Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Picture in the lead

Anyways, for years the lead had the longest serving monarch, and the longest-serving living monarch, Elizabeth II, who also was on the lead of the List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign. Now that she's dead, the longest-serving living monarch is Hassanal Bolkiah and he should now figure in the lead.
Changing the key to instead talk about longest living without a regency, or longest living female, when it had always been about just the living one, seem like pretext to just keep Elizabeth II in the lead. She's dead, that's sad, but now the longest living serving monarch is Hassanal Bolkiah, and he's got his place in the lead.--Aréat (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For sure, «the list of current reigning monarchs by length of reign» should be lead by Hassanal Bolkiah so far. But my initial comment was regarding «the list of longest-reigning monarchs», where the dispute is wherever include for every member of the list the years regency or not into the total reign counter. 2A02:810D:1380:3743:527:37E2:E1BB:162D (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Both lists had Elizabeth II on their lead when she was the longest living one, both lists should have Hassanal Bolkiah now that he's the longest living one. You don't tweak the rule just because you're no longer satisfied by the result.--Aréat (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

«the list of longest-reigning monarchs» sorts people by total reign years (no matter alive or dead), Bolkiah has just 54, while Elizabeth II has 70+, therefore Bolkiah can't lead this list unless he crosses 70+ years as a monarch. 2A02:810D:1380:3743:527:37E2:E1BB:162D (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning completely. The previous designation didn’t belong on this page at all in my opinion, since that’s plainly not the topic of this page (and there’s a separate page dedicated to it. Drevolt (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

By this logic the header should only have Louis XIV, he's the only longest-serving monarch. If you don't think longest-serving *living* monarch should have been there at all, then the argument for including Elizabeth in the first place falls apart. JSUMN (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This list shows all reigning monarchs sorting them by reign length (in case exact dates are known), therefore it's not only Louis XIV but many others. The key question: does regency period should be counted or not? In my opinion, only periods of government, when monarch officially took governing, legislative decisions at the state level should appear in this list, which is not the case for a 5 years old child. 2A02:810D:1380:3743:527:37E2:E1BB:162D (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If that were the criterion, Elizabeth wouldn't be on the list at all. The list has never made a distinction between regency or no. A constitutional monarchy is just like a regency, in that the monarch does not make decisions but a government does in their place. Louis became an absolute monarch on the expiration of his regency and reigned for decades, Elizabeth never held power over government decisions. JSUMN (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The criterion for Elizabeth to be on the lead was that she was the longest serving living one, which meant she had the potential to become the longest serving altogether. That's what made it interesting for the reader and why she was added. Now that she's dead, we shouldn't be grasping at straw for reason to keep her on the lead, when there's another monarch with a 50 years long reign who now happen to be the one who may become the longest serving. Hassanal Bolkiah not being in the top 25 ever isn't a good reason not to include him in the lead as we did before for Elizabeth. First, he's going to be in it in a year, and secondly it's a top 25 just as it may be a top 30. It was done arbitrarily, it's not a criterion to exclude his photo from the lead. Before, readers coming to the page had a direct visual of who is first and who may become first. Not they no longer do, and it's way less interesting info to just portray the first and second (Why not the third? Then fourth? Etc.). Let's keep it as it was.--Aréat (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, the inclusion of "longest-living current monarch" on this page when there is a separate page dedicated to this topic was a mistake. The fact that this mistake was made in the past does not justify continuing to make this mistake. The interest on this page is overall length of tenure, not who happens to be alive in 2022. Either the lead should just include Louis XIV (longest overall), or it should include Louis XIV and Elizabeth II (longest overall and longest overall outside of regency). Including longest-reigning current monarch in this page’s lead is off-topic. Drevolt (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If we aren't including the longest living monarch, it should just be Louis, as anything else would just be inventing arbitrary reasons to keep Elizabeth in. Regency is a pointless distinction. It would make the lead look better anyway because the Louis portrait is too small. JSUMN (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But we already have her as longest-reigning female monarch, which seems a perfectly reasonable excuse for keeping her in (if challenged there would probably be dozens of Reliable Sources supporting it),though quite likely it also needs to be added to her existing footnote in the main table, or to a new one there. However the 'without a regent' bit should at least arguably also appear somewhere, per WP:NPOV, either as part of her caption, or as a footnote beside her entry in the table, along with at least one supporting WP:RS citation, assuming one can be found (and I'm fairly sure one can), if possible alongside text (backed by at least one reliable source) saying that some sources say that this means little because she was just a figurehead and Louis wasn't (or something like that). Incidentally this arguably isn't really some sort of option for purely abstract debate without reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: Per NPOV we are supposedly obliged to show all relevant significant viewpoints that are supported by reliable sources, so the only real debate should arguably be about whether these viewpoints are in fact required by NPOV,and how much weight should be given to them (per WP:UNDUE). If supporting WP:RS can be found (and they probably can), we should probably also be saying in her footnotes (and possibly also in her caption, if it stays there) that she was the longest reigning Constitutional Monarch (and again this is arguably also required by NPOV). Admittedly this article already violates an awful lot of our rules (all those entries supported by unreliable or non-existent sources), but that's hardly a good argument for just making our violations worse. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is zero reason to sort by regency, it is not a distinction people would have made historically and a regency is still covered by the reign of a monarch. If we are going to make a distinction between having a regency and actually reigning, that opens the entire can of worms of whether ceremonial monarchs whose entire reign is done without exercising power should be counted at all. JSUMN (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drevolt: if this concerns the top image of this page? IP 217.137.42.189 is just gonna keep edit warring against any attempts, to place any monarch next to Louis XIV of France. GoodDay (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I support keeping a female sovereign's image at the top because for most of history, the law has favoured male heirs. This is why there are so few UK/English female monarchs, and why it is all the more interesting that the likes of Elizabeth and Victoria made it so far up the list, given how the odds were stacked against them.

In short, it is of note to show female sovereigns of lengthy reign given the odds of that happening. El Dubs (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We've always had the longest serving living monarch there, and there's no consensus to remove that. Changing the sentence under Elizabeth II image to keep her there instead of showing the new longest serving living one had been caused by POV pushing, not consensus.--Aréat (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. That position showed living Monarch and you've done the right thing. I still maintain Elizabeth should be there because her length of reign is notable for the reasons given above, but that should require a new consensus.

