Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office/Archive 2

Kim Jong-un's status

Kim Jong-un's page already lists him as the Supreme Leader of North Korea. Shouldn't he be moved out of the upcoming leaders section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCodeman4 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

joachim gauck

joachim gauck is only candidate for the election. besides he is nominated by 5 of the 6 major parties, the left party is about to nominate another candidate für the election. as long as he is not elected, he must not be declared as designated president in this list so please delete this misinformation. --87.184.239.167 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter to me whether Gauck is in the "upcoming ..." list (hidden) or not in the list at all. But please, if he is the list (hidden) then we can afford to remove the "designate" because in the moment he is to appear in the list (unhidden) he has been elected and in this moment (well, literally some seconds later once he has accepted the election) he will immediately become the President of Germany. So, either take him out as the parties that have proposed him have no constitutional power to formally "designate" someone for the post or, if you let him in the list while hidden, remove the "designate" designation. --EBB (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I took out the recent addition of Gauck as designate. This is wrong, without doubt. He is not designated as there is no constitutional mechanism to formally designate anyone for the presidency before the acutal election has taken place. Once is has taken place and Gauck has accepted the election, he will however be President immediately. --EBB (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole "leader-designate" business is very dubious. It was legitimate in December 2008 to describe Obama as "President-elect", but it is not usually legitimate to describe someone in a parliamentary system as "Prime Minister designate." For someone to be "designate", they actually have to be designated by someone, such as a head of state. It can't just be used as a synonym for "likely to become" or "hasn't been sworn in yet." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands ad Niue

As the list of Sovereign States includes Cook Islands and Niue as UN Non-members beside of Kosovo, Palestine and others. Shouldn't we add they here in Italic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrunoMelo1995 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cook Is and Niue are not sovereign states, they are New Zealand dependencies. Niue has 1,500 people! Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Romania

Traian Basescu is president since 23 May 2007, not 2004 beacuse in 2007 served interim president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.105.224 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Moldova

Timofti was to be sworn in today, 23 March, not the 16th as shown. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mali

Captain Amadou Sanogo is the de facto ruler. At least make the current president's status questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.33.151 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Azawad

I think we must add Azawad leader as we added Somaliland, Nagorno Karabakh, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrunoMelo1995 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Head of state/government capitalization

In this article, the terms Head of State and Head of Government are capitalized, yet, in the articles to which they link, they are all lower-case. Which should be changed, or is there a reason they should be different?

Also, the last line in the intro, stating the number of leaders and upcoming leaders seems unusual compared to similar list pages, and would seem to easy to overlook when editing. Does it really belong? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Jalal Talabani incapacitated?

Because Jalal Talabani is lying comatose in a Baghdad hospital, does this mean the position of President of Iraq is vacant? Or will the other current member of the Presidency Council, Khodair al-Khozaei, assume the office?

Thoughts from other users are requested please. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tammam Salam

Will he ever be appointed Prime Minister??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sultan of Brunei

Hassanal Bolkiah has been the Sultan of Brunei continuous since 4 October 1967, yet the table lists him under the 1 January 1984 date of Brunei gaining full independence from Britain. Since he assumed his office in 1967, and was not replaced or moved to a new title in 1984, should he be listed as 1967, instead of 1984? The Constitution of 1953 names the Sultan the Supreme Head of State anyways, with the British High Commissioner overseeing foreign affairs and defense. I'll go ahead and change the page (leaving a note about 1984), and if anyone disagrees I'd like to hear their reasoning. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to apply this rule to the article, please do it consistently. So please correct the dates of the Prime Minister of Brunei, and the heads of state of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Montenegro. I know them off the top of my head to have taken office before their country's independence. And please create a second entry for Hassanal Bolkiah, who only assumed the position of head of government upon the country's independence! ZBukov (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Jwkozak91#List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office for a conversation I had with another user on this; the compromise we reached was that due to Brunei being all but independent as a protectorate with the British only handling defense, Hassanal could go under 1967, while the Soviet states, Eritrea, and Montenegro were still rigidly controlled by their domineering country (USSR, Ethiopia, etc.) until independence. Personally, I would rather have all of these by date of office, not independence, but Jwkozak has a good point that for example, calling Uzbekistan independent in early 1990 is more than a bit of a stretch.

The Prime Minister of Kosovo and the President of South Sudan took up their current offices before independence as well. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write Prime Minister of Bahrain above. Bahrain was also 'only' a protectorate, therefore it also is clearly another case in point (by the way, he is the longest-serving incumbent head of government in the world). And regarding what you and Jwkozak91 did or didn't agreed on, I guess consistency in editing is more important than trying to define individually how much control each state had before independence. Some might be surprised to learn that each Soviet republic had it's own foreign minister before independence, something that Brunei never had. What's more, Montenegro enjoyed very far-reaching autonomy in handling its own affairs (including having its own foreign minister), in the loose federation called 'Serbia and Montenegro' between 2003 and 2006. So going into the details of individual cases instead of a consistent principle is much more problematic. So I maintain that it must be all or nothing. ZBukov (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd vote move them all to date of office, not independence; note that the individual articles on the office holders like Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan uses the 24 April 1990 date of his office as the start of his tenure, not the 25 December 1991 independence date, and I feel that this list should reflect continuous service as the head of state/government of a territory both before and after international recognition. I can change the list over pretty quickly, but I'll wait for a third opinion. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, and I even tend to agree, but until at least a few other opinions arrive, one of the two approaches should be applied consistently. Either the date of independence, or taking office. And if you favour the continuity of the person, as opposed to national independence, than Queen Elizabeth II should not be scattered into a number of different entries, because she was the head of state of the "mother nation" (the UK) of the colonies before their respective independence, so for example in the Queen's relation to Jamaica not much changed in 1962 (other than she gaining the title Queen of Jamaica). ZBukov (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Applying date of office on this page could also serve as a distinction between this list and List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence. Diplomatic precedence involves independence, so the Sultan should be at 1984 for that list. In the meantime, I'll change this list to be date of office consistently. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Thank you for improving the article! I like your argument about making a difference between this article and the one about diplomatic precedence! :) ZBukov (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal titles

Any personal titles attached to certain leaders’ names constitute biographical information about the leaders, which is not within the scope of this article. The page makes just as much sense without them, and there are cases where their inclusion could cause confusion to a reader (ex. - 'Sheikh' can be read as the person's actual name, as in Sheikh Hasina). I propose the titles should be removed.

