text:
Talk:Coronation

Coronation gifts
This section, added on November 25, 2017, is without citations, is incoherent, incomplete (what are examples of such gifts?) and the last sentence makes no sense. --Hugh7 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Before the Coronation
Does anyone know what the ceremony is called (if any) where a monarch proclaims his/her heir to the throne? The heir is not officially crowned or anything (unless to receive a "prince" or "princess" crown); they are only named as the heir. I know it is probably not practiced now, but was during the Middle and Post-Mideval period...? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Something not unlike that took place in Caernarfon in 1969, when the Prince of Wales was installed as such; he even was 'crowned'! It has been called 'investiture' in England/Great Britain/United kingdom. I don't think that there was some kind of such a ceremony for proclaiming the dauphin in France. Mapple 17:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Other monachies
There are plenty of monarchies missing, denmark included. Can anyone find this information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.63.34.250 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Is this accurate?
"In France, the new monarch ascended the throne when the coffin of the previous monarch descended into the vault at Saint Denis Basilica, and the Duke of Uzes proclaimed 'Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi' (French: 'The [old] king is dead; long live the [new] King!')" I thought that French monarchs often forgoed coronation completly, or if they did have one they waited until several years into their reign. Ahassan05 17:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

British Monarchy's current ceremony/wording/oath?
Curious if anyone thinks it would be beneficial to include in this entry the text from the British Monarchy's current ceremony? Since Britain is the most well-known in the "western world", it would be interesting, I think, to know exactly what the monarch says at the time of his/her coronation.

Especially curious, I guess, since the Wikipedia entry for "Monarchy in Canada" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada#Legal_role ) says that the Queen has obligations to her subjects based on the coronation ceremony. (The Monarch's acceptance of her responsibilities to her subjects is symbolised by the Coronation Oath.)

Can anyone help out here? (I'm not very experienced with how Wikipedia contents are written/organized).
 * Text of the Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms' Coronation Oath is included here: Coronation of the British monarch. Perhaps just a link from this article to that one is all that's necessary. --gbambino 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prayed to the Tsar?
What evidence is there the the Russian peasants prayed to the tsar?
 * I'm curious as to whether there is any Russian source for this. I've seen it in the writings of several British authors of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but have never seen anything written by a Russian about this. The Tsar was considered the "Abbot" of the nation, and he was often addresed by the familiar diminutive, Batushka, but I don't know of any Russian source saying he was worshipped--unofficially or otherwise--as a god (or even a demigod). MishaPan 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule by the grace of God
I think my edit summaries need clarification. Historically many bishops have been styled "dei gratia episcopus" &c (though I'm not sure about the Pope himself). The formula is often used in the preambles of Papal Bulls too, so it may not be wholly accurate to say that it's never been applied to a Pope. Admittedly it's at least uncommon.

However I don't think that was the point of the paragraph. If you read the whole thing, it's clear that what is being said is not that the by-the-grace-of-God formula was used as an argument for absolutism on its own, but also that a belief that "monarchs were chosen by God" and that "the crown was bestowed by God" was used as an argument for absolutism. Now, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls'" and most Catholics believe that Apostolic Succession and the office of Pope were established by Jesus Christ Himself. So even if the Pope isn't actually said to rule "by the grace of God", he is still an example of an absolute head of state whose power is said to derive from God.

Even if you disagree with all of that, I don't see why my edit was reverted, except to try to pick holes in the example used in the edit summary. It's obviously not possible to say that the fact "has ceased to be used as an argument for absolutism" since only one person anywhere in the world need repeat the argument in order to contradict the assertion. My edit was a minor improvement. It's much better to state that the argument "was used" without any pointless and unverifiable claims that it's now never used. --Lo2u (T • C) 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 * My revert was indeed too peremptory. In reality the two versions are about equivalent: neither offers the reader much on the paragraph topic, which is the historically religious aspect of some corontations. --Wetman 04:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Expansion
I've hugely expanded and edited this article, but I was unable to find anything definitive about coronations (or lack thereof) for the kings of modern Italy or the emperors of China. While some sources mentioned coronations in Italy, I wasn't able to find anything that I could reference, nor any details on the ceremonies (if any). Also, although I referenced info from more than one source saying that Emperors of Austria weren't crowned as such, I have seen some drawings of earlier Austrian rulers (Maria Teresa, etc.) being crowned, so I'm not sure what to make of that. If anyone has any info on these subjects, or any other part of this article, please feel free to add it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Eliminating "The ceremony" section
Part of the GA review for this article questioned a lack of references in the section entitled "The ceremony". Much of the information therein was redundant, being mentined earlier in the lead section, or in later parts devoted to specific countries. Hence, in the interests of length as well as of article quality, I felt it best to simply delete most of it, keeping only the portion dealing with the legal issues involved. However, if any other editors disagree with this decision, please feel free to reinsert and/or edit it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Multimedia
I have concerns about this entire section. All links are to YouTube, and all footage is presumably copyrighted, therefore subject to immediate removal from YT. Should we perhaps remove this section, as it's impossible to predict whether or not it will be useful (i.e. dead links) on a day to day basis? Prince of Canadat 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns; I hadn't considered that when creating the links. I'm definitely going to keep the Norwegian link, as I was able to change it from a Google link to one directly from the Official Norwegian monarchy website.  I'll eliminate all of the YouTube links, but I'm going to see first if I can't find some other, independent source for these or other coronation videos. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take another look at the section and see if these links are better. I eliminated all of the YouTube links, replacing them with others (or, in the case of Elizabeth II, I kept a YouTube link that was referenced directly from HM's personal, official, YouTube channel).  Let me know what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great. I'd be concerned about the AOL link, and the ones to 'yourememberthat' and 'videosoftheworld' for similar reasons to YouTube (except for the Royal Channel, of course). Prince of Canadat 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed those others. Would have liked to have had more links there, but four is definitely better than none.  How does the rest of it look?  I'm about ready to send it back for GA reconsideration. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks fantastic. I'm slowly working through the citations, moving them to cite templates.  Use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged, but WP may move to a different style of citation in the future, so templating all citations will make that change a lot easier. Prince of Canadat 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your efforts on this article! Please let me know when you think it's ready to go, and I'll send it up for GA reconsideration. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image placement
We moved most of the images in the article to the right side, per MOS requirements regarding placement of images in sections. My question is: since we have consolidated the formerly separate country sections into continental sections, would it be MOS-okay to move some of the images to the left within each "continental" section, to create a more "balanced" look to the article? It's not really a big deal, either way; just an ascetical issue, really. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not. Prince of Canadat 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay to have left-aligned images as long as they are not placed immediately following the section header, or before the first link to an article. --G2bambino (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's equally okay not to, especially when they displace formatting in the next section. Prince of Canadat 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Leaving it "as is". - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Pre-GA comments
Ecjmartin has asked me to look over the article again in light of my comments on problems that resulted in the GA-fail of the article last time. The article is much improved since the last time I looked at the article, but I still have a few concerns on its readiness for GA. These include:

 * Referencing. It's much better than last time, but still lacking.  Basically, the way I go about an initial GA review is I look through the article, and when I see a paragraph that doesn't have a reference at the end, I start jumping up and down *grin*.  There are a lot of these spots in the article still, and they will burn you at GA, unless you happen to get a lax reviewer.  They will definitely kill you if you plan to take the article to FA.
 * I'm really not sure what's up with Ref #25. It may be that (as you say in your comment above) that because it's a .doc it's formatting funky.  I've never had a ref do this to me, and I can't figure out how to fix it.  You may want to post a question on the cite templates talk page asking for help from one of the gurus.
 * I would suggest not renoming the article until your citations are completely formatted with all needed information. At the moment, you have the problem of mixing formats (some templated, some not), as well as quite a few that are missing access dates. I know that you said another editor is currently working on fixing them, so this is more of a reminder comment then anything else.
 * The lead looks much better now, and the layout of the article is much nicer, IMO. Nice job!
 * I still haven't done a full review of the prose, so don't think that it's perfect just because I haven't said anything! I would suggest, before you re-nom the article, that you don't touch the article for at least a few hours (depending on your level of wiki-addiction, this grace period may be as long as a day or two), and then look over the prose as a whole one more time to catch any errors that you may be overlooking.  I know that when I am heavily editing an article, I'm usually only focusing on one section or another at a time, and I get so involved with individual sections that I can lose track of what the article as a whole looks like.  It may be the same with you, or you might have a much better holistic sense of things than I do :)

Anyways, these are my comments. Let me know if you have any other questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot for your feedback. I'll look it over some more, and see what I can do about the referencing.  Prince of Canada has been graciously working on the citation formatting; once he's had a chance to finish that (and anything else he or anyone else may care to add to the text), I'll go from there.  Thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm trucking along on the cites. It's not a quick process :) Prince of Canadat 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ecj.. I'm having trouble with a lot of the references not really conforming to WP:RS; many of them are personal essays, links to forum posts, etc. I'm moving those ones to the footnotes section. Prince of Canadat 22:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Whatever works best is fine with me.  Thanks again for all of your help on this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FA Ready?
I'd be interested in soliciting opinions from contributing editors to this article as to whether any of you think it is ready for a crack at "FA" or even just "A" class status. If you don't think so, what do you think it needs to make that jump? Thanks for your replies! - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll need much, much more exhaustive referencing to hit FA. // roux   19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The UK and Scotland?
Why should we have seperate sections for the United Kingdom and Scotland, with no section for England? It now looks like England and the UK are the same, while Scotland is something completely unrelated. Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. // roux   19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Length of the article and criteria for inclusion
The article is too long and I am not sure what's the criteria for inclusion. The article discusses customs of states that have never had coronations, which is pointless. Why should it say anything about Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Bavaria, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Greece, Bhutan, and other countries which have never had coronations? The information about enthronements should be moved to the article about enthronement. This article should only state that those countries never had coronations and that's it. While it discusses customs of countries which have never had coronations, the article ignores former states that had coronations (Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Montenegro, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree about the length of the article, though I understand why you say this. I've seen longer articles in Wikipedia, and I think that given the subject matter, length is unavoidable in an article of this nature.  With regard to the states you mentioned as having had coronations but are not yet in this article, I for one would be glad to see something about them, if information can be found.  I did a fair chunk of the work on this article, and I tried to include everything I could for all the monarchies (past or present) that I knew about.