Come to think of it, what is the value of the two portraits on the right? It is clear from the table itself. El Dubs (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Just one problem. Brunei only became independent in 1984. We should save the top images for monarchs who reigned over sovereign states 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Good point. In which case, I see no good candidate for living monarch because anyone that fits isn't even close to getting on the table. I continue to support including longest reigning female sovereign for the reasons noted above. El Dubs (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We've no living female monarchs of sovereign states from accession, in the pages lists, though. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have been clearer. I'm saying that the female who reigned the longest (Elizabeth at this point) is worthy of being highlighted on the page because of how much less likely it is that they reach the top of the list. I'm not saying we list the currently living longest reigning female. This isn't unprecedented. List of current reigning monarchs by length of reign does it already. El Dubs (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to Elizabeth II's image being next to Louis XIV's image, at the top of the page. An IP was edit-warring to keep only Louis XIV, there. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm why do we even have pictures on the lead? I always found it quite redundant. Tintero21 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Would look very plain, without one. Also, have come around to agreeing with the IP. We need only 'one' image at the top of the page & that's Louis XIV of France. Afterall, the page is called the "List of longest reigning monarchs" & his is the longest reign over 'any' sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Constantine VIII

If Louis XIV's regency is counted (i.e. when he was crowned but did not exercise power), why is Constantine VIII not on the list? He only exercised sole power for three years (1025–1028) but he was crowned in 962 so was technically monarch (in various constellations with regents and senior+junior co-rulers) for 66 years. He was a junior emperor for most of that time but it would be a stretch to dismiss that he at any point was not recognized by the populace or his colleagues as (co-)sovereign. Rheskouporis (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

He was earlier Alongsides Basil II removed from the List due to Junior Emperor only being a Title Jackal Himorse (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Basil II and Constantine VIII actually "ruled" for 5 months in 963, between Romanos II's death and Nikephoros II's coronation, and they were accepted as emperors by the Senate. Had Nikephoros' revolt failed, Basil II would appear as having reign from 963 (Constantine VII began his reign as an 8-year old and "ruled" for 7 years before the coronation of Romanos I as senior co-emperor). The main reason why they are not here it's because historians always place Basil and Constantine's accession in 976 and 1025. Tintero21 (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Basil II ruled for years, "junior" or not. It's a silly distinction. Richard75 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's not like they suddently stopped being emperors after Nikephoros II took power. Tintero21 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about it here and here. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Move Eleanor of Aquitaine to the top list?

The note for her states that she ruled alongside her husbands. Now I was questioning whether being imprisoned by your husband the English king does in any way reduce your reign, since in the regency discussion, you guys say that simplicity should come over technicality, then her reign should fully count as a legitimate reign of a sovereign. However, Aquitaine might have been a de jure part of the French domain, even if in actuality it was largely independent. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What sovereign state did she reign over? GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Aquitaine. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

But it was a duchy, first controlled by the French monarchs & then English monarchs, during Eleanor's lifetime. Likely belongs in the 'second' section of this page. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Duchies can be independent. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Guess, we can always wait & see what others think. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

No, as at the VERY MOST she had 49 Years of Sovereignty (If we are being 'kind') and then we would need to Include Frederick III to the first list as he was sovereign for 53 Years. Jackal Himorse (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Well okay, this podcast featuring an Eleanor expert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pfTNLWg9Os does say that the French kings had very little power during this time period, but I kind of have to agree then. Also how did you get 49? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The Frederick III ranking is referring to his rule over the Archduchy of Austria, not the Holy Roman Empire, so that wouldn't put him in the first list. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

December 1154 was when Henry II became king of England though one may agrgue it to be 1152 but this would just give her 51 Jackal Himorse (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I meant was when she became Duchess of Aquitaine. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II

There seems to be no reliable source available for his dates, so I think he should go to the third list. Tintero21 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really as I found this News Article from 2015 even though it's Old, I think it works

https://metro.co.uk/2015/09/09/47-monarchs-who-reigned-for-longer-than-queen-elizabeth-ii-5382830/amp/ Jackal Himorse (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Stats from Wikipedia"... Tintero21 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tintero21 Jackal Himorse Yeah I kind of don't mind, at least until a source can be found for him and trying to not make this list even more Eurocentric (in which I would almost prefer a longest reigning monarch list based on continents). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually found a source for this guy on this monarch website http://www.royalark.net/Malaysia/kedah3.htm, which I actually discovered from the sources from here https://www.thepatriots.asia/raja-raja-melayu-paling-lama-memerintah-dalam-sejarah/. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's actually source conflicts for his reign. Most stuff seems to say 1710 but an Oxford book claims that his reign was from 1723. For simplicity's sake I say he should be moved to unverified. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The royalark website is listed among the "deprecated (unreliable) sources", but it's really hard to find anything else. Tintero21 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I still think he should be moved down, alongside Al Mustansir Billah (until someone figures out how to convert Arabic dates since historical authors don't seem to know). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Also definitely try to use Google Books/Google Scholar and type in the name or thing you're searching for, i.e. academic authors. Google's search engine is very crappy, though it's not as bad as the Youtube search engine. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to properly convert Islamic dates, please do so for Al-Mustansir Billah

Historians don't seem to know his exact dates, though his Islamic dates are always consistent in books it seems. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Al-Mustansir Billah be moved to unverified as well?

Alongside Muhammed II of Kedah, there seems to be a discrepancy in his dates of rule, ranging from a few weeks to one year. Since different scholars say different things, maybe he should also be moved down? Unless someone here knows how to convert Arabic dates (since the Arabic dates seems to be consistent in most sources about Al-Mustansir). This is a different argument from my one about including more non-European rulers cause this is an issue over conflicting dates by scholars. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if he can't be verified. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tried several convertors online ([1] [2] [3] [4]) and they convert 15 Sha'ban 427 AH / 18 Dhu al-Hijja 487 AH as 13 June 1036 AD / 29 December 1094 AD. Tintero21 (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth should be listed as longest serving monarch confirmed

Queen Elizabeth II served the longest as she was 25 Years old when she ascended the throne. No disrespect to King Louis XIV but I believe he ascended the throne when he was only two years old. He had a Regency, Therefore Queen Elizabeth II should be the Longest-serving monarch 65.36.122.224 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, as Louis XIV reigned as King of France for 72 years. A regency doesn't shorten the reign. Example: George III of the UK was King from 1760 to 1820, not 1760 to 1811. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Regency have to do with politics and power, but not with reigns. A king with a regent is still a reigning monarch. Eccekevin (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with above. While Elizabeth's status as "longest reigning monarch without a regency" is certainly notable (I encourage finding an appropriate place to note it), it is not the topic of criteria for this table which is simply reigning monarchs regardless of circumstance. El Dubs (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Honore III be removed from the top?

The Principality of Monaco, aside from having a complicated history with the word "sovereign", has had a long history of being a dependency of France. To make it simple, should we just remove Honore III? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the official page of Monaco's government, the Treaty of Péronne (1641) recognized Monaco as an independent country. France became the protector of Monaco, but apparently that didn't limit the country's independence as in normal "protectorates". Tintero21 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please use legitimate sources from scholars, not other encyclopedias.