The following titles are currently shown on the page:

• The various Sheikhs of the Arab monarchical states
• The various Sirs & Dames serving as Governor-Generals of the Commonwealth states
• Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa of Bahrain
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran
• Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello of Vatican City
• Archbishop Joan Enric Vives Sicília of Andorra

Farolif (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to religious and royal figures in non-royal/non-religious roles, I think having the titles is an efficient way of pointing out the multiple forms of authority each person has. However, I'm also not particularly attached to them, so if they're removed, I wouldn't miss them. The Sirs and Dames can probably go, though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the argument is about a leader's additional forms of authority, then you can on that basis also disqualify Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa's Prince title, as well as all the Sheikhs. Farolif (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

These titles are very often used together with the names, so they would actually sound less familiar without them - see WP:COMMONNAME. For example who on earth would recognize 'Francis', the Sovereign of the Vatican City State, without his title of Pope (which despite not being his name is part of the article title, but this fact is irrelevant to the general question of whether or not to include peoples' titles with their names). ZBukov (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles. I am not debating this article's title ("List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office"), so it is divergent to bring up that policy. Otherwise, you pretty much just supported my point by using the example of the Pope - Francis is his papal name. "Pope Francis" specifies a unique "Francis", which is why I did not include him in my list above. Conversely, I don't think anyone will confuse "Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah" with a different person if you leave the Sheikh title off his name. Farolif (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, "pope" is Francis' title. What would set different Francises apart is the regnal number (e.g. Elizabeth I vs. Elizabeth II. And the question here is that you advocate omitting people's titles, therefore following your logic the Vatican's head of state should only be referred to as 'Francis' not 'Pope Francis'. However I presume you have inadvertently just supported my point by admitting that "Sheikh Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah" unambiguously refers to one person, therefore the inclusion of "sheikh" creates no confusion. ZBukov (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Except there is no "Francis II" or somesuch, so your point about the regnal numbers is unapplicable. And you are completely missing my point (perhaps intentionally so) about disambiguating the name "Francis". As for Jaber Al-Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, please refer back to my previous point about the word "sheikh" and the confusion it can cause. Farolif (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually understand what I wrote, that in 'Pope Francis' the word 'pope' is a title? So according to your stated goal of deleting all titles, you should be fighting against that too. Is Francis an exception because of not having a regnal number? So would you mention 'Benedict XVI' but 'Pope Francis'? Not to mention that there is no other incumbent head of state or head of government called only Francis, so disambiguation would not require the 'Pope' in front of Francis' name, so your pet fear of confusion is simply not there. And about the Bangladeshi premier, I don't really see what the confusion is you are so eagerly trying to save the world from. Are you afraid that by 'admitting' the existence of sheikhs people would fall into the trap of believing that Sheikh Hasina is a holder of that title too? Could you please elaborate the confusion Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa causes as opposed to Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa? And how exactly do you except Ayatollah Khamenei, Cardinal Bertello, Archbishop Vives Sicília to confuse the reader...? ZBukov (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You see, there are things called 'disambiguation pages' on Wikipedia, and just using 'Francis' would not work: Francis (click on the name and see for yourself). And I don't think I'm 'denying' the existence of sheikhs at all. The key point you are missing is that not all 'titles' are also 'offices', and this page (and the others like it) are focusing on the latter. The name of this page is not "List of current state leaders by date of assumption of title".

As for Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa, I believe you yourself explained that "Prince" can also be a proper name in some societies. So, will a person read it and think his actual name is "Prince", or is it just a title that's been thrown in for no apparent reason? Farolif (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean the disambiguation page doesn't work for Francis? It does list him, and no other incumbent head of state or government. Therefore there is no other person on the disamgibuation page relevant to this article whom he can be confused for. You might be surprised to know that I am aware of the difference between title and office, and I presume I have been using these terms consistently throughout this 'debate' (but it's slightly ironic to receive this accusation from the very person who appears to be ignorant of the difference between 'style' and 'title'...). Following your logic the title of the article could also prompt you to advocate the deletion of the names of the countries as they aren't expressly mentioned either as being 'in scope'... If anyone wishes to have more information on Prince Khalifa (s)he can click on the link and open up the article about him. The fact that he is referred to as Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa (or Sheikh, his previous title) in the sources I mentioned is a rather far cry from being "for no apparent reason".

Yes, it takes you to the disambiguation page, which a reader then has to peck through to figure out which 'Francis' it is. Do you know how many times I get bot notices that I've left a disambiguate link on an article I edited? Wikipedia isn't intended to work that way. I'm not surprised to know that you know the difference between "title" and "office", especially since I made no such accusation (though you might want to look up the definition of the word "irony" at some point). My point is you seem to be blocking your mind from recognizing the difference in this case. And no, my logic wouldn't prompt a person to remove the names of the countries since this article is about "State leaders" - i.e., "countries" are "states"! As for Khalifa, if anyone wants more information about him, they can click on the link (Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa - no "Prince" necessary) and find out he is also a member of a royal house.