 * With regard to the inclusion of Japan, Monaco, etc., my opinion (and it's just that: my opinion, nothing more!) is that we ought to mention them anyway, even if only to point out that they did not crown their rulers. Some readers might suppose that any monarchy, past or present, crowned its rulers as England's does, and I think that the article should at least inform them of those states that didn't.  Japan's Shinto ritual certainly should remain; even if no crown is involved, it is certainly akin to a European coronation ritual, as is the rite of Bhutan, which does involve a crown (the "Raven Crown").  Bavaria, the Netherlands and Greece all had crown jewels, and even if they were never imposed in any formal ritual, the reader should be informed of this fact.  That, at least, is my opinion, and I fully respect any contrary opinions. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ecjmartin. In a specific sense, coronation means 'to put a crown upon', and thus in that limited sense, the article should actually only cover actual coronations--of which there are precious few nowadays. In a much more general sense, as used by the populace at large, coronation means 'the ceremony in which a monarch officially takes the post' (as opposed to the actual moment, which is variably at the death of the previous monarch, at election--as with the Pope--or whatnot). Given that the article is quite clear about the specific definition and is equally clear about covering a) coronation in a historical context, b) coronations as they exist today, and c) ceremonies that are similar to coronations inasmuch as they are rites which confer the official position upon the monarch, I think it's fine as-is. As a side note, Surtsicna, could you please remove all of the image size specifications apart from the one at the head of the article? Specifying thumb as a parameter ensures that all logged-in users can decide for themselves how large they want them, and all logged-out users/readers will see the MediaWiki standard, which is either 180 or 200px, can't remember which. In any case, there's a reason for the 'thumb' parameter, and size should not be specified. // roux   05:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Coronation is not every "ceremony in which a monarch officially takes the post". "The ceremony in which a monarch officially takes the post" could refer to coronation, enthronement, inauguration, and other types of investiture. Describing various sorts of enthronements in an article about coronation ceremony, even though we have an article about enthronement ceremony, makes no sense. This article should only mention that Japan, the Netherlands, etc, have enthronements instead of coronations. That way people would not assume that every monarchy crowns its rulers as the United Kingdom does and England did. There is no need for describing every detail of a ceremony that cannot be described as coronation. I wouldn't mind the size if the article was about coronations only, but I do mind going off topic without a good reason. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Coronation is not every "ceremony in which a monarch officially takes the post". "The ceremony in which a monarch officially takes the post" could refer to coronation, enthronement, inauguration, and other types of investiture.
 * My point precisely. Please re-read what I wrote. // roux   17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, but I do not see your point. If coronation and enthronement are different ceremonies and we have articles for both ceremonies, why should this article contain information that concerns the other article? Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I really don't think you did; I made the point perfectly clearly. At the risk of repeating myself: coronation as it is used by most people means 'the ceremony when a monarch officially becomes the monarch'. Period. As such, it makes sense for this article, the one most people will be looking for, to explain such ceremonies, while carefully pointing out that they are not coronations in the strict dictionary sense, and providing links to the relevant articles on enthronement, investiture, etc. // roux   17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that you know what I did better than me. You obviously didn't make the point perfectly clear because a person didn't understand it. Period. If this article is going to contain information about ceremonies that are not coronations, then we need to change the definition given in the lead sentence: A coronation is a ceremony marking the investiture of a monarch with regal power, specifically involving the placement of a crown upon his or her head, and the presentation of other items of regalia. Having a section about countries that do not hold coronations creates a greater risk of somebody thinking that the said country holds coronations than simply saying that the country doesn't hold coronations. If there is a distinction between coronation and enthronement, why should an encyclopaedia ignore it? Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm nto sure how much clearer I can possibly make the point. The layman thinks all monarchs have coronations. The layman will therefore search for the article entitled 'coronation'. We therefore place all relevant information here, which includes ceremonies that are not strictly speaking coronations, but which serve the same purpose as a coronation. What is so difficult to understand about that? // roux   18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, we put information about ceremonies that are not coronations (in any sense, not just strictly speaking) in an article called Coronation? What can we possibly achieve by doing so other than confusing the layman? There is a distinction between coronation ceremony and enthronement ceremony - that's why Wikipedia has an article about both ceremonies. Information about enthronements is supposed to be in an article called enthronement, while information about coronations is supposed to be in this article. What is so difficult to understand about that? Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgement, I am going to try again.
 * There are roughly two meanings for coronation: the dictionary definition, and the one in common use.
 * Per the dictionary definition, this article should only contain actual coronation ceremonies, past and present.
 * That, however, leads to a less-useful article because...
 * The broader definition is the one everyone uses, and thus an article which discusses both definitions and explains the difference, as this one does, is much more useful to the layman--you know, the person actually reading this stuff. Therefore...
 * All the information needs to be within this article, as well as much more specific information at the relevant related articles. The best article example for this concept is Football. The article contains a lot of information that, depending on your point of view, is about a game that simply isn't called football. And yet, for some reason, it stays.. I wonder why? See point 3 above. And so finally..
 * The bottom line is that this article is the one people will look for, and it is this article which must explain that while they may think that the Emperors of Japan undergo a coronation, what they actually do is something else, here are the differences, and here is a handy link to the article which explains that sort of ceremony in greater detail.
 * I trust that I have finally articulated my position--and that of Ecjmartin--clearly. That you disagree with it is neither here nor there; of the three people who have commented on this discussion, you are very much in the minority, and indeed at no time has this been brought up as an issue, even by the GA reviewer. The article is crystal clear about explaining the differences, and convenient links are given to the other conceptual articles that deal with enthronement and investiture and so on and so forth. I suggest that you give in gracefully and stop arguing, as every single time you say something it looks like you're not bothering to read anything I write, making it extremely frustrating to have to explain myself repeatedly. This is now the fourth time I have had to explain myself, and Ecjmartin has had to do so twice. That you still do not understand what we are saying is, I submit, no longer our problem; it is yours. I recognise that you have a lot of interest in this area, but you are--as almost every Wikipedian does on a depressingly regular basis--forgetting that we are writing for non-experts, and our article content should reflect that. Note for example our conventions on page naming--we use the most common form of the name for the main article, with redirects flying around as needed. Likewise we must write articles to explain broadly to the layman without sending him off in a thousand directions to get the information he needs. This is the last time I will explain my position, as there is simply no way to do so any more clearly. Please do not respond until you can demonstrate, which you have not yet done, that you have both read and understood what I have written, as I will not repeat myself yet again. // roux   19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it would be much smarter not to respond to the above written, I can't let this pass. I, as every other Wikipedian, have right to challenge anything written in any article. Nobody forces you to discuss anything with anyone. I may be very much in the minority ( 2:1 is very much minority... ), but this is not voting. I suggest that you don't tell people what to do, because that's extremely frustrating. I can respond regardless of what you think I did or didn't do. I do not expect your response anyway, so you don't have to repeat yourself for the fifth time (nobody asked for the other 3 times). Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, you did ask for the repeated explanations by over and over demonstrating you had no understanding of what Ecjmartin and I had said, preferring to simply repeat over and over, stubbornly, that 'we have another article so there!' while repeatedly ignoring patient and careful explanations. So how about you go and please deal with the referencing problems with the--no sarcasm, fascinating information--material you have added in the last day or so and stop wasting time on this nonsense? // roux   21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All I wanted was a civilized discussion. I guess I can't have everything. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roux. Much of the public tends to believe that kings--whatever countries they may still remain in--are still crowned upon their assuming the throne; hence the inclusion of all monarchies, past and present, including those who don't crown their rulers anymore (such as Spain and Portugal), those who offer some other kind of ascension ceremony (such as Holland, Norway, and Sweden), and those who never crowned their rulers to begin with (such as Bulgaria, Belgium, and Greece). As Roux (who deserves a lot of credit for the work he did on this article!) has indicated, this article is very clear about describing different types of ascension ceremonies, whether they involve an actual crowning or not. While I can see the point you make, Surtsicna, about moving some of these entries to the Enthronement page, I really believe they should all remain here, as I think most readers will come here first to look for information on any particular country. Since (as Roux pointed out) the entries distinguish clearly between different types of ceremonies (crowning and non-crowning), I think it would be better to leave them all here than to have people going back and forth between two different articles. That, at least, is my opinion. BTW, Surtsicna, thanks very much for the contributions you've made to this article! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Female kings
Where can I mention that Maria of Hungary, Hedwig of Poland and Maria Theresa of Hungary & Bohemia were crowned kings of their respective kingdoms? In my opinion, the fact that women were sometimes crowned kings instead of being crowned queens is notable. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd say just to add that information to the appropriate section under the particular country in question. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not easy to do because there is no appropriate section for adding the information about female Kings of Hungary. There is a section called "Austria-Hungary", but mentioning 14th-century people in that section would be a major mistake. The section does not have anything to do with Austria anyway, as nobody was crowned Emperor of Austria. It would be much better to rename the section and leave just "Hungary". Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent observation! I've taken the liberty of breaking up the "Austria-Hungary" section into two separate sections called "Austria" and "Hungary".  Take a look, and tell me what you think.  Also, in regard to not having an appropriate section for female kings of Hungary, I would opine that since this is a gender-neutral article (concerning itself with coronations and enthronements in general, without regard to the gender of the monarch being crowned/enthroned), you ought to be able to simply insert this information in a separate paragraph within the "Hungary" section.  I, for one, would be very interested in seeing it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also plan to write something about coronations being used to ensure smooth successiona nd to legitimaze the heir's right to rule (Henry the Young King, French kings, etc). I'd appreciate help with referencing. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Farouk of Egypt - enthroned or crowned?
The section is unclear. In the first paragraph it says that he was enthroned, while the second paragraph says that he was crowned. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this notable enough?
"Four centuries after the coronation of Henry the Young King, Anne Boleyn was crowned Queen of England with St. Edward's crown (which had previously been used to crown only a reigning monarch) because Anne's pregnancy was visible by then and she was carrying the heir who was presumed to be male. Thus, Anne's coronation did not only legitimaze her right to enjoy the title and prerogatives of Queen of England, but also her unborn child's right to be crowned as monarch with St. Edward's Crown one day. "

