans and British Isles.  beyond that I am not sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe sub-sections 

message: *Cyprus is part of Europe and not of Asia.
*The Golden Horde was the overlord of the Russian principalities.
*Avignon, Monaco, Orange and the Provence were former Holy Roman territories, so they don't belong to medieval France of 1339.
*The Hanseatic League belonged to the Holy Roman Empire.Daanschr (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few issues with new layout