P.S. - try not to be so hasty that you forget to sign your comments. Farolif (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I brought the Pope up is to point out a glaring inconsistency in your fervent push for the deletion of all titles - whether or not any danger of confusion is apparent. "The key point you are missing is that not all 'titles' are also 'offices'" - maybe it was just me misinterpreting it as questioning my awareness of the two as separate concepts... :D The expression 'state leaders' merely qualifies which leaders are to be included in the article, but strictly speaking it doesn't mandate the inclusion of the states they lead - this was meant as a ironic (!) demonstration of a too restrictive interpretation of 'the scope' based on the exact words of the article title. ZBukov (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was assumed by the creators of this page that the leaders' respective countries would be included as well. Unless you can otherwise prove that it was intended to be a jumbled list of only names, offices, and dates, I think the country names ought to stay. Besides, the countries help the reader understand who the "upcoming leaders" will be taking the place of, and to determine if each leader is only head of state, only head of government, or both head of state and head of government. Your example of the Pope is not as glaring an inconsistency as you obviously believe it to be, as I've already explained that the title (and name-to-specifically-go-with-the-title) is there for disambiguation purposes. And your suggestion still wasn't ironic. Facetious, maybe. But not ironic. Farolif (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The other vital fact you're missing is that there are many people in the world today who are sheikhs, princes, sirs, etc. However, except for various largely-unknown movements that have created their own bastardized versions, there's only one "Pope". So, any reader who sees the entry for "Pope Francis" and doesn't recognize "Pope" as his title is probably a lost cause where this article/debate is concerned, regardless. Farolif (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain, the suggestion of not including country names was not serious as it was intended as an example to demonstrate the untenability of only including things in the article which are expressly named in the article title (which was something you seemed to suggest). And as for the facetious nature of my previous comment, it's interesting how you characterize criticism of the opponent's word-choices as 'desperate', then proceed to do the exact same thing minutes later. You might wish to revisit your earlier comment here alluding to cognitive dissonance on my part...

As for the 'bastardized versions' of Pope by 'largely-unknown movements', you appear to be blissfully ignorant of the Coptic Orthodox Church of some 14-16 million adherents (including around 10% of Egypt), which has been around since AD 451 and is also headed by a Pope. Another "vital fact you're missing" is that my argument for keeping the titles is NOT that it serves as a unique identifier - one's passport number would be more useful for that purpose (Watch out! This was a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration, not a serious suggestion...) ZBukov (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Pope of the Coptic Church is usually referred to as such to distinguish him from the Catholic Pope. Those who don't specify and refer to the Coptic Pope simply as "Pope" will probably still know the difference when they see "Pope Francis"' entry on the list, so my point still stands. As for your tongue-in-cheek approach to this discussion, it only further demonstrates your lack of seriousness in this entire matter. Farolif (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Kim Il-sung?

Since Kim Il-sung is the Eternal President of the Republic in North Korea, should we put his name in this list? I already have an example of what his entry would look like, with a note explaining North Korea's nuttiness:

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
9 September 1948	Kim Il-sung	North Korea	Premier: 9 September 1948 - 28 December 1972 President: 28 December 1972 - 8 July 1994 Eternal President of the Republic: 8 July 1994 - present

Or should we keep this list restricted to the living, to avoid potential confusion? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say, only living people can be "current state leaders". Everyking (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding the de jure part to the current footnote would work. This entry does not belong on the main list, as Everyking explained above. Farolif (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that seems reasonable. One reason I raised this point was to see what a Kim Il-sung entry would look like in the formatting, and having it parked here on the talk page is sufficient. (Has there ever been another deceased de jure head of state, or is North Korea the first government kooky enough to come up with the idea?) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

FFR, your sandbox is a useful tool to see how something would look after it's formatted. Farolif (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox is precisely where this idea came from: [1]; I wanted to see what others' ideas on a Kim Il-sung entry would be. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be amended from "the only deceased head of state in the world" to "the only deceased person to still be considered a head of state" (or some such phrasing). Strictly speaking, there are thousands of "deceased head of state[s] in the world". Queen Victoria, Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Hirohito, Kaiser Wilhelm II, etc. None of them are enshrined in law as being the current head of state but they are deceased persons who were heads of state. Mtminchi08 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reopening the titles argument

After some reflection, I've decided that the titles have no place on this page, or the other pages that ZBukov has inserted them in (List of current heads of state and government and the Lists of state leaders by year, for instance), with two exceptions based on common usage in news sources (the royal titles on the Arabic Prime Ministers, and Pope Francis).

The reasons for removing them are:

1. The titles on personal names are not common usage. The article on Dwight D. Eisenhower does not refer to him throughout as General Eisenhower, the article on Paul McCartney's most recent tour does not refer to Sir Paul McCartney, and the article on Francis George (Archbishop of Chicago) refers to him as neither Archbishop nor Cardinal. If the pages on people using such titles do not show such usage, why should a secondary page like this use the effort to explicitly insert the titles?
2. The titles are used inconsistently. Especially, on the Lists of state leaders by year, no one before 1900 has titles (such as General Andrew Jackson, and in the 20th century for American presidents, only Army titles are shown. Both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush held naval ranks, yet there is no mention of their titles, even though the page took the effort to refer to Lieutenant Colonel Lyndon B. Johnson, a phrasing that is ludicrously uncommon. As well, on all pages where is the title of Hajji? You'll find official sources giving such rulers the title of Haji, yet it does not make these lists, indicating a certain level of picking and choosing. If the cut off is arbitrary, the title usage should be rolled back to a concrete criterion -- most common name in news sources.
3. The titles are pointless, in the sense that removing them does not affect the notability or recognizability of the subject. A title of Governor General for a Commonwealth Realm concisely identifies why that person is notable; tacking the "Sir" or "Dame" before the name gives no additional information.

