Talk:List of 20th-century religious leaders

Rulers.org
Did the editor who post this article have the permission of Rulers.org to copy its religious leaders page wholesale? —Sesel (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did most of this page, and had never even heard of Rulers.org.
 * You cannot copyright facts. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 23:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has certainly heard of it then, because it is listed as an external link. If you didn't use it, which sources did you use? —Sesel (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to have done all of the page.
 * The info came mostly other WP pages, and sometimes from the official pages of the partiular groups.
 * Do you want to point out anything in partiular that you think came "wholesale" from Rulers.org? şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 05:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger
I propose that these lists for all these years
 * 2000 – 1999 – 1998 – 1997 – 1996 – 1995 – 1994 – 1993 – 1992 – 1991
 * 1990 – 1989 – 1988 – 1987 – 1986 – 1985 – 1984 – 1983 – 1982 – 1981
 * 1980 – 1979 – 1978 – 1977 – 1976 – 1975 – 1974 – 1973 – 1972 – 1971
 * 1970 – 1969 – 1968 – 1967 – 1966 – 1965 – 1964 – 1963 – 1962 – 1961
 * 1960 – 1959 – 1958 – 1957 – 1956 – 1955 – 1954 – 1953 – 1952 – 1951
 * 1950 – 1949 – 1948 – 1947 – 1946 – 1945 – 1944 – 1943 – 1942 – 1941
 * 1940 – 1939 – 1938 – 1937 – 1936 – 1935 – 1934 – 1933 – 1932 – 1931
 * 1930 – 1929 – 1928 – 1927 – 1926 – 1925 – 1924 – 1923 – 1922 – 1921
 * 1920 – 1919 – 1918 – 1917 – 1916 – 1915 – 1914 – 1913 – 1912 – 1911
 * 1910 – 1909 – 1908 – 1907 – 1906 – 1905 – 1904 – 1903 – 1902 – 1901


 * be merged as such: List of religious leaders in 19XX into List of 20th-century religious leaders


 * All of the content in these can be (and already is) contained in the destination with much less total text. This merge has already discussed and done for the current century list. There are three important reasons to do this.
 * 1. The page can be better maintained with less work. Since religious leaders typlicaly change infrequently (less often than political leaders) it is very difficult to maintain each subpage, and they are not maintained. (At best) when a leader dies the death date is put in a succeeding leader is added. Editors should go back and change the 10 or 20 year pages since the leader came to office from "Pope Joe, Bishop of Klingon (1995–present)" to "1995–2013", but no one ever does this.
 * 2. More content can be maintained with more completeness and with less or the same amount of work. Even in this last 12 year period (it is typically worse for 20th-century religious leaders) the list gets longer over time as more religions and sub-groups are added from year to year. Again, no one wants to go back and add leaders for every year since the groups started. Groups are added to the current year and that is it.
 * 3. A system of religious leaders by century allows finding leaders even when only the century (but not the years) that the leader served. If I want to find the name of Pope John Paul I I can find it much faster on List of 20th-century religious leaders than on List of religious leaders in 1978.
 * Per the discussion at List of 20th-century religious leaders, this is unlikely to be a problem, so I am going to boldly merge these pages. As the list are very lightly watched, will be better than posting notices on all 100 pages. tahc chat (circa 21:41, January 9, 2013‎)


 * Considering I created some of those, and occasionally put a good deal of work into it, it would have been nice to be informed. I would have preferred by decade if we must do merging. Also where are the Mormons? And why are some names red-linked and others just plain-text? (I support red-link names being allowed to stay in lists, or at least I do if the person's dead, so I'm not objecting on Rednot extremist grounds)--T. Anthony (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I intend to be off for Advent but I do want to add Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders in 1946 and that you apparently did this on your own without any discussion. I don't even see anything on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Religious leaders work group. Your reasons made some sense, but as a prolific article creator "Uniltateral redirection as deletion" is something I'm almost tempted to create an essay on because I've had it happen to me too often. (As in I pretty much don't think it should ever be done because it's sometimes hard to know it's even been done.)--T. Anthony (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like I did it this way (out of WP:BOLDness), but I would handle it differently now and I do apologize. This was nearly a year ago now, but I did not expect any objection when I did it. tahc chat 02:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Eh maybe I was overreacting. You're right that no one else seems to have minded and that I didn't say anything for like eight months. I think I have "weird" interests for a Wikipedian. The first articles I created received more attention than I thought, but there's still articles I made in 2005 (C. I. Defontenay, Asa Long, or Kun Can) that no one ever seems to have much cared about. I'm not a big math, computers, and video-game person, but I am into China, jazz, checkers, and religion. That's not that weird for Wikipedia, excepting checkers, but I guess it's a little weird for Wikipedia. But I keep meaning to be off, d'oh!--T. Anthony (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)