A bunch of the sources used for these guys are from other encyclopedias like Britannica and Biography, which don't provide their own sources and have editors like Wikipedia. Use references from legitimate scholars, i.e. people who spend their careers researching these things as a career, wherever possible (academic lectures on Youtube, books, journals). If any of you are not familiar with JJ McCullough's video on Wikpedia then I recommend watching Mr. Beat reacting to JJ's video on disliking Wikipedia, which I think provides a better viewpoint than JJ's video itself. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't at least Britannica considered as a reliable source? Tintero21 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who edits Britannica. Britannica doesn't even provide sources so there's that. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

https://libanswers.uwinnipeg.ca/faq/156257 Typically fine to cite encyclopedias but its basically being lazy and not a good example, according to this article by the University of Winnipeg. Especially if you want to become a historian, or make Wikipedia a more professional site, like writing academic books with well-provided sources. That's why historians/people in academia don't take Wikipedia too seriously. Also see Mr. Beat's video on reacting to JJ's video on Wikipedia. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we semi-Protect this Article?

Because it is repeatedly getting Vandalized and it's getting Tiresome to keep on Reverting all of the Edits. Jackal Himorse (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Add an additional tab about which continents these rulers are from

Like including a tab about whether the monarch's from Africa, Europe, etc... Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Also what happens when no one replies to your request? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding continents, would make the page crowded. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Waiting for other replies. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This list is already crowded enough Tintero21 (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that continent would be particularly valuable information. I think most readers in general know what continent countries are on, and if not, all country links can be clicked through to identify the continent. El Dubs (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please include more non-European rulers

One common theme I find through most of English language Wikipedia is the attention given to Eurocentric of a majority of articles here. I just want to try to influence the discussion here on attempting to create a similar level of attention for non European rulers, wherever possible aside of language barriers, and try to find and identify them as much as or even more than traditional European rulers that already deserve enough historical attention themselves. Just my own suggestion here that I feel needs to reach a consensus. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there an example of one that might be missing? El Dubs (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No I'm saying that non-European rulers deserve as much attention as European rulers. I feel that some continents, such as Southeast Asia, is treated as a historical backwater at least in popular culture, not so in academia fortunately. Before me and Jackal Himorse relatively recently, no one else bothered to look into the monarchs list of SE Asia either, thanks to that we got the Kedah guy who's at 5th (possibly). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the issue here? Is there an example that is missing? If so, add it. If not, do not know what this complain means. Eccekevin (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm making an advisory. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment of raising awareness of adding content outside your language. I don't think this is a matter of Eurocentrism. This is simply people adding the knowledge they know about. For English speaking people, the focus is going to be on the content from English speaking countries and related countries (so European). For other language wikis, the focus will be on content from countries that speak their language, and related countries.

We definitely want to try and bridge that divide to get as much content on every wiki as we can, and I think services such as Abstract Wikipedia are working on helping us with that. El Dubs (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Would the IndianRajputs.com be a Good source for Many of the Indian Monarchs?

This Website Https://indianrajputs.com appears to be the best source for many of the Indian rulers here and is not listed as being unreliable unlike Worldstatesman or Royalark But i am still not sure. Jackal Himorse (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC result (last month), didn't include Barbados.

Why is Barbados being put into Elizabeth II's entry The RFC in August, didn't say to include any realms that became republics, during her reign. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Calling back the editors from the last RFC - @Peter Ormond:, @Hobbitron38:, @Markbassett:, @Sladnick:, @Ttutcha:, @Miesianiacal:, @Elfast:, @Amakuru:, @Tintero21:, @JustAnotherEditHere:, @SMcCandlish:, @Richard75:

Do you all want to include Barbados in Elizabeth II's entry, now that she's passed? GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Goodness, who knew this was so complicated... The RfC that keeps giving and giving. I don't even know what to do any more. She was queen of so many places for so many different durations.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I know. Just when you figured it's settled? boom. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, that this should be settled. In no way was Barbados excluded by consensus in either of the previous RFCs, and in no way is this a push to include all her former realms. Quite simply, the table currently lists every realm of hers that were independent for most of her reign as per the sentence above the table. That is, except for Barbados.

Since it in no way contradicts the previous RFCs to include it, I simply completed the list. No other country that was within her realm meets this criteria of "most of her reign", so this should not be a slippery slope.

Not every change requires RFC, we bring discussion if it tries to override consensus in an RFC, which including Barbados does not. So you are right, this issue should be resolved, with that in mind, why is the RFC being revived for a change that in no way negates previous consensus? El Dubs (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't opened up another RFC. I merely called back editors, from the last one. My impression of last month, is that we were to include only the realms that didn't become republics, during her reign. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any hint or suggestion of only including realms that didn't become republics, that does not appear to have been the purpose of the RFC. Nor can I see any suggestion anywhere that the table should exclude states that were a republic before the end of the Monarch's reign. By all means I can understand notifying people of a change that may need discussion, but I can see no justification for preventing change until discussion happens unless it overrides previous consensus. So would appreciate it if you would revert your reverts just in the meantime. El Dubs (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

We're in disagreement of what that consensus is, thus the discussion & the invocation of WP:BRD. You were bold in adding Barbados, I reverted & now we're discussing. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Barbados should be listed in a separate position in the table with an end date of when they removed her as head of state. Ttutcha (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Why only Barbados? There were other realms that became republics during her reign. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You aren't following WP:BRD. "When to use: While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort." the RFC was over, progress was made, there were no active discussions going on that BRD should have been used for. And you did not attempt to have your concerns addressed here and then finally invoke BRD after a reasonable amount of time.

You've incorrectly applied BRD, and I think it's important to remind that BRD is an essay, not a guideline or policy or rule.

By not following the actual BRD process, you are inadvertently exhibiting other of ownership attitudes, which BRD specifically advises against.

I suggest you take some time to read over BRD, and not use it as a way to revert any change you disagree with before any discussion is attempted. And also remember that it's a tool to help, but not a policy, so should be used with care. Some attempt at discussion should come before reverting. Even BRD recognises this. El Dubs (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who added Barbados without discussion. So here we are, seeing if there's a consensus to add just "one" realm-turned-republic, in Elizabeth II's column of countries. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That's the point. Not every change requires discussion. It's on you to start discussion before reverting, as per your quoted BRD. El Dubs (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You made a bold change. I reverted it. You were suppose to take your proposal to the talkpage. From this point on, I'll allow others to decide. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I return to my original position (same as that of Hobbitron, Peter Ormond, et al.): she was sovereign monarch in .au. .ca. .nz, and .uk since 1952, and only these should be listed, but have a footnote listing her other realms and dates for them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• List it of course, the RFC decided the principle for the many other cases which her rule saw transition from colony to independent nation, a hallmark of her lifetime. Adding this one more is not a big difference to the list size or nature. Let’s not quibble over the trivia of variations in that or that each was not individually debated, just go along with the prior approach and put the details in the footnote. She ruled Barbados at the end of its colonial period for 10 years until November 1966, as a Commonwealth realm for 55 years until November 2021, and as a republic within the Commonwealth for 10 months until her death in September 2022. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Why only Barbados? GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Just keep CANZUK per my last suggestion at RfC. End of story. Peter Ormond 💬 17:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Shall we have all 32 countries included?