As I pointed out, there are two cases where the majority of news sources and web results point to the titled version, the Arabic royal Prime Ministers (such as Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa), and the clear exception of Pope Francis. Aside from these, the titles should be removed, and this edit war finally laid to rest. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ad 1) Based on the above mentioned "common usage in news sources" what do you find when you do a Google search for the names of knighted Governors-General?

Ad 2) The source of inconsistency may be that I haven't gone through the pre-1918 and 1939-1944 List of state leaders articles (which you can notice in their poor & inconsistent formatting and a few missing countries). But I concede that including the military ranks might be seen as superfluous. My rationale was that Charles de Gaulle and Dwight D. Eisenhower for example are often referred to as General De Gaulle and General Eisenhower (or think of Tito, the Greek generals, or any soldier staging the next coup d'état in Latin America) - and I'm not talking about Wikipedia article titles but news sources or common parlance. And striving for consistency I tried to put in everyone's military ranks, but as you pointed out, I may have missed a few here and there. In my opinion this data is relevant and informative. Look at the South America of 1980, the first glance gives away the fact that the region was mostly ruled by military governments (with seven countries being headed by soldiers). This is why I argued that deleting them strips the articles of valid and relevant information.

Ad 3) I take issue with your assertion that if something doesn't affect notability then it's pointless. Neither you, nor Farolif seemed to react to the argument that most sources list the Governors-General as Sir X and Dame X (as I mentioned: www.rulers.org, www.worldstatesmen.org, www.archontology.org, the respective governments' webpages, http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf, etc). So if someone's name is rendered in a certain way in most sources, that should carry some weight, don't you think? ZBukov (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that by questioning their relevance, I have, from the start, sufficiently reacted to what the sources say. You, on the other hand, can't seem to address the question of how this information applies to this page. I haven't seen anyone raise doubts about the factualness (validity) of these personal titles, although you continue to make such claims to the contrary. Yet again, I must remind that this is an issue of trivia, not verifiability. In other words, just because something is true doesn't mean it gets to clutter the list.

For similar reasons, I feel the whole 'common usage' argument does not apply and is a distraction here. What difference does it make if the titles are how these leaders are referred to?

You are making some grand assumptions on the part of the reader when you say things like "the first glance gives away the fact that the region was mostly ruled by military governments". Why would a reader necessarily make that conclusion? Couldn't they just as easily speculate that General Stroesser was very popular with the people of Paraguay who elected him for 35 years? It sounds like you are pushing a point-of-view that all military figures who achieve national office do so through a government overthrow.

This page – and other lists like it – are not intended to tell a background story about every person included on them. If a leader achieves office through coup d'etat, royal appointment, or hereditary succession, it does not affect their entry on this list. That means there should be no extra treatment for these and various other individuals regarding their personal titles. The only exception is if you can prove that a leader's personal title somehow determines which of their positions and/or years in power get shown on this list. I can't think of any example where this is the case, can you? Farolif (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Farolif, I'm afraid the Wikipedia policy you referred to, trivia, does not deal with this issue, as it is clearly stated in the article lead: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts [i.e. trivia] are represented in an article, not with ... whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia". However the Biographies policy [[2]] expressly deals with this very issue by saying: "honorific titles [e.g. Sir, Dame, Lord, Lady] should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus." It sounds like this unambiguously settles the debate about Sirs and Dames. And as I indicated above I don't insist on the military ranks.

Dralwik referred to "common usage in news sources" in his post here (as his argument for keeping the Sheikh and Pope titles in the article both of which are indeed backed up by it), so it appears you have a bone to pick with him on this. And I'm still uneasy about dismissing the majority of sources (i.e. soures outside of Wikipedia) and typical usage as not applicable distraction. It comes across as trying to ignore the outside world in favour of some internal Wikipedia editing logic.

Dralwik, your aim of deleting all titles brings up the following question for the Lists of state leaders by year articles. For peers their titles are often included even in the Wikipedia article titles (e.g. Charles Bathurst, 1st Viscount Bledisloe, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, George Monckton-Arundell, 8th Viscount Galway, etc). So do you want to reduce such article titles to the names only? And what do you do with those who are only referred to by their title, not their name, like Baron Vaea or Tu'i Pelehake (Fatafehi)? Will you put in their birth name instead? Or to bring up another case that would be problematic with your above proposed set of rules; how would you refer to the 1945-47 Governor-General of Australia (Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester)? Stripping away his titles, all you are left with is Henry...

Of course not; that is a level of pedantry even worse than throwing in 15 unnecessary Sirs and Dames on the current list. Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis is necessary as the identifier of the person holding that office, but Colville Young is sufficient enough to identify the Governor General of Belize. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And about your opening statement ("After some reflection, I've decided...") let me remind you with all due respect that while you are perfectly free to make up your mind about the issue, this question is not up to you to decide (alone). ZBukov (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and would like to point out that neither is this a page for you to insert whatever information strikes your fancy. If titles are included, why not add HM and HRH or middle names to make the names even more complete? That is the perspective I am coming from; with this page already a lengthy list, adding the personal titles like Sir is as unnecessary as adding the royal abbreviations for the kings, etc., and I'm a firm believer in brevity being the soul of a good list. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've figured out that Dralwik and I are two different users, I can respond in kind...

WP:Trivia still does apply per: Trivia sections should be avoided...Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation: they can just add a new fact to the list. Which leads back to my earlier suggestion that these personal titles would be more suited in a separate list rather than cluttering the page here.

But if you still don't like the Trivia advice, that's OK. I would then suggest you read up on its relatives Stay on topic, Handling trivia, and of course, Scope. Either way, I'm afraid the Biographies guideline does not apply here since this article is not a biography.

