Jump to content

Talk:List of state leaders in the 21st century

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

Gap in Japan PM chronology

[edit]

There seems to be a gap in Japan's list of prime ministers. Unless I've misread it, no-one's down for 03-06. (I believe Junichiro Koizumi's dates ought to extend to 06, not 03 as currently written).

I daren't tamper with so big a Wikipedia page, but I'd be glad if someone more seasoned could check it out 82.42.82.161 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of state leaders merges

[edit]

Hi Tahc. I've noticed your merges of the yearly state leaders articles into their century equivalent, and I have to say, I don't think this is the best way of consolidating the data. List of state leaders in the 21st century, for example, is just exhaustive, tough to navigate and does away with the historical flags and original structure. I think these merges should be reversed, with the lists instead re-merged and sorted by decade (like List of state leaders in the 2000s, which would be consistent with List of sovereign states in the 2000s). This would be much easier to navigate and far less exhaustive. I've been thinking of doing this myself for some time but I'm interested to know your thoughts. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree List of state leaders in the 21st century is long, and I have already thought to break it up, but I was not sure if it would be better to do so in 25 year periods on 10 year periods, so I just put it off until later.
Dividing pages like these into decades is much easier than merging shorter time periods together. So that was another reason to delay until now.
The (main) drawback (at this point) to having pages of many shorter time periods is when someone like Carl XVI Gustaf dies, or otherwise stops being current leader, someone has to go back and change every such page he appears on, starting with the List of state leaders in the 1970s, or whatever. So more pages means it is harder to maintain.
You may note I already did split List of state leaders in the 20th century into two 50 year pages.
With your permission, we should move this to Talk:List of state leaders in the 21st century. tahc chat 22:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can have the discussion there. I don't see the problem in having to go back and change every such page; it shouldn't be an issue as most leaders don't last over decades, and those that do can be tracked easily with the search function, e.g. "1973–present" linksto:"Carl XVI Gustaf". As you'll see, there are about a dozen unrelated pages that include wording like this that would need updating any way. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seems to be mostly agreeing but you have you have inexplicably changed List of state leaders in 2016 to the old version.
You don't yet seem to be advocating making the data into state leaders by year pages. I am not sure where to go next. tahc chat 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted myself, seeing as List of state leaders in the 2010s now exists. I think List of state leaders in the 21st century should now become a disambiguation page, and that List of state leaders in the 20th century (1901–1950) and (1951–2000) should be divided by decade for consistency with the lists of sovereign states. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Tahc ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will finish th3 2020s list soon.
Let us wait on 1900s for a bit and see how well the by-decade things is working. It may be good to do 1950-1999 by decade but not necessarily 1900-1949. tahc chat 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tahc, though I don't think the changed layout is an improvement. The previous structure, with one section for each continent, was much easier to read. The links to lists of presidents and prime ministers are similarly unnecessary. The old layout should be restored, in my view. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was not any one previous structure. Many different systems were used inconsistently for different sections of history.
I think it should stay the same so that there is consistently across the 50 or 60 pages of history. This system made it absolutely easier to make the pages all (fairly) complete and without duplicate listings, and I consider it much easier to follow. Many times a country would change names with little or not change in location, but this will be all lost and confused if we make it alphabetical within continent. There are also a few nations without one name used by everyone. None the less, I am willing to listen to other ideas.
Of course, even if you are willing to change all 50 (or so) pages to an "alphabetical within continent" system, we should have a very clear consensus from people before doing so. tahc chat 21:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]