This is a paragraph I wanted to insert in "Coronation of heir apparent" section, but is it notable enough to be included in this article? Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She was crowned, not the unborn child, so does not belong in that section.// roux   18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 * A historian clearly links Anne's coronation to the future coronation and supremacy of the legitimate heir, assumed to be male, now visible beneath Anne's coronation robes. Anne's coronation with St. Edward's Crown confirmed her unborn child's right to rule, just like the Young King's coronation confirmed his right to rule. That's how a historian interpretes the fact that Anne was crowned with crown reserved for monarchs only. You'll understand what I mean if you read what I wrote. Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) grow up, 2) it's barely tangentially related and belongs more properly in the England section with a note pointing to the Heir Apparent section; she was crowned in her own right, which also conferred legitimacy on her unborn child. The child itself was not crowned. // roux   22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Read Civility and learn how to lead a civilized discussion. I wish I knew what made you respond in such uncivilized manner (again) in the first place. 2) A historian clearly explains how Anne Boleyn's coronation was related to the future coronation of her child. Coronation of Anne Boleyn and coronations of junior kings had the same purpose - confirming the heir's rights and securing the succession. If you want to argue against this link, publish a book. 3) I have decided not to use this information in this article, as I don't think it's notable enough. Surtsicna (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You get to lecture me about civility when you start displaying some. Related, yes, but again: the child was not crowned, which is explicitly what that section is about. If you don't want to include it, I shall.// roux   23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And you get to tell me to grow up when you grow up. Disagreeing with my proposal and then inserting information that I decided not to insert just to spite me, as well as intentional insulting people who disagree with you, is a display of immature behavior. I'm getting tired of your insults, so I apologize if I ever offended you, though I have no idea when I did that (I'd appreciate letting me know when I offended you). Anyway, enthronement is not coronation, yet this article describes enthronements. As Anne Boleyn's coronation was directly related to the coronations of heirs apparent, the section is less useful if something related is left out. That's your own policy. As I said, I am not sure the information is notable enough so I won't insist on moving it to the appropriate section, but I'm afraid that we are going into too much details if we include that information in the section about British coronations. Surtsicna (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Spite? There is no longer any point in attempting rational conversation with you, given that you ignored "...and belongs more properly in the England section with a note pointing to the Heir Apparent section." // roux   15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder what rational conversation means to you - telling people to grow up without apparent reason, turning every possible discussion into a useless quarrel, taking out your frustrations on people, etc. You obviously haven't noticed that I started several discussions on this page just to have a fresh start with you. I'm not going to try anymore. It's not worth it. Anyway, it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this problem and that there are people with whom one can work with to improve this article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

← Oh boy, this should be fun, explaining preecisely why everything you just wrote is a) wrong, and b) proof of what I have been saying to you.
 * 1) "telling people to grow up without apparent reason" - no, the reason was quite clear, your childish 'you'd understand what I meant if you read what I wrote', which is merely a projection of you not reading anything (see above, your repetition of your position over and over and over without actually addressing anything that was said to you). Contrast with my responses, which do actually address what you say.
 * 2) "turning every possible discussion into a useless quarrel," - that did not in fact happen. I only become frustrated when you refuse to address what is said to you. Which you keep doing.
 * 3) "You obviously haven't noticed that I started several discussions on this page just to have a fresh start with you." - this would be more believable if you did not behave in the same way every time. See point 1, as well as statements from you like "If you want to argue against this link, publish a book," and "inserting information that I decided not to insert just to spite me". Indeed, those are obviously the statements of someone trying for a 'fresh start'.
 * 4) "and that there are people with whom one can work with to improve this article." - by which you are implying that I have done nothing to improve this article. Which is cute, given that your additions to the article are riddled with spelling errors, horrific grammar, and impossible-to-verify references. By contrast, you may wish to look at the following diffs to see how much I haven't worked with anyone to improve the article:, . I can only be bothered to dig up two, but if you go here you will see exactly how much I haven't worked with anyone to improve the article. Furthermore, if you look in the history of User talk:Ecjmartin, you absolutely won't see any evidence of us working together to get the article to GA status. The sections above , , , also lend credence to your implication that I don't work with anyone and I'm not improving the article.

Of course, there's a common thread running through all of that: other editors who actually par attention to what is said and address it, as opposed to stubbornly repeating their same point over and over without anything to back it up, while simultaneously inserting poorly-written and awfully-referenced material into the article, not to mention removing chunks of work by other people due to impatience with edit conflicts. It would also be rather more believable that you were here to work collaboratively if you didn't passive-aggressively try to make 'fresh starts' only to dive right into the insults and snide comments immediately. Your behaviour here has been remarkably poor, and while you may try to make the same comment about me, it would behoove you to notice that I have only become short with you after your poor behaviour, and not before.

Finally, to return to your outlandish personal attack--saying I only inserted the information out of spite--no, I did not, not that defending myself to you is necessary. I inserted the information because it's interesting due to the fact that Queens Consort are generally only crowned in a simple ceremony, and most certainly never with St Edwards' Crown. That Anne Boleyn was is a historical curiosity, and while it is indeed related to the coronation of heirs apparent, it does not belong in that section because that section is explicitly only about coronation of heirs apparent. And unlike the title of this article, there is not another meaning for 'coronation of heirs apparent' in common usage; there is one meaning and one meaning only. So no, there is actually no inconsistency in my position, despite your attacks to the contrary.

If indeed you do wish a fresh start, I'm happy to grant you one. It is incumbent upon you, however, to modify your behaviour accordingly. Again, you'll notice that when I am given respect and conversation from someone who actually engages in conversation, I return that respect. It is when you make attacks, snide comments, and stubbornly repeat the same thing over and over without any argument bolstering your position that you will be treated precisely as you deserve. I bear you no animosity, but I abhor your technique here on this page and others. // roux   02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm only going to adress point 4, as responding to other insults would be just wasting my life. I abhore everything you just said. I wouldn't be able to say that to my worst enemy.

 * 4) I never said that you did not make significant contribution to the article, so proving that you did is pointless. I only said that me working with you is impossible. Anyway, thank you for appreciating my humble work on this article. It's obvious that English is not my first language, but I try. If you (by you I mean all the people working on this article) can't bother going around and fixing my spelling errors, horrific grammar, and poorly-written and awfully-referenced material , I'll withdraw from editing the article, as I don't want to be anyone's burden. I did not know how to reference properly, but you never attempted to help me with referencing, event though I asked for help.