Your ignoring my previous challenge about the effect of a person's title on their political offices aside, I will address your concern about the leaders whose "names" actually include their titles. For their entries on the various lists, the article names for those leaders can be used, as they are already (by design) sufficiently-unique identifiers for the people in question. Just as "Hun Sen" is a sufficient identifier for the Prime Minister of Cambodia rather than "Samdech Hun Sen", "Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum" is sufficient for the Prime Minister of UAE rather than "Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum", et al. So please, by all means, pare down the items on this article to only show the basic identifiers instead of unnecessary piped links with the personal titles attached as some kind of editorial baggage. Farolif (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit to add a referral to this, too: WP:NOPIPE. (With particular emphasis on the first example listed.) Farolif (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice concrete example of the point I've been arguing (if the listing requires a piping, the title is probably unnecessary). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to your rebuttal of my point 3, I acknowledge the widespread use of Sir Governor General, but I do not see why it should be a binding reason to insert the clumsy [[Governor General|Sir Governor General]] formatting merely to put the title before the name, when anyone clicking through to that person's page will see the "Sir" in the opening line. I want to stress the difference between an honorary designation like "Sir," and a peerage title that does become a full part of a person's name. Now, Pope Francis is known as Pope Francis so he should be listed as such (and likewise for the Ayatollah in Iran). I'll be willing to concede that keeping the royal titles for the Arabic Prime Ministers (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE) emphasizes that they are appointed by family, although I'm now leaning towards removing the Arabic princely titles as well along the formatting argument. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like we're in agreement regarding the piped link formatting rules! I'm not sure it's fair to keep Ali Khamenei's "Ayatollah" title on the basis that that's how he is known, however. Aside from violating the WP:NOPIPE rule (which is the reason to keep "Pope Francis" as such because that is his article name), you are essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by reasoning that a particular fact is popular, yet keeping it listed due to the perception that it's popular will only perpetuate (if not accelerate) its popularity.

Also, I think we can safely drop Giuseppe Bertello's (Vatican City) "Cardinal" title. Farolif (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my argument that since the usual form of those names includes Sheikh, Sir and Dame, that's how they should appear in this Wikipedia article. If your problem is actually with the pipes - which appears unlikely because by only mentioning the WP:NOPIPE guideline now you appear to be just looking up arguments in hindsight to support your preexisting opinion - then would you prefer me to create redirects to the articles of the people in question instead of the pipes? By the way, I find it inappropriate that you continue edit warring over this issue, when - as noticed on the Administrator's noticeboard - the talk page has not reached an agreement (as you and Dralwik agreeing with your own opinion isn't exactly consensus). ZBukov (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The timing of my reference to WP:NOPIPE doesn't affect the fact that such usage of pipes to include the personal titles is a violation of formatting rules, so you would be ahead to let go of that smokescreen.

At the risk of repeating myself, the purpose of this article (and the others like it) is not to show what might be considered the "usual form" of a leader's name. The purpose is to make a uniform, clickable list that is as easy as possible for the reader to understand and use. Borrowing a string of logic you have earlier asserted, a user can follow the basic article link for a particular leader on the list, and from there see if the leader is also titled Sheikh, Sir, Dame, etc. That information does not need to be tacked on here.

Anybody can create a slew of redirects to suit their POV – indeed, a few that are applicable here already exist - the question is how efficiently the redirects are used. In this case, a redirect which includes the leader's personal title would not be used efficiently, not only because of the biographical, scope, and trivia reasons which I have already presented, but in this case you additionally call into question the principle of least astonishment.

Though I doubt we will ever reach a consensus (read: agreement from all participants) as long as you – the only holdout on this issue after several weeks and out of many editors who work on this and the similar pages - "stand by" your argument in the face of persistent challenges to your reasoning, challenges which you repeatedly ignore. Farolif (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The above idea about the aim of this article (total simplicity at the expense of common usage) is your personal opinion and is not supported by the article lead. References in the common form are no less 'clickable' or understandable than the version which you prefer. 'Sir Arthur Foulkes' (as he is usually referred to) is no more confusing than 'Arthur Foulkes', and is certainly no reason to be 'astonished' (and is neither trivia, nor biographical information, otherwise the same could be claimed about Francis's 'Pope' title). And since most sources render these names with the Sir, Dame or Sheikh prefix, it cannot be claimed to be irrelevant either.

This simply appears to be a difference of opinion between us, in which case your opinion carries no more weight than mine. ZBukov (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference of opinion, except on my side I also have Wikipedia guidelines, formatting rules, article precedence (you did not add these personal titles until this past July - this after you unsuccessfully tried to add the personal stylings to various leaders), and the active agreement of at least one other editor (not to mention the editor/s who previously removed the personal titles during your aforementioned efforts to add the stylings). Whereas you have yet to explain why it matters whether or not these personal titles are perceived to be the "common usage" according to your "most sources", nor why it should impede the article's consistency and ease for the reader.

It is also an opinion that 'Sir Arthur Foulkes' is no more confusing than simply 'Arthur Foulkes' - or the case of any other personal titles that you may wish to add to various names. The version that I (and it isn't only me, I promise) "prefer" is the version that takes a user to a biographical article with the same title as the link they clicked on. Farolif (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What I'm bothered by is that you roundly ignore all the state leader information sources, dismissing them as irrelevant and a 'distraction' just like that. And you refuse to acknowledge the facts by using the words common usage and most sources between quotation marks, implicitly casting doubt over their veracity, but without proving the opposite (i.e. disproving that the names in questions are indeed preceded by Sir, Dame and Sheikh most of the time they are used). And lack of ease and inconsistency is merely your opinion. Calling people what everyone calls them is indeed consistency - with the wider world outside Wikipedia, and if anything than it improves recognizability.