Now that Elizabeth II has passed into history & she did reign over a total of 32 countries. Some of which became Commonwealth realms during those 70 years, while other became Commonwealth republics. Some have left and/or rejoined the Commonwealth itself. Should we include all 32 of them, in her countries column? GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This question should be generalised to a rule that can apply to any monarch, rather than be soecific to Elizabeth. Right now the rule is "Sovereign for most of their reign.", which if Barbados is included, Elizabeth will be following. If you wish to change the rule to include all sovereign states during a reign, I have no preference. All I want is for the table description to be accurately followed, that's all. El Dubs (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

We're in disagreement about the result of the RFC of August. You think it calls for Barbados' inclusion, where I think it calls for Barbados' exclusion. So, we'll leave it in the hands of the other editors. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth regarding the question of whether other states that she ruled over for much less time should be included, on the page currently, James VI and I doesn't have his reign over England mentioned due to it being only 24 years. Similarity, Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies doesn't have his rule over Naples listed due to it being interrupted for a total of about nine years and thus not being long enough to qualify for the list. So it seems that there is precedence for not including reigns over other countries that were shorter than the listed reigns. The Elizabeth II example has additional complications with the fact that the realms that became independent during her reign were colonies prior.2601:241:300:B610:7517:234B:5B15:378A (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I support this. List all 32 collapsed/in a note, with either only the UK or CANZUK being the ones that appear uncollapsed/outside the note. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: with the collapsed box, "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" or "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms", are acceptable versions. But simply "Commonwealth realms" (with no country mentioned), is not. She was Head of the Commonwealth, but was never Queen of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Display CANZUK and keep other realms in note form. That will suffice. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the proposal to display CANZUK in the list, with a note that mentions the fact that she reigned in other countries as well. These countries and the lengths of those reigns could be listed in the note, like Jamaica (1962-2022). Hobbitron38 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Since this proposal would absolutely try to override not one, but two previous consensus established via RFC, you'd have to do another repeat RFC to change it to just CANZUK.

I don't see any reason to believe that consensus would change, so not sure the value in starting another one so soon, in fact, just repeating RFCs until you get the outcome you want would feel wrong. El Dubs (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Support (in principal): I support removing the "most or all" criteria so that all 32 states can be included. However, it will undoubtedly lead to arguments over the size of Elizabeth's row. "Looks ridiculous with 32 nations, we should shorten it to Canada/Aus/NZ/UK" will undoubtedly come up. So I recommend a discussion first be had first on how we might present the 32 countries. My preference is simply to place "Commonwealth Nations" with a "Show All" option next to it. El Dubs (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose "Commonwealth of Nations" as a entry title. She was Head of the Commonwealth (not a monarch position), not Queen of the Commonwealth (no such position). Let's not forget, this is a page about monarchs. Just list the countries. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC) GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't suggest "Commonwealth of Nations" the proper noun, just "Commonwealth Nations" a generic term to group together the countries that are in the Commonwealth. So in no way suggesting it is the official title or position, simply a convenient way to group them together so they're not all listed, making Elizabeth's row massive. You make the point yourself, the page is about monarchs, not about countries. El Dubs (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I realised what you meant & I still oppose it. Just list all 32 countries in her entry. But, if only 'one' country needs to to be shown? That would be "United Kingdom", which so happens to be where she was born, lived, died & was buried. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose solely listing the United Kingdom. I believe it is important to recognise she was much more than the monarch of one country. El Dubs (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

And I won't agree to anything that includes a generic term to group together countries. List all 32 countries, if we're going include republics. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Re-adding Barbados

Since the above was not a formal RFC, and since there appears to be no opposition to Barbados being included, I'm going to go ahead and re-add Barbados on these basis:

• It was a sovereign nation under her rule for over half of her reign.
• There has been no suggestion in previous RFCs that Barbados be excluded, or more generally that a Monarch's list be limited to nations that were still under a monarch's rule at the end of their reign.

Hopefully taking a reasonable and uncontroversial action here, however happy to discuss further if necessary. El Dubs (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Just noting, I oppose this re-addition, as it singles out just 'one' country. There have been other realms that became republics during Elizabeth II's reign, so if Barbados is going to be re-added, so should the others be added. This would (of course) expand the list to 32 countries, in the process. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Barbados is not being singled out. Barbados was being singled out. This has now been remedied.

The list next to Elizabeth includes all states under Elizabeth's rule that were sovereign for "most or all" of her reign. Prior to Elizabeth's death however, we only listed 15 of those, despite Barbados still fitting this criteria. Seemingly because it had abolished the monarchy.

See List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II for this in graph form. The next closest is Mauritius which was under the reign of Elizabeth for only 24 of her 70 years on the throne. Barbados though, was sovereign for 55 of her 70 years. Clearly a majority of her reign.

If Barbados had not abolished the monarchy in 2021, it would not be excluded. I can see no good argument supporting the idea that states should be excluded if they remove the monarchy before the end of the reign. Can you?

Indeed, if you wish to remove that criteria "most or all", then I would support you so that all 32 independent states could be included. But while that criteria is there, then Barbados was being unjustifiably singled out. El Dubs (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

By all means remove the "most or all" criteria & include all 32 countries in Elizabeth II's entry. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added my tentative support to your proposal above. El Dubs (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond:, I see you have once again reverted this with the edit note "restore content as agreed on RfC". I have thoroughly gone over both previous RFCs, and neither mention excluding Barbados. I can only imagine that you think the failure to include Barbados is agreement to exclude Barbados. But this cannot be inferred from the RFC unless the consensus specifically states this. Based on this, why do you think the RFCs agreed to exclude it, can you point to somewhere in the RFC that agreed Barbados should not be included? El Dubs (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As this version was voted for at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs/Archive 5#Request for comment on Elizabeth duality, you should probably open a new RfC if you want to include Barbados because that would prompt editors to list all the other previous realms of which the Queen was head of state before her death. Peter Ormond 💬 23:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond:The RFC was not to determine the definitive list of states. That is clear. None of the comments on the RFC suggest this at all. Here's what the

The RFC primarily, was ensuring that Elizabeth would correctly be listed only once.