 * "There is no longer any point in attempting rational conversation with you" - I just knew you were not going to be able to resist responding again, even if it is "against your better judgement". I don't want you to grant me a fresh start. I wanted both of us to either ignore our previous quarells or to admit our mistakes. Since you are obviously incompetent to do any of those two things, I believe we started just appopriately. Surtsicna (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And there you go again. You almost did it right, and then you went and called me incompetent. This would be after I did in fact try for a fresh start in the images section below by complimenting you on your image finding abilities. Your lack of self-awareness in this issue is astounding, and it's telling that you consider facts to be insults. I cannot do much to help your referencing--although, again, if you were to actually look at the diffs you would note several references of yours that I brought up to standard by including publisher data, ISBN data, etc--as you frequently do not provide enough information to do so. So kindly do not lie and say that I haven't helped with referencing when I very clearly have. It's not sufficient to note that information is found in Book X; we also need page numbers. I note that you keep not addressing what is said to you, and you insist on seeing insults where there are none. Look, I've tried here. I've tried to give you the fresh start you claim you want. And you return with insults like 'incompetent'. Do you see yet that the problem here is your behaviour? I did in fact admit to my previous mistakes ("I have only become short with you after your poor behaviour"), I did in fact try to start over ("Surtsicna is good at finding images"), and then you come along and call me incompetent. Are you seeing it yet? You claim you said "I only said that me working with you is impossible.", which you did not; you actually said "Anyway, it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this problem and that there are people with whom one can work with to improve this article." which in English means "Anyway it's comforting to know I'm not the only one who thinks you're a jerk, and at least there are other people I can work with to improve this article, because you can't improve it." I am willing to give you some leeway for having English as a second language, but not much. Bear in mind that competence is required at Wikipedia. At no time have I told you or wanted you to leave this article. I want you to keep working on it, but you need to learn to work constructively: learn how to cite references properly, and work on your grammar and spelling perhaps by posting to the talk page sections you want to put into the article so that native English speakers can correct them for grammar/spelling before they go live, and learn to actually respond to what is said to you in discussion, and most importantly to stop pretending you want a fresh start while simultaneously insulting people. Look up passive-aggressive for why that doesn't work. // roux   16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * You commented in the section Images after commenting in this section and I noticed the horrifying comment before the fresh-start-comment. Anyway, I'm sorry if you were offended by the word "incompetent". I really wouldn't have tried to spell that word correctly if I knew it was so offending. I'm also sorry that I used wrong expressions/you misinterpreted what I said. I do not pretend that I want a fresh start - I actually hate when somebody is angry with me. Yet I can't say nothing when I feel offended, which leads to this talk. I accept your advices and will try to do what you say. I have only one advice for you: don't lose your temper so quickly. Working on Wikipedia is stressful without these useless and pointless quarells. I propose calling all of this a misunderstanding because of my poor English and removing this "discussion", along with the discussion above. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am generally opposed to removing dialogue, whether it reflects positively on me or not, from public view except through normal scheduled archive process. There are exceptions, and for me this isn't one. // roux   19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
I did not remove the image of Peter of Serbia after his coronation because it did not depict his coronation. I removed it because very little is written about Serbian coronations. As there is no enough text, the image of Peter pushes the image beneath it, which makes that part of the article crowded with images. I tried placing one of the images on the left, but it still doesn't look nice. Though I won't insist on removing the image if you think it looks fine. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally (and this is just my opinion; I won't insist on it), I'd like to see it remain, if only because it depicts the coronation (or its immediate aftermath) of a monarch from a country not normally associated with coronations, i.e. Serbia, as opposed to the more "famous" kingdoms (past or present) of France, England, Russia, etc. But as I said, that's just my opinion; I'm not insisting on it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it remain too. After all, I was the one who added it and it certainly helps the section. It just seems to me that there are too many images in that small part of the article. Perhaps we should move one of the images to the left to make more space? Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image should stay. Left-aligning it will, unfortunately, make the article look like hell, so we should probably just deal with it being slightly unpretty as opposed to hideous. Wikipedia/MOS guidelines on image placement are fantastically stupid and largely in opposition to everything known about good design, particularly text flow and breaking up text. Alternating L/R particularly makes text more difficult to read. But gah, try getting that past the ... I can't think of a word that won't get me indeffed... people at MOS. Off topic, I wonder if there's an image available that's more iconic than that of Charlemagne's coronation. There are no photos or footage of the actual moment of QEII's coronation (and I suppose I could be accused of bias there, but she is undoubtedly the world's most famous monarch), and very few other modern monarchs have actually had a proper coronation. Napoleon would be an interesting choice... or someone like him; a coronation that was explicitly about a monarch seizing power for him or herself, and using the coronation ceremony to legitimise it. Surtsicna seems to be the best image-finder; thoughts?// roux   06:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't think it's a problem, we'll keep it. Your question about a better lead image is not off-topic. The section is about images, so feel free to discuss any images in the article. Replacing the image of Charlemagne's coronation with an image of Elizabeth II's coronation would be great. I know there were such images on Wikimedia Commons, but they are gone now. I'm not sure whether the image of Napoleon's coronation is better than the image of Charlemagne's coronation. The former painting is more famous, but the latter shows the moment of the ruler's coronation more clearly. Surtsicna (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

New TOC/headings
Despite being the person who removed a bunch of the headings months ago, over the past few days it's become apparent that the sections as they were had far too much text in them, making editing them unwieldy.

Accordingly, I have changed each country to a level 4 (====) heading to give each subsection its own edit link, and have added a custom TOC, suppressing the MediaWiki-generated table of contents (using ). Unfortunately, this had to be hand-coded, as the nearest template available (CompactTOC8) allows for only 16 custom fields, and we needed more--I didn't think that an alphabetical listing would be of much use to readers. Comments? // roux <span style="border:1px solid #801818;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  06:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism problem.
I hate bringing this up, but it needs to be dealt with, immediately. In this diff, Surtsicna inserted the following text: "Before Sweden became hereditary monarchy, the coronation did not center on the body of the new monarch, but on transforming an elected king into a legitimate monarch."

She cited this book as the source, (link to the specific page) which states: "In Sweden, on the other hand, where hereditary monarchy was introduced only in 1534, the coronation did not centre on the sacred body of the monarch, but on transforming an elected man into a legitimate ruler."

I have bolded the identical text. This is a really serious problem. We cannot plagiarise sources ever. Surtsicna, I am not sure if this is a language barrier issue or if you are unfamiliar with how we must attribute statements to sources. Given how much text you have added in the last week, how much of it follows the source text this closely? We need to ensure that everything written here is either a direct quote with attribution, or our own words with attribution. This sort of minor rephrasing cannot be used, and is in violation of our copyright policies.

I have already rewritten the passage and attributed it more properly.

In addition, I am concerned about your writing re: Boleyn. Do you own the book in question? I have been unable to find in the Google Books version any mention that the coronation of Boleyn had anything to do with her unborn child. In fact, everything I have found in the book has been arguing the contention that her coronation was about demonstrating Henry's independence of the Papacy after the break from Rome. Perhaps I am searching wrong, and if so, could you please provide a direct link to the text which supports what you wrote, or a quotation from the text if it is in your possession? // roux <span style="border:1px solid #614051;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I'm he.
 * I am going to go through the sections I added and try to rewrite them to avoid plagiarism problem. I tried to rephrase them as much as possible, but I understand if it wasn't enough. I'm aware how serious it may be, though I didn't realize that rephrasing wasn't enough.
 * There is no need to be concerned about my writing. It's all on page 52: "At the same time, this visual emblem of legitimate succession links Anne's coronations to the future coronation and supremacy of the legitimate heir, assumed to be male, now visible beneath Anne's coronation robes". Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the gender. Erm. I'm iffy about that statement supporting "Thus, Anne's coronation did not only legitimaze her right to enjoy the title and prerogatives of Queen of England, but also her unborn child's right to be crowned as monarch with St. Edward's Crown one day." The source says links, you say right to be. I'm not sure that's accurate, but someone else should read both and state their opinion. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  19:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc
The current monarch of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand was crowned as such on 2 June 1953. Where should we mention this? Creating several sections just to say the same thing in each of them is out of the question (and so is ignoring this fact). Elizabeth II's coronation oath included those realms. This is the link I was given on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as reference.