And you seem to be bringing up one absurd-sounding argument after another. You claim 'Sir Arthur Foulkes' to be confusing as opposed to 'Arthur Foulkes'. You labelled Sir, Dame and Sheikh 'biographical information' - yet you want to keep the title 'Pope' in from of the pontiff's name. You also claimed they are out of scope - how could the way someone is called be irrelevant in a listing of people? Then you argued you want the article to be 'clickable' - what else would it possibly be, regardless of employing a redirect, a pipe, or adding the relevant word in front of the Wikilink? Then you threw in the 'Principle of least astonishment'... Astonishment? Really??! Now, who do you expect to be astonished to find their Governor-General referred to the way he/she always is? Then for a change you brought up something objective, the WP:NOPIPE guideline, which can be respected by redirects - yet you still continued edit warring (which implies that your concern is not respect for the Wikipedia guidelines, but to get your way by any means). And your reference to article precedent (basically just saying that "Things were different in the past.") is hardly a substantive argument in a debate about how to correctly refer to a person.

And as a parenthetical remark, earlier on there was a claim making a sharp distinction between peerages and knighthoods in the sense of them becoming an integral part of the name or not. However a knighthood is so integral to a name that it basically alters the way the person is referred to: if John Smith is knighted, he will be referred to as Sir John going forward, instead of Mr Smith. The editor also labelled it an 'honorary designation' while those who only receive honorary knighthoods, are not entitled to the "Sir" or "Dame" prefix. ZBukov (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's your interpretation that I'm refusing to acknowledge that some of these leaders also have personal titles. What would be absurd is if I attempted to prove that they weren't true. My point is the personal titles add nothing towards this list's objective.

Yes, there is a wider world outside of Wikipedia. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not responsible for it. Anyone can click on these leaders' links and find out (for example) that a particular Governor-General is referred to as 'Sir' or 'Dame' in certain situations - usually, in person directly, through formal correspondence, and/or in the course of official state business. Wikipedia is involved in none of those cases, however.

As for the rehashed effort to use the example of the Pope, his article name is both biographical and his unique identifier. We use "Pope Francis" for the latter reason, not the former. The same is not true of any of the other cases.

I can't help it that there are so many reasons for the personal titles to not be included on this list. Your attempts to isolate me vs what you claim "everyone calls them" will not work here. Farolif (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What you claim to be the article's objective (i.e. total simplicity at the expense of common usage) is not supported by the article lead, therefore it's merely your preference for what it should be like. And the fact that all other lists of state leaders include 'Sir', 'Dame' and 'Sheikh' (as do most news sources - what I collectively referred to as 'everyone else' and 'outside world') raises the question of whether excluding them is nothing more objective and/or widespread than a personal opinion. It makes one wonder why all other editors of similar lists think them to be relevant enough for inclusion.

And your arguments for the inclusion of 'Pope' appear logically somewhat shaky. Currently there is no other state leader by the name of Francis, therefore no unique identifier is indispensably needed. And on the other hand there is only one state leader (Ali Khamenei) bearing the title Ayatollah, which logically makes it a unique identifier too (there are two other people bearing title 'Pope': the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church and Benedict XVI, therefore 'Pope' only serves as a unique identifier among current state leaders, not among all living persons). But conceding that you want to include the title 'Pope' because that's how he is most commonly referred to and recognized - rather than as Sovereign of the Vatican City State - would be detrimental to your side of the debate, because common usage is the very argument I use for my proposition. ZBukov (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the Alinskyite tactics continue.

The basic fact is the article lead does not support the inclusion of the personal titles, regardless of "common usage". And which "all other editors" of similar lists believe the titles are relevant? The Lists of state leaders by year that you have painstakingly shaped into your preferred design over the past several months?

Your follow-up to the "Pope" discussion was a clever misinterpretation of what I explained. I did not claim that Pope Francis' papal title alone was his unique identifier. I was referring (as in the previous discussion) to his entire article name. But of course I'm sure you knew that, and were only trying yet again to make me look like I was saying something I didn't. Farolif (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Farolif, the similar lists I referred to are the ones I had mentioned several times in the past (the ones which you all too readily dismiss as irrelevant distraction and having no bearing on the issue at hand): www.archontology.org, www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf, www.worldstatesmen.org, www.rulers.org - and you can rest assured, I don't edit either of those.

As for the Pope, your declared aim is to exclude all personal titles. Right? Which would logically result in listing the Vatican's head of state as 'Francis'. Yet you argue that he should be referred to as 'Pope Francis' due to 'Pope' being - as you argued - a 'unique identifier'. But when I point out that either no unique identifier is needed here, or that there are other titles which can be regarded as unique identifiers, than you accuse me of misinterpreting your point. If out of 'Pope Francis' you don't mean the word 'Pope' to be the unique identifier, than I have no idea what you were referring to, as there is not much else left apart from his name Francis... So would you help me understand what you mean by 'unique identifier' and what is the basic difference according to your logic between the titles 'pope' and 'ayatollah' for the purposes of this list? ZBukov (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zoltan, those are sources you just referenced, not editable Wikipedia articles/lists. Nice try again, though.

My declared aim from the start was to make the list as readable as possible. I don't know where your argument around Pope Francis arises from, other than a further attempt to portray my logic as being somehow flawed. Farolif (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Farolif, I'm afraid you failed to get my point. I was deliberately citing references outside of Wikipedia (aka "sources", "common usage", "outside world") and it was regarding those that I said: "the fact that all other lists of state leaders include 'Sir', 'Dame' and 'Sheikh'... raises the question of whether excluding them is nothing more objective and/or widespread than a personal opinion. It makes one wonder why all other editors of similar lists think them to be relevant enough for inclusion.". See? So actually I was not referring to myself as 'all other editors' ...