You're suggesting it asserted only 15 states should be listed. Let's look at why the states that were included in Option B were chosen that way. It states:

Option B: Jamaica and other sovereign nations with Elizabeth as head of state be all listed together (preview here: [1])

No discussion went into this, it simply listed the states that at the time had Elizabeth as head of state. If you look through the discussion, the primary concern was Elizabeth being listed once. This was not a consensus on the exact states that should be listed.

Based on this, the discussion was not at all trying to establish a consensus on which states should be included. So I am merely including Barbados which was overlooked. Not going against any consensus. El Dubs (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

So far 'three' editors have reverted your addition of Barbados. If you still want it included, then it's best you open up another RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a great point. I'll accept that and look to an RFC at some point soon. El Dubs (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of Monarchs Listed

Is there a particular way that the number of monarchs listed for each section is determined? The "Monarchs of sovereign states" list (arguably the most important section) is capped at 25 spots, which seems to be a good number. The "Monarchs of dependent or constituent states" list is limited to 100 spots which seems like far too many, particularly considering it probably attracts less interest than the first section. I'm not sure how many monarchs are in the third section as it is not numbered (which it probably should be), but it is also quite large.

Perhaps the dependent monarchs list may be reduced to 25. Then the third list would include all monarchs whose date of reign is equal to or greater than the lowest ranked monarch on either of the other monarch lists. 220.253.20.114 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, all three sections should be limited to 25 each. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I see it, the list/lists should reflect a relevant number of years of reign - the present format of the three lists seem to deliver relevant encycolpedic matter in this respect. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the second list was previously capped at 85, but recently it was extended to 100. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth II & Rama IX images

Seeing as this page deals with the longevity of reigns. Would it not be better to have images of Elizabeth II & Rama IX, in their later years? GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this page does not necessarily have to use the same images use in the infobox of their wikipages. Eccekevin (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would make more sense. Tintero21 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree! Pictures in their later years much more fit the idea of longevity of reign. El Dubs (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree, Rama IX looks frail as heck in that photo. There's very few good photos of him on Wikimedia for whatever reason. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not stop at 55 years for list 3?

Ending the list at 56 years is very weird numbers-wise. New people will always have to come to the talk page for clarrification (that is if they even know what the talk page is). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to limiting the 'unknown' section, at 55 years. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I won't mind either Though once could then also argue that the Second list could be Expanded to 55 Years. Not to mention there's no consensus on limiting the Second List to be 60 Years when the others are 56.Jackal Himorse (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Leave the first two sections as they are. The third section is handled differently, as there's no absolute certainty on length of reigns. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There's been thorough research in adding information to the third list. What is the value in reducing its size? Supertrinko (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the third list is at 56 is because it's to list entries that would be on the first or second list if the precise dates were known. Since the lowest value on the first list is 56, that's why the minimum value in the third list is set at 56 so it includes anyone who might have reigned longer than the 25th spot on the first list. For those who have reigned circa 55 years, even if the precise dates were known, they wouldn't have reigned long enough to qualify for the first or second list, which is why it doesn't go any lower. 2601:241:300:B610:815C:8BC3:AD07:112E (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

149 year guy

Why should a Wiki editor have more power than a history professor who's spent 20+ years majoring history? As a non-historian, you have to interpret stuff as it is (unless there is a consensus by Wiki editors on the talk page, I'll concede). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there's no way someone could have reigned for that long. The oldest Verifiable Person in Modern Human History is Jeanne Calment who died at the age of 122. Jackal Himorse (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not my point. You can't make a authoritative decision and just leave the come-and-go Wikipedia user out of the loop (most people don't look at the talk page anyways). You state the facts as they are and leave it for the audience to rationalize, not act like an absolute monarchy or technocracy. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Again no If we include this guy then we would have to include the Summer Kings as well who reigned for about Thousands of Years 149 Years+ of Lifespan sounds Incredibly unrealistic even for modern standards Jackal Himorse (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

149-year reign? or a 149-year human life span? I've serious doubt about that. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not right historiography, just saying. You're making Wikipedia a more worse site as a result. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources showing that Vasu Dev had a 149-year reign? You link Katyuri kings that specifically states the 149-year reign period is "legendary", and further up it states the reign was more likely only 20 years (from 850 to 870 CE). Both claims from the same source. El Dubs (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Can anybody check out this guy?

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/10/africa%E2%80%99s-longest-reigning-monarch-obi-james-anyasi-ii-seeks-govt-help/ Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC on which states to be included next to Monarchs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be a rough consensus to include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom under Elizabeth II's reign in this list, and no consensus to also include other Commonwealth countries. Hiding the other realms she ruled over in note form was raised as a possible way to clean up the rest. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately disagreements above have led to the necessity of another RFC.

This disagreement is over the interpretation of previous RFC and whether or not Barbados should be included next to Elizabeth II, or whether all 32 states should be included (and how to display that), I've taken GoodDay's advice and moved it to RFC.

Even though this RFC is clearly going to only impact Elizabeth's unique reign, I've made it a generic RFC because I believe that's the best way to avoid interpretation issues down the road.

Current state

Currently, based on this previous RFC, 15 states were selected to be added next to Elizabeth under the reasoning "Jamaica and other sovereign nations with Elizabeth as head of state be all listed together".

As such, 17 states were excluded based on the fact that they were no longer under Elizabeth's rule.

Additionally, above the first table you'll notice the sentence "Twenty-five longest-reigning monarchs of states that were internationally recognized as sovereign for most or all of their reign."

Interpretation of this sentence has been up for debate, but in my opinion, it would exclude 16 of those excluded states (All except Barbados), because all were under Elizabeth's reign for a minority/less than half of her reign.

RFC scope

Can we therefore have a discussion (Read: Not a vote, at least not yet) on when and how to include a state or states for a Monarch during their reign.

Do we abolish the "most or all" part, and just include any state that was sovereign during their reign? Do we adjust that to say only states that were sovereign for the entirety of their reign? Or states that were still under their rule at the end of that reign? (These aren't choices, just examples of discussion).

Note, this is a request for comment, not a request for votes, it's not up to me to limit your options, and I believe previous attempts to limit votes to specific options have resulted in subsequent RFCs. If you have a particular view of how it should be, please explain the merits of that view, so that we can build consensus.