Would simply mentioning these countries in the United Kingdom section be a violation of NPOV?

Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Commonwealth realms" could always be used as a neutral heading that covers all the countries of which Elizabeth II was crowned queen. Some other related facts are that Canada - and I believe other realms - sent not only diplomats - i.e. governors general, prime ministers, lieutenant governors, premiers, mayors & etc. - but also contingents of horse guards and the like to participate in the coronation parade. CBC has some video footage of the events. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't see that it has all that much relevance, nor does it really need more than a sentence. The other information Miesianiacal mentions belongs--indeed, already exists--in other articles. We should be aiming here for a general overview with specifics being handled at sub articles (as already done for UK, Poland, Norway, etc); getting hung up on modern details of specific coronations seems to be beyond the purview of this article. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll agree that an actual coronation certainly deserves more than a ceremony that's not coronation. If a sovereign of Canada/Australia/New Zeeland was crowned, it can't be ignored in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? You're missing my point entirely. This article should be a general overview, yes? So adding in a whole lot of data about one specific coronation serves what purpose except to promote a specific monarchist point of view? I've already added information about it; more is unnecessary and veers into the territory of unduly emphasising one specific coronation over others. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #614051;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we won't concetrate on coronation of Canadian sovereign so much. I never said we should. I just said we should mention it and you said that: "I don't see that it has all that much relevance". Perhaps that was aimed to Miesianiacal. Anyway, all is OK now. Avout the source: is the website mentioned above good enough? I'll search the official website tomorrow anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant not relevant in the context of this being an article about generalities, not specifics. I've rewritten the sentence and ref'd it to Oremus. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tahiti
There are, it turns out, quite a few published sources on the coronation ceremony there:, , , , , , ,. It will just require a little work transcribing and citing them. - Biruitorul Talk 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

article too large
This article, although very informative, is way too big and large. I would propose removing the largest part of sections that have their own articles, instead of repeating information that is already there. Gryffindor (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had been resisting this up to now, but I (reluctantly!) think you have a valid point. I'd be open to your suggestion.  If there's stuff in here that's missing in the main articles (Holy Roman Empire, Britain, etc.), we could check to see that it's all there first, then remove everything but the reference to the main article.  I wouldn't have a problem with that, given how big this article has become (and it keeps getting larger--but that's a good thing, I think, other than the repetitiveness pointed out here!). - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of trimming down the sections of this article that have their own "Main Articles" referenced herein. I'm not sure if I trimmed TOO much out of the "France" section (please feel free to add back or take away anything as necessary there--or anywhere else!), but I think the others look pretty good now.  Let me know what you think, anyone! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

2011
To me, the article - whilst very informative - is still extremely long & unwieldy. I'd suggest drastic action, such as removing the following to their own articles:
 * Coronation in Africa
 * Coronation in Americas
 * Coronation in Asia
 * Coronation in Eastern Europe
 * Coronation in Western Europe
 * Coronation in Oceania

The remainder would be IMHO a manageable length for an article. What do others think? Trafford09 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See below section, on "Major-league reorganization". - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, if we kept section headers in the new, reduced "Coronation" article that would provide direct links to each newer page. The main "coronation" article would then contain just general info on coronations in general, then give section headers as above, each of which would link to the appropriate (separate) article for that section.  Let me see what I can do over the next few days, if someone doesn't beat me to it.  Can't do it tonight, but I can try to work on it tomorrow, if nobody else minds...  Sound good?? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi to Ecjmartin. The above splitting as you describe is just what I was thinking. With links to each 'sub'-article, and of course links from those back to the 'master' article. That way, none of the good information is lost at all, and the master article is a convenient focal point for info. of a general nature. May I thank you for all your efforts to date on this article (& no doubt others). I'll keep out of doing edits here myself, as I'm sure your aims are spot-on. But I'll follow developments with interest. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh - sorry - I see you've been super-quick-off-the-mark & made the sub-articles. Bravo. I'll take a perusal at them. The main article now is IMHO an ideal size. Trafford09 (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image from Portugese section
I removed the image from the Portugal section because (a) it purports to describe an event that is itself only legendary, unsubstantiated as to its authenticity (see article on Peter I of Portugal), and (b) its inclusion leaves a large "blank space" in the article. I liked the image--liked it a lot, actually, as the story is quite interesting, but due to its unsubstantiated nature (and the big blank space), I felt it would be better to remove it. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert my edit; no offense taken. I'm going to put that image into the article on Peter I (where the incident is clearly shown as legendary). - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Major-league reorganization and reduction
I authored a huge chunk of this article, originally, and I wholeheartedly agree with the previous writer and those others who have weighed in on this subject: it's just too long. Hence, I did as the previous writer suggested, and broke down the specific nations' coronation ceremonies into smaller articles arranged by continent (or region, in the case of Oceania). However, in the process of creating a couple of the new sub-articles, I jacked up some of the references, and since I know nothing about that kind of referencing, I'd like to ask if someone who does can go in behind me and fix those, if you would. Any other editors or readers are welcome to weigh in with their comments, observations, or suggestions. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Great work on the re-org & splitting. As for the problems with s, I think I've fixed them - they just seemed to need the 'Notes' section adding. Trafford09 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 * That's awesome! I took a brief look (I'm at work, right now!), and they really looked great, except for the Coronations in Antiquity one--could I please ask if you might do with it, the same as you did for the others?  I'm going to go in this evening when I get home, and re-arrange a few pictures, etc. to "dress them up" a bit more, so if you could take care of that last article, that'd be wonderful!!!  Thanks for all your help!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅ :) Trafford09 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

AWESOME work!!! I just took care of "dressing up" the new articles, staggering the images as needed, ensuring that there's at least one image (two, in the European article) at the top of each article, etc. I did italicize and make a single word change to your notes at the top of each new article; I think it will look better this way, but if you think otherwise, feel free to un-italicize them if you wish. Thanks again for all of your hard work--I think this new setup will work much better now, and I agree it's been needed for a long time!! Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coronation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004145520/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Coronation to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Coronation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905061158/http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/coronations.html to http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/coronations.html
 * Added tag to http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/article/why-is-it-said-that-only-a-brahman-is-capable-of-creating-an-ideal-king.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coronation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227120929/http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/ahb.cfm?a=S000116 to http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/ahb.cfm?a=S000116

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oath of Office
Would this be an appropriate place to discuss the role of oaths of office in republics which essentially replaced coronations? In the US the President can't take office until he takes the oath. Emperor001 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Investiture of the Prince of Wales
This is incorrect. The investiture of the Prince of Wales is not a case of the coronation of an heir during the lifetime of their parent. The investiture is just that, an investiture. It is properly an example of the investiture which formerly (until the early seventeenth century) was used for all peers of the realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.127 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Charles was crowned with headgear representing his position as crown prince. That's a coronation of an heir. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coronation


text:
Abdominal pregnancy

An abdominal pregnancy is a rare type of ectopic pregnancy where the embryo or fetus is growing and developing outside the uterus, in the abdomen, and not in a fallopian tube (usual location), an ovary, or the broad ligament.