I simply asked you to explain what you think to be the basic different between the titles 'pope' (which you want to include) and 'ayatollah' (which you are fighting to ommit) and your increasingly opaque reference to some 'unique identifier'. Your failure to substantially address the question does nothing to clear the suspicion that there might be some logical inconsistency regarding your position on this.

As for your declared aim; Sir Arthur Foulkes is no less "readable" than Arthur Foulkes, that's self-evident. ZBukov (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoltan, your concerns have already been sufficiently addressed. I can't help it that the responses do not fit within your worldview. Farolif (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Broadly dismissing the precedent and practice of any other state leader listing (plus the typical usage of the majority of news sources and government webpages) as irrelevant and a distraction is anything but addressing the question, let alone sufficiently. And on the finer points you haven't even tried to explain away the evident inconsistency (logical flaw) of your wanting to include the 'personal title' of pope, yet fighting to exclude that of ayatollah. And the only substantial thing you said about your perception of 'unique identifier' is what it's not (which was practically any way in which I tried to make sense of it). Your stated aims of "readability" and "clickability" are evidently not hampered by the solutions I'm advocating: Why couldn't you click on a redirected or even a piped link? Clearly there is no difference as both get you to the relevant article with a single click. And why wouldn't Sir Arthur Foulkes be just as "readable" as Arthur Foulkes? Both are readable and immediately understandable. Your push for the greatest possible simplicity (in the face of the usual way those names are rendered) seems to be a personal preference not mandated by the article. ZBukov (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So to recap, since most sources of state leaders listings (e.g. www.archontology.org, www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf, www.worldstatesmen.org, www.rulers.org along with news sources plus government webpages) use the names together with the prefixes/titles Sir, Dame, Sheikh, Ayatollah and Pope, therefore it's consistent to use them like that on Wikipedia too. ZBukov (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to putting those specific titles on this page, the yearly pages, etc. if the format is of the [[Ayatollah]] [[Ali Khameini]] format. The military titles I feel are a step too pedantic (especially with titles like "Flight Lieutenant" and "Vice Admiral"), but this way you can have your titles, and I don't have the piped links clogging up the page coding. (Pope Francis would stay a direct link of course.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive approach. It's a welcome and refreshing respite in this debate. :) So do you think military ranks should be scrapped altogether? Even for the likes of Eisenhower and De Gaulle, who were generally known by their military titles? What would you think of leaving the ranks for military rulers and people who gained power through military coups d'état? Just a suggestion. :) ZBukov (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized how stale this whole debate is getting after a mini-break for studies. I lean towards jettisoning the military titles; here in the States for instance you hear "Dwight Eisenhower" much more than "General Eisenhower." As well, for military rulers there's so many ranks (and multiple cases of changing ranks in office) that I fear they would add too much extra information at the risk of concision.

Personally, I think a (military) after the name or title might be a better marker for military governments like Burma and half of Africa. I have finals this week, but I can help on patching up the yearly lists. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't insist on including the military ranks, it was just an idea for improvement. Good luck with your exams! I have some coming up in the first days of January. ZBukov (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Zoltan, if this "compromise" of yours is in effect, then why do you continue to revert my edits on Alois to remove the "Hereditary Prince" title from his link's piping? Not to mention your refusal to accept my changes to Patrick Allen's entry to use his direct link ([[Patrick Allen (Jamaica)]]), rather than the redirect ([[...(Jamaican)]]). What do you have against these changes, other than the fact that I am doing them? Farolif (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Farolif, Alois' Hereditary Prince title is part of the article title (Alois, Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein), just like Pope is part of the title of the article about the current pontiff (Pope Francis). As for the Jamaica issue, if you are concerned about that, please change it, but not along with everything else. You keep removing everything you don't like from the articles and when I'm undoing your mass deletions you proceed to challenge me about a single minor detail with or without which the link in question works all the same...? ZBukov (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm challenging you on this, because it demonstrates an inconsistency on your part of which edits are allowed (and apparently, by whom) and which are not, as well as a laziness with regards to blanketly reverting edits which include valid changes. The latter of which makes sense, I suppose, since we are at this disagreement as a result of your laziness as an editor to attempt to filter out the necessary information (leader's name, positions, country, and dates) from the unnecessary information (personal titles which various leaders also have). Farolif (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What I was thinking with Alois was, since we have a pipe anyways due to the "of Liechtenstein," to have the format be Hereditary Prince Alois with the title outside the link to match Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and so on. Pope Francis is left alone to avoid a pipe, and is an exception to my intended rule: whenever possible without adding a pipe, put the personal title outside the link. But I won't revert the Hereditary Prince title. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As for Alois, all we're doing is truncating his link the same way as for the other monarchs (Abdullah of Saudi Arabia -> Abdullah, Philippe of Belgium -> Philippe, etc). Farolif (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So applying the above logic to this case (cutting off the reference to the country) means we're left with 'Alois, Hereditary Prince', which in logical order is 'Hereditary Prince Alois'.