If no consensus is formed, we'll take it to a vote and ping those who have commented to come and discuss. El Dubs (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment: My views:

1. The page is not currently clear that states should be excluded based on the fact that they abolished the monarchy before the end of a reign. This is further made inconsistent by states being included that were not sovereign at the beginning of the reign. The only criteria detailed is that they must be sovereign for "most or all" of the reign. Based on this, Barbados is incorrectly excluded.
2. I don't think there is any good reason to have the "most or all" criteria. I don't see that it brings any value to the page. Therefore it should be abolished. This will result in all 32 states under Elizabeth being included.
3. I think listing 32 states next to one Monarch will stand out too much on the page, drawing attention to Elizabeth, rather than the table itself, which should be the core focus. Therefore I support consolidating her states under a singular banner, with a collapsible "show all" next to it to see all the states, or like on Elizabeth II, a link to List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II. My preference is consistency, so the latter seems best.
4. Finally, I'm not in favour of favouring one particular state, such as "Queen of the UK and other Commonwealth realms". That terminology is used specifically in relation to her title in the UK, whereas this page is more generalised than that, so it should just state "Commonwealth realms", not as a title, but a generalised grouping. El Dubs (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Basically, do we want to list only the 15 countries, that were Commonwealth realms at the time of her death? or do we want to list all 32 countries, that were at some point during her 70-year reign, a Commonwealth realm. One choice 'excludes' Barbados, while the other choice 'includes' Barbados & 16 other countries. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  What is your opinion on how it should be? Above you've expressed support for listing all 32 and not collapsing the list. El Dubs (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I support either just the 15 realms (at Elizabeth II's death) or all 32 countries (realms/republics) during Elizabeth II's entire reign. I don't support having the 15 realms & just Barbados. No collapsing - unless the UK or the UK/Can/Aus/NZ are exempt from a collapsing. Why the UK? because it's the realm Elizabeth II was born/lived/died/was buried in (i.e. most associated with) & Why the UK/Can/Aus/NZ? because they're the only countries that were Commonwealth realms, her entire 70-year reign. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think if it's the former, then we'd just need to update the paragraph before the table to read something like "Twenty-five longest-reigning monarchs of states who were internationally recognized as sovereign under the Monarch's rule at the end of their reign, for most or all of that reign." (The "for most or all of that reign" part could just be removed, it would make no difference under this criteria). El Dubs (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Include all the countries and add the number of years from and up to in brackets, in case the country later moved out or became a republic. The years should be in a collapsible section, so that it does not take up table space. - Mnair69 (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Only include the countries for which she was monarch for 70 years, 214 days, since this is the record we are discussing. For the other ones, there could be a collapsible list with details. This way we don't overcrown the page and give undue treatment as mentioned above. Eccekevin (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Display CANZUK per above and keep other realms in note form. That will suffice. Peter Ormond 💬 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Peter Ormond: "If" it does go against just showing CANZUK, do you have a preference for how you'd like it presented? Just so we're not later having further discussions about how to present "if" it goes that way. El Dubs (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. CANZUK are the e ones for which the queen was indeed reigning the whole time. The other ones can be in note form, and reduce clutter. Eccekevin (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been a month since this, and there seem to be three in favour for including all nations, and two in favour for reducing to CANZUK. I'm no9t confident that's enough of a majority to reach consensus considering the engagement in previous RFCs, so I don't think we can change anything at this stage. El Dubs (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would be happy with having the United Kingdom listed openly and all 32 countries listed below that in a collapsible "show all" section. I don't think there is any need to change the wording on what this list is however. I don't see any reason to remove or change the "most or all" wording. Ttutcha (talk) 23:52, 02 November 2022 (UTC)

  If you include all 32 states, then you are including states that were not sovereign for "most or all", that would be the purpose of changing the wording. I'm also not a fan of being UK-centric by collapsing everything else. El Dubs (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's put in a formal closure request. I'll do it, as it's been way over due. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Genghis be on the first list?

Technically, it would make sense. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yourlocallordandsavior Do you have any sources that of his Exact Start date in 1171? Jackal Himorse (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Then he can't be on the First List Jackal Himorse (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He can't be on the first list. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Victoria

An editor changed "United Kingdom" to "British Empire", in Victoria's entry. Victoria wasn't Queen or Empress of the British Empire, so I've reverted their change. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a list of Monarchs of officially recognised states. While the British Empire is a thing, it was never considered a single unified state. El Dubs (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

She was Empress of India but only from 1876. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

But only India. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I do think somthing needs to be done with Victorias entry though. As per the comments above she didn't just rule over the "United Kingdom" as is stated in her entry. Just as Elizabeth II has multiple places listed in this table, I think they same should done for Victoria. Ttutcha (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, as it's not like Elizabeth II. All the territories during Victoria's reign were under British control. The British Empire was not a sovereign state. We've already been through enough debate with Elizabeth II. Let's not start up another one, with Victoria. PS - Are you going to 'next' want us to add the American colonies to George III's entry? Will you also want all the French-controlled colonies added to Louis XIV's & Louis XV's entries, too? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to look at everyones entries considering the changes that have been made regarding Elizabeth II. Why shouldn't all places a monarch has reigned over be listed in other entires when they are in in hers? I dispute the fact that they shouldn't be listed just becuase these places were under British control for all of her reign becuase this simpally isn't true. Places came under different rule and came under British rule at differnt points throughout her reign. As we are listing these places individually in Elizabeths II entry I tried to simplify matters by changing Victorias entry to that of the British Empire. I felt this was appropriate as the article it links to shows in more detail what the Britsh Empire was. However if people do feel this is incorrect and as is in the case of Elizabeth II we are listing places indovidually then I do think that's what we should do with Victorias entry too. It's a format that has been voted on and aproved in previous RFC's. I herefore fail to see why we would only apply it to one entry on the list. Just having the United Kingdom in Victorias entry is incorrect, in my view, as that isn't all she was the monarch of. I do feel there needs to be debate on this and not just around Victoria. I feel this would have narutally progressed faster months ago if it wern't for your need to police this article and drag change on for a very long time. This has been said before by not only myself but others previously on this talk page. Why shouldn't we now look at and debate moving this format over to other entries? It's what a majortiy of people have agreed is the way forward in the previous debates regading Elizabeth. Why don't we show the correct and full information for every entry on the list? Ttutcha (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Those RFCs were about Elizabeth II only & note, the last one calls for reverting back to Canada/Australia/New Zealand/United Kingdom in her entry. Now as for Victoria - The British empire was not a sovereign state. Section one of this page, is about "sovereign states". If you like, I will open an RFC on whether or not we should replace the "United Kingdom", with the "British Empire", in Victoria's entry. PS - Read @ElDubs: description of the empire. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that the right resolution for Victoria is a footnote flagging (at least) the fact that she was Queen of Canada as that was the case for more than half her reign. The (contemporary, Dominion) Canadian Flag need not appear because the Crown of Canada was not unarguably a legal person with even limited sovereign supremacy prior to the Balfour Declaration, but the Crown of Canada of which Victoria was the personification is legally continuous with the Crown of Canada which appears in Elizabeth II's entry. If we introduce footnotes, then Empress of India could be added, plus Victoria's the final three weeks as Queen of Australia if we want to be pedantic. (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be best that we not, as 1931 Statute of Westminster tends to be used as the point when the British monarch, becomes the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc, monarch. Until the 1931 Act, Victoria, Edward VII & George V were effectively the British monarch reigning over those other countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes, SoW gave legal effect to the Balfour Declaration. Come to think of it, excluding even a footnote does match the precedent of not even footnoting Hanover for George III. Can we then say that pre-1931 Dominion Crowns are, as legal persons, analogous to Princes of the HRE (just that they are the same natural person as the sovereign)? For avoidance of doubt, that is a concurrence, GD. I just think it is useful to nail down the reasoning as clearly as possible so that resolved questions don't keep getting re-opened. Alan Peakall (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, as the British Empire wasn't the same as the Holy Roman Empire. The BE was made up of the UK & its colonies, where's the HRE was made up of basically sovereign states, though Austria was kinda the 'first among equals'. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Length of second list