Because tubal, ovarian and broad ligament pregnancies are as difficult to diagnose and treat as abdominal pregnancies, their exclusion from the most common definition of abdominal pregnancy has been debated.

Others—in the minority—are of the view that abdominal pregnancy should be defined by a placenta implanted into the peritoneum.

Signs and symptoms
Symptoms may include abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding during pregnancy. As this is nonspecific in areas where ultrasound is not available the diagnosis was often only discovered during surgery to investigate the abnormal symptoms. They are typically diagnosed later in the developing world than the developed. In about half of cases from a center in the developing world the diagnosis was initially missed.

It is a dangerous condition as there can be bleeding into the abdomen that results in low blood pressure and can be fatal. Other causes of death in women with an abdominal pregnancy include anemia, pulmonary embolus, coagulopathy, and infection.

Risk factors
Risk factors are similar to tubal pregnancy with sexually transmitted disease playing a major role; however about half of those with ectopic pregnancy have no known risk factors (which include damage to the fallopian tubes from previous surgery or from previous ectopic pregnancy, and tobacco smoking).

Mechanism
Implantation sites can be anywhere in the abdomen but can include the peritoneum outside of the uterus, the rectouterine pouch (culdesac of Douglas), omentum, bowel and its mesentery, mesosalpinx, and the peritoneum of the pelvic wall and the abdominal wall. The growing placenta may be attached to several organs including tube and ovary. Rare other sites have been the liver and spleen, giving rise to a hepatic pregnancy or splenic pregnancy, respectively. Even an early diaphragmatic pregnancy has been described in a patient where an embryo began growing on the underside of the diaphragm.

Primary versus secondary implantation
A primary abdominal pregnancy refers to a pregnancy that first implanted directly in the peritoneum, save for the tubes and ovaries; such pregnancies are very rare, only 24 cases having been reported by 2007. Typically an abdominal pregnancy is a secondary implantation which means that it originated from a tubal (less common an ovarian) pregnancy and re-implanted. Other mechanisms for secondary abdominal pregnancy include uterine rupture, rupture of a uterine rudimentary horn and fimbrial abortion.

Diagnosis
Suspicion of an abdominal pregnancy is raised when the fetal anatomy can be easily felt, or the lie is abnormal, the cervix is displaced, or there is failed induction of labor. X-rays can be used to aid diagnosis. Sonography can demonstrate that the pregnancy is outside an empty uterus, there is reduced to no amniotic fluid between the placenta and the fetus, no uterine wall surrounding the fetus, fetal parts are close to the abdominal wall, the fetus has an abnormal lie, the placenta looks abnormal and there is free fluid in the abdomen. MRI has also been used with success to diagnose abdominal pregnancy and plan for surgery. Elevated alpha-fetoprotein levels are another clue of the presence of an abdominal pregnancy.

Ultrasound
Most cases can be diagnosed by ultrasound. The diagnosis however may be missed with ultrasound depending on the operator's skill.

Criteria
To diagnose the rare primary abdominal pregnancy, Studdiford's criteria need to be fulfilled: tubes and ovaries should be normal, there is no abnormal connection (fistula) between the uterus and the abdominal cavity, and the pregnancy is related solely to the peritoneal surface without signs that there was a tubal pregnancy first. Studdiford's criteria were refined in 1968 by Friedrich and Rankin to include microscopic findings.

Differential diagnosis
Depending on gestational age the differential diagnoses for abdominal pregnancy include miscarriage, intrauterine fetal death, placental abruption, an acute abdomen with an intrauterine pregnancy and a fibroid uterus with an intrauterine pregnancy.

Treatment
Ideally the management of abdominal pregnancy should be done by a team that has medical personnel from multiple specialties. Potential treatments consist of surgery with termination of the pregnancy (removal of the fetus) via laparoscopy or laparotomy, use of methotrexate, embolization, and combinations of these. Sapuri and Klufio indicate that conservative treatment is also possible if the following criteria are met: 1. there are no major congenital malformations; 2. the fetus is alive; 3. there is continuous hospitalization in a well-equipped and well-staffed maternity unit which has immediate blood transfusion facilities; 4. there is careful monitoring of maternal and fetal well-being; and 5. placental implantation is in the lower abdomen away from the liver and spleen. The choice is largely dictated by the clinical situation. Generally, treatment is indicated when the diagnosis is made; however, the situation of the advanced abdominal pregnancy is more complicated.

Advanced abdominal pregnancy
Advanced abdominal pregnancy refers to situations where the pregnancy continues past 20 weeks of gestation (versus early abdominal pregnancy < 20 weeks). In those situations, live births have been reported in the lay press where the babies are not uncommonly referred to as 'miracle babies'. A patient may carry a dead fetus but will not go into labor. Over time, the fetus calcifies and becomes a lithopedion.

It is generally recommended to perform a laparotomy when the diagnosis of an abdominal pregnancy is made. However, if the baby is alive and medical support systems are in place, careful watching could be considered to bring the baby to viability. Women with an abdominal pregnancy will not go into labor. Delivery in a case of an advanced abdominal pregnancy will have to be via laparotomy. The survival of the baby is reduced and high perinatal mortality rates between 40% and 95% have been reported.

Babies of abdominal pregnancies are prone to birth defects due to compression in the absence of the uterine wall and the often reduced amount of amniotic fluid surrounding the unborn baby. The rate of malformations and deformations is estimated to be about 21%; typical deformations are facial and cranial asymmetries and joint abnormalities and the most common malformations are limb defects and central nervous malformations.

Once the baby has been delivered placental management becomes an issue. In normal deliveries the contraction of uterus provides a powerful mechanism to control blood loss, however, in an abdominal pregnancy the placenta is located over tissue that cannot contract and attempts of its removal may lead to life-threatening blood loss. Thus blood transfusion is frequent in the management of patients with this kind of pregnancy, with others even using tranexamic acid and recombinant factor VIIa, which both minimize blood loss.