Since looking up leaders' titles and backing them up with sources is anything but laziness, it would be delightful it you refrained from such ad hominem attacks. Let's stay civil, shall we? ZBukov (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoltan - the laziness is in your apparent refusal to think critically about what information is essential to this and the other lists. Try as I might, I can't imagine a situation in which a reader sees (for example) Iakoba Italeli's entry on this list, follows the link to Italeli's WP biography page, reads that Italeli is also a "Sir", and becomes exasperated that they did not learn that information when they first saw Italeli's entry on the summary list of state leaders. Perhaps your industrious mind can enlighten with me the makings for such a scenario. Farolif (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Have I ever said my motivation was to prevent exasperation? No. I listed and discussed my reasons at length (and the pertinent external sources of information), but this was not one of them. So to quote yourself from 13 December, you just tried "to make me look like I was saying something I didn't"... I guess I would only stop being lazy in your eyes if I agreed with you unconditionally, the lack of which you don't seem to be able to suffer in a civil manner. ZBukov (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nor did I claim that your motivation was to prevent exasperation, which clearly it isn't. I was demonstrating that a reader would not expect to see this biographical information on an article of this nature - a concept you have yet to address. You might stop appearing lazy if you would once and for all explain how these personal titles aid the readers who seek out and browse these summary lists of world leaders. So far, there is no clear vital purpose which this editorial baggage serves on the pages you have imposed it onto. Farolif (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my take on this issue time and again in the several threads of discussion you and I have had. If you are actually interested you might wish to re-read my answers - this time with an intent to understand. ZBukov (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your take on this issue is based on your POV, not the POV of a hypothetical first-time reader. "Common usage" is not a valid excuse for clogging these summary lists with such out-of-scope details about various leaders - the reader can find out about these biographical notes (if they wish to) by following the wikilinks for the leaders' separate articles.

P.S. - I put "common usage" in quotes not necessarily because I doubt that the personal titles are common in some circles, but because it is the term which you have adopted as some kind of panacea for this issue, and also to attempt to distinguish it from the actual WP policy of that alternate name (which I don't think you're using here, since the policy relates to choice of article titles [and is also the same as your earlier attempt to use the COMMONNAME defense...]). Farolif (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Hypothetical first-time reader" whose mind you claim to know...? You seem to have a very particular personal opinion about the aim, scope and perspective of this article which you are trying to enforce. And then follows the rest of your personal opinions about clogging the list, the details being out-of-scope and common usage being an excuse. Declaring your opinion as a verdict (""Common usage" is not a valid excuse") doesn't go a long way in convincing me. ZBukov (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And there you go evading my concerns yet again by writing them off as some kind of agenda of mine. Tell me, just what is this mystery agenda you claim me to have? All I have tried to do so far is make the articles be as straightforward as possible to readers - readers which you seem to have little to no respect or regard for by forcing this unnecessary information into these pages. So I will challenge you yet again - how do these details help a person who is browsing a summary list of this nature? Farolif (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon PM gridlock

Al-Monitor is reporting that the next week or so may see Tammam Salam step down as Prime Minister-designate as a way out of the interminable stalemate in forming a new government. However, the paper also notes that this will likely mean a new PM-designate takes his place, and we're still left without a fixed date. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Different consecutive offices

What should be the general policy regarding such offices? E.g. Paul Biya was Prime-minister of Cameroon 30 June 1975 – 6 November 1982 and President of Cameroon immediately after that. But there are two distinctive offices, the latter not evolving from the former. There is another person currently holding the post of the Prime-minister. So why should we count and mention them together? There are more samples too, like the current Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah being Prime-minister before and Vladimir Putin being Prime-minister twice etc.Alon 68 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I favor keeping them, as having the same person in positions in power, regardless of the exact title, tends to be one continuous regime. For example, Putin has been the de facto leader of Russia continuously since 1999, with the move to Prime Minister being due to term limits on the Presidency but a way for him to remain in a position of power. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

First, it's important question whether we would enter the investigations of "who is de facto leader" (which is not so clear task sometimes) or should be stuck to the official description of the posts. Second, in my examples above the mentioned people were not such leaders anyway (like Paul Biya at the time of Ahmadou Ahidjo presidency or the Prince of Kuwait at the time of his father's reign or Putin at the time of Yeltsin presidency). My question is mostly about such cases.Alon 68 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Felipe VI

Shouldn't it be listed already, that he is designated king? 112.198.90.161 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It should. Felipe has gone from "heir to accede someday" to "imminent king" and listing him would match what we did with Willem-Alexander or Philippe. A reader looking up this list, such as checking Juan Carlos' accession date, would expect to see Felipe on here, and concern for the reader trumps any sort of officialness or pedantry on Wikipedia. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For editor 112.198.90.161 - Felipe has been designated 37 years ago, not yesterday.

For Dralwik - The precedent you refer to (Willem-Alexander and Philippe) was already inconsistent and illogical. Having made a mistake once is no reason to repeat it. For one thing there is no such thing as 'king-designate'. What that awkward and fictitious parallel of 'president-elect' is trying to refer to is called 'crown prince' or more precisely 'heir apparent'. But even more importantly the announcement that the King is planning to abdicate does not change a single thing about Infate Felipe's position for the time being. If King Juan Carlos had died any time since 1977, Felipe would have become King that same minute - and it's still the case. So, to use your expression, Felipe had been "imminent king" for the past 37 years. We must grudgingly resign ourselves to the fact that there are some relevant differences between monarchies and presidential elections, therefore we cannot blindly copy&paste the solutions that work for presidencies, however convenient that would be. Yesterday we've learned of the King's intention to abdicate. But that will only affect Felipe once it actually happens. No change until then. And your authoritative reference to readers' imagined expectations (which you claim to represent) is a reason a little too weak to dispense with the fact that nothing actually changed yet. The basic misunderstanding here might be that an heir apparent's position all their life, right until their accession is analogous to that of a president-elect albeit without a fixed inauguration date. ZBukov (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the position is the same. A president-elect has no power yet, and is merely recognized as the impending president with the country in the process of transferring power to him. Likewise, Felipe has no power yet but is recognized as the impending king with the country in the process of transferring power to him. Therein lies the distinct between Felipe and Prince Charles: the process to make him Felipe VI is underway. Also keep WP:3RR in mind; you fell afoul of it yesterday. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 13:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation on June 18

Since the date is clear, it can be really posted already that he is the upcoming king. 112.198.90.205 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahmad Jarba

Do we have now to enumerate all significant opposition leaders in respective countries? 112.198.90.190 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)