When the sovereign and non-sovereign monarchs were divided into separate lists, the non-sovereign list was originally limited to 75, then it was later changed to 85, then later on, up to 100 was added. What should the limit for that list be, since the sovereign list only goes up to 25? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Leave the second list at top 100. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What I'm asking is why was it extended, when it was previously lower. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't know. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Should it be reverted to the previous lower limit? 98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Was there consensus toward keeping it at any of those specific numbers? Given the concerns about the page becoming too long and indiscriminate, it should probably be kept at what was the most stable consensus. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Monarchs which should be here

Henry I Isenburg-Cleeberg 1167-1227 Tsoede of Buds Emirate 1531–1591 Alright 103.137.24.50 (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The first list could be extended to a top 30

I would like to see a top 30 on the first list 177.91.168.2 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Leave at 25. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with 25. Eccekevin (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Extend it to 30. El Dubs (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No, because then calls will be made to extend it to 40, then 50, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This incremental extending of the list seems to have already happened with the second list, going from 75 to 85 to 100. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If any of you want a top 30, 40, 50, or 100, do so on your sandboxes. Lexikhan310 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The second list, is going to remain at 100. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any consensus toward increasing the second list to 100. 2601:249:9301:D570:E869:1EDF:22EE:5836 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We could probably save time then by making it 50 now. The solution is to make a good argument of "why" or "why not", not just to say "Leave it at x". That's not a good answer. El Dubs (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite. On Wikipedia, you need consensus to change something, default is to leave at the current consensus. Eccekevin (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't suggesting you don't need consensus to change, however I don't believe "Leave it at x" without anything further is a productive statement. Equally "I would like to see it extended" is also not a productive statement. El Dubs (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of the second list, it looks like this edit increased it to 100, with the edit reason "No consensus to limit the Second list to Top 85 and either way a top "100 and 25" is way better.", despite the fact that there was no consensus to limit it to 100 either. As for it being 85, this edit extended it from 80 with the edit reason "Extended the 2nd list to 85 to align the length of reigns better (57 years, 246 days for first list, 57 years, 211 days for second compared to 57 years, 246 days and 58 years, 324 days)". That being said, due to some other looked monarchs being added to the second list, the difference between #25 of the first list and #85 of the second list is now "56 years, 99 days" for the first list and "62 years, 185 days" for the second list, so it no longer aligns. 2601:249:9301:D570:B958:671A:92BB:984 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

(Same poster as before) looking back even farther, the extension to 80 was added with this edit, which was because it seems that prior, it the list consisted of whatever sum of the first two lists added up to 100, because before the list was separated into sovereign and non-sovereign sections, it was a simple top 100. The issue there was that there wasn't a clean split between the two lists, so it ended up with situations like 23 in the sovereign section and 77 in the non-sovereign section. I'm not sure which changes were officially discussed and implemented or which ones were unilaterally added and not questioned.2601:249:9301:D570:548:6C8A:C4E9:B3F (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why delete this page?

It appears that an IP has attempted to nominat this page for deletion, in order to replace it with a page (currently in draft form) of his own. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

ok yes 122.53.47.47 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete Redirect's to Draft:Lists of monarchs by time ‎ 122.53.47.47 (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this page & your 'draft' has already been rejected multiple times. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If anyone's got time, chronologically arrange the third list based on the ruler's starting year, if they share the same length of rule

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen-Himiko-Museum-Yayoi-Culture.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Age in days fix - Julian problem

I have corrected where the { { age in days } } function gives the wrong answer because the calculator assumes the Gregorian calendar throughout time. Therefore there is no Feb 29th in a century boundary year when, in the then-current Julian calendar, there was one. I have only altered 13th-16th century reigns when the reign passed a non-leap century year. The change I made is: I convert the start and end dates to the Gregorian equivalent. This works because for example a 1300s date is 8 days later but a 1400s date is 9 days later. This way, I'm not putting in fake dates to get the number right. Silas Maxfield (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Edited Silas Maxfield (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I have only changed the parameters for the age in days function, not any of the displayed dates. Silas Maxfield (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Edited Silas Maxfield (talk)

Elizabeth II, longest-reigning monarch

Wouldn't it be interesting to clarify, even as a footnote, that Elizabeth II's was the longest reign in history in the sense that she reigned effectively throughout her whole reign, whilst Louis XIV ascended the throne when he was merely 5 and therefore reigned under a regency - with no effective powers - until he reached adulthood? I see no mention to that anywhere, and I do think it is important to leave it clear. 85.152.246.66 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No, because this page deals with length of reign. This includes where a regency is required. We wouldn't (for example) cut nine years off of the end of George III of the UK's reign. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your quick answer. I wasn't suggesting cutting any years off of Louis XIV's reign, but thought it'd be interesting to specify in a footnote either that a) during the first part of his reign he was a minor and a regent ruled in his stead, or b) Elizabeth II had the longest effective reign in history, since not only did she wear the Crown but she exerted her royal functions from the beginning of her reign until its very end. 85.152.246.66 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So far, the criteria for this page, is just to list the reign's length :) GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the info, it could go in a footnote. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, thank you! There you go: https://www.tatler.com/article/why-the-queen-is-technically-the-worlds-longest-reigning-monarch - "the Queen is unquestionably the longest actively reigning monarch in the world".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10913553/Queen-worlds-longest-actively-reigning-monarch-royal-expert-claims.html

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09371a.htm "Louis XIV was declared to have reached the age of majority on 7 September 1651. On the death of Mazarin, in March 1661, Louis assumed personal control of the reins of government".