Generally, unless the placenta can be easily tied off or removed, it may be preferable to leave it in place and allow for a natural regression. This process may take several months and can be monitored by clinical examination, checking human chorionic gonadotropin levels and by ultrasound scanning (in particular using doppler ultrasonography. Use of methotrexate to accelerate placental regression is controversial as the large amount of necrotic tissue is a potential site for infection, mifepristone has also be used to promote placental regression. Placental vessels have also been blocked by angiographic embolization. Complications of leaving the placenta can include residual bleeding, infection, bowel obstruction, pre-eclampsia (which may all necessitate further surgery) and failure to breast feed due to placental hormones.

Outcome with abdominal pregnancy can be good for the baby and mother; Lampe described an abdominal pregnancy baby and her mother who were well more than 22 years after surgery.

Epidemiology
About 1.4% of ectopic pregnancies are abdominal, or about 1 out of every 8,000 pregnancies. A report from Nigeria places the frequency in that country at 34 per 100,000 deliveries and a report from Zimbabwe, 11 per 100,000 deliveries. The maternal mortality rate is estimated to be about 5 per 1,000 cases, about seven times the rate for ectopics in general, and about 90 times the rate for a "normal" delivery (1987 US data).

History
Al-Zahrawi (936–1013) is credited with first recognizing abdominal pregnancy which was apparently unknown to Greek and Roman physicians and was not mentioned in the writings of Hippocrates; Jacopo Berengario da Carpi (1460–1530) the Italian physician is credited with the first detailed anatomical description of abdominal pregnancy.

Natural experiment
Because pregnancy is outside the uterus, abdominal pregnancy serves as a model of human male pregnancy or for females who lack a uterus, although such pregnancy would be dangerous. Abdominal pregnancy has served to further clarify the disease pre-eclampsia which was previously thought (1980s) to require a uterus for it to occur, however pre-eclampsia's occurrence in abdominal pregnancy (with the conceptus outside the uterus) helped throw light on pre-eclampsia's etiology. Cases of combined simultaneous abdominal and intrauterine pregnancy have been reported.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Abdominal pregnancy


text:
Talk:Marcus O'Day

I was unable to determine where Dr. O'Day obtained his Ph.D. or other degrees, so there's a bit of a gap in the biography. Hopefully somebody else will have more success. — RJH 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

We need more information
We still need to know where O'Day received his Ph.D. Also note that it is standard Wikipedia policy to use a lone last name in references, and to not use any title. We should refer to him in any case where his full name is not needed just as O'Day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Marcus O'Day


text: User talk:4.251.127.58

title: User talk:4.251.127.58


text:
Talk:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

Original Research
There seems to be various original research claims in here, such as references to letters in the Royal Society archives. These ought really to be references to secondary scholarship. What's going on? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.116.106 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Question
"... printed in the English-speaking world, and was only three months shy of being the oldest [scientific journal] in the world."

The oldest being? —wwoods 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Journal des sçavans apparently. Carcharoth 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * not true. Journal des Scavans was not a science journal! It was a general journal with some science in it. This is extensively documented PointOfPresence (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg
Image:RSTB 362 1479 thumbnail.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing relevant information
There is nothing wrong with the current wording, and things like the journal being the longest running science publication need to be mentioned. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Intention to expand this article
This article is listed as an 'Anniversary article' on Wikimedia UK here: https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Anniversary_articles (for 6 March 2015). As declared in my sig, I do have a COI, but intend to expand this article in the coming months. While I will make every effort (again as per my COI) to observe rules on neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources, it would be great for others to edit/add/improve as they see fit. (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I should also state that I am working on improvements to the article in my userspace at User:Sjanusz/PT (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I will move over a few sections from the draft in my userspace, before possibly closing it (Sjanusz|talk)(COI) 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Copy/paste?

 * I just did some cleanup, mostly bringing the layout in line with WP:MOS. However, some of the line breaks in the middle of sentences give the impression that (part of) this text may be copy/pasted from somewhere else. Anybody knows whether this is the case? --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that. The dubious material was mostly added in January, by Anna M. Gielas, and appears to come from this document. The document has a Creative Commons licence, and the text hasn't been slavishly cut and pasted, but has been used selectively, so it just about scrapes under the wire of WP:COPYVIO; but in my opinion it could certainly do with a bit more paraphrasing and abridgement. GrindtXX (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm The license is "the text in this work is licensed under the creative commons attribution-non commercial-noDerivs 2.0 UK" and this is a derivative work. So I don't this works. It of course needs attributing, and can be quoted, or rephrased as any source. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


text:
Category:Malayan swords

This category is for swords of the Malay tradition. The Malay archipelago, having been colonized, was split into the various countries of Australasia: New Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Philippines, East Timor, southern Thailand.

title: Category:Malayan swords


text:
Jim Hoagland

Jimmie Lee Hoagland (born January 22, 1940) is a Pulitzer prize-winning American journalist. He is a contributing editor to The Washington Post, since 2010, previously serving as an associate editor, senior foreign correspondent, and columnist.

Hoagland is a graduate of the University of South Carolina and attended graduate school at Aix-Marseille University and Columbia University.

He has worked in journalism for over six-decades, beginning as a part-time reporter while a student. Hoagland has served as a foreign correspondent from Africa, France and Lebanon with the Post, and has been awarded two Pulitzer prizes, in 1971 and 1991. He authored one book, based on his coverage in South Africa.

Hoagland is married to novelist, Jane Stanton Hitchcock, and has two children.

Background and education
Jimmie Lee Hoagland, was born in Rock Hill, South Carolina, to parents Lee Roy Hoagland Jr., and Edith Irene Sullivan.

He graduated from the University of South Carolina, in 1961, with his bachelor's in journalism. He attended post graduate programs at both the University of Aix-en-Provence (1961–62) in France and as a Ford Foundation fellow (1968–69) at Columbia University in New York.

He was an Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, (2010–13).

Hoagland served in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Germany, from 1962 to 1964.

Career
Hoagland began working in journalism in 1958, as a part-time reporter for the Rock Hill Evening News while a student.

He worked as a copy editor for The New York Times, from 1964 to 1966, before joining the Washington Post. At the Post, he served as a foreign correspondent, first in Nairobi as a correspondent in Africa, (1969–72) and later in Beirut (1972–75).

In 1976, Hoagland moved to Paris, France where he covered France, Italy and Spain, in his internationally syndicated column, until returning to the United States in 1978.

He is currently (2020) a contributing editor to The Washington Post, since 2010, previously serving as an associate editor, senior foreign correspondent, and columnist for twenty years.

1971 Pulitzer prize
Writing for The Washington Post, Hoagland won the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 1971 "for his coverage of the struggle against apartheid in the Republic of South Africa." Hoagland was banned from Africa for five years for his reporting on South Africa and apartheid. He wrote a book, South Africa: Civilizations in Conflict, published in 1972.

1991 Pulitzer prize
Hoagland continued writing for The Washington Post, in Washington D.C., as a foreign editor and assistant managing editor for foreign news. In 1991 he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary "for searching and prescient columns on events leading up to the Gulf War and on the political problems of Mikhail