Do these count as reliable sources? Thanks. 85.152.246.66 (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We must (of course) keep in mind, that Louis XIV became King of France in 1643 & thus reigned for slightly over 72 years. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is definitely not a reliable source. THe New Advent article doesn't support what you're proposing to put in this article. I'm uncertain whether Tatler magazine is an RS or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify if Tatler is a reliable source or not? Tatler's actually quoting what a historian said, analysing the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.152.246.66 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably counts as reliable in this case (and for eg retrospectively added 'first mentions' (as some 'possibles and present happenings' will not develop)). Jackiespeel (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable yes, but does it count at WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion in the page? Not convinced on that. Per GoodDay I'd just stick to length of reigns and not complicate things.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Numbers 5, 7, 14 and 15 are fiction.

You may as well add Kings from Brothers Grimm fairytales, or the Bible... 197.87.135.181 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Who would be Next!

This is made just incase if someone from any of the Lists gets Removed or Consensus is given to add More. Feel free to add more.

No.	Portrait	Name	State	Reign		Duration		Ref.
				From	To	(days)	(years, days)
101		Leopold Louis	Palatinate-Veldenz (Holy Roman Empire)	3 June 1634	29 September 1694	22,033	60 years, 118 days
102		Friedrich Günther	Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt	28 April 1807	28 June 1867	21,976	60 years, 61 days
103		Johann Jakob I	Waldburg-Zeil (Holy Roman Empire)	4 May 1614	18 April 1674	21,899	59 years, 349 days
104		Kilhan	Dhundhar (India)	16 December 1216	18 October 1276	21,856	59 years, 307 days
105		Ranjore Singh	Ajaygarh State (British Raj)	4 September 1859	7 June 1919	21,825	59 years, 276 days
106		Gustav Adolph	Mecklenburg-Güstrow (Holy Roman Empire)	23 April 1636	6 October 1695	21,715	59 years, 166 days
107		George Frederick I	Brandenburg-Ansbach (Holy Roman Empire)	27 December 1543	25 April 1603	21,669	59 years, 119 days
108		Charles I	Hesse-Kassel (Holy Roman Empire)	1 December 1670	23 March 1730	21,661	59 years, 112 days
109		Maria Teresa Cybo-Malaspina	Massa and Carrara (Holy Roman Empire)	17 October 1731	29 December 1790	21,623	59 years, 73 days
110		Abdul Halim	Kedah (Malaysia)	14 July 1958	11 September 2017	21,609	59 years, 59 days
111		Pakubuwono XII	Surakarta (Indonesia)	11 June 1945	11 June 2004	21,550	59 years, 0 days
112		Raghunath Sekhar Deo	Gangpore State （British Raj)	28 October 1858	10 June 1917	21,409	58 years, 225 days
113		Ludovico I	Saluzzo (Holy Roman Empire)	10 January 1416	8 April 1475	21,373	58 years, 189 days
114		Honoré I	Monaco	22 August 1523	7 October 1581	21,231	58 years, 46 days	}}
115		Philipp I	Hesse-Philippsthal (Holy Roman Empire)	16 July 1663	18 June 1721	21,156	57 years, 337 days
116		Philipp I	Nassau-Weilburg (Holy Roman Empire)	20 September 1371	2 July 1429	21,104	57 years, 285 days
117		Philipp I	Hesse (Holy Roman Empire)	11 July 1509	31 March 1567	21,082	57 years, 263 days
118		Albrecht I of Hohenlohe-Weikersheim	Hohenlohe-Weikersheim (Holy Roman Empire)	16 November 1371	15 June 1429	21,030	57 years, 211 days

77.101.238.210 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Catharine of Cleves

I am little confused. Wasn't County of Eu independent fief of the French crown until 1472 and later incorporated in the French royal domain? If even then she was able to succeed she would have succeed on 6 Sep 1564 when her brother died. Her father died on 13 February 1561, her oldest brother François II, Duke of Nevers on 19 December 1562 and her older brother Jacques on 6 September 1564 when she and her sister would inherit family titles. 109.245.95.24 (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I Removed Her S302921 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Missing photos

For a photo to be added to a Wikipedia article, does it need to be available on Wikimedia Commons?If necessary, this discussion is over.But, if that's not the case: Researching monarchs without a visual representation in the list, I found some photos and paintings representing them. Would there be any way to add them to the article? Historygeographyknowledge (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as they're free to use and not in violation of any copyright, Yes they are Indeed. S302921 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hassanal Bolkiah

It has recently came to my Attention that only a Total of less than 50 days are left before he enters the First List. Apparently Brunei was a British Protectorate until 1984 but the Chinese Wikipedia also states that Brunei was Technically sovereign as early as 1959 due to constitution related Reasons so the Details remain unclear here really. Also like should we start a RFC on this? Should him and his reign be included in the First List? 77.101.238.210 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Brunei page says Brunei became independent in 1984, so he's not an independent monarch, so he shouldn't be on here until 2039. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hassanal Bolkiah certainly doesn't belong in the top list. His reign as monarch of an sovereign state, didn't begin until the mid-1980s. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection

We probably need to semi-protect this page considering the amount of edits that's been made to this page nowadays. This topic is fairly political and can be controversial so I think it would be better to have editors be semi-confirmed. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Link to request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sobhuza II

So there was a discussion about whether Hassanal Bolkiah should be included in the sovereign states section, since his country was a British protectorate until 1984. People argue that based on that, he wouldn't qualify to be listed in that section until 2039. Fair enough, but there's another monarch that has a similar issue, but in reverse. The dependent or constituent states section lists Sobhuza II's entire 82 year reign at the top of the list. However, as pointed out in the entry itself, his country ceased to be a British protectorate in 1968, which means the last 14 years of his reign were of a sovereign country. So by the previous logic, should only the first 68 years of his reign be considered for the dependent monarch section, which would bump him considerably down the list? The closest thing it says on the matter is that the list contains monarchs who were "not internationally sovereign for most of their reign", but even then "most" could be interpreted to mean anything from "more than half of their reign" to "almost all of their reign". 2601:249:9301:D570:B52E:5F5A:4889:7D69 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Clean-Up

It has previously been seen that the first list had monarchs moved to the third list due to a lack of verifiable dates and and as such i think the same should happen with the second list. user:Yourlocallordandsavior. 77.101.238.210 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

But the monarchs in the second list all have exact dates listed. Are you more saying these dates are incorrect? Ttutcha (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually think it's more of that we need verifiable sources for their dates instead of just random dates from unreliable and blacklisted sources such as Royalark and Indianrajputs. Infact Muhammad II of Kedah was removed from the first list because no reliable source could be found for his exact dates and all. S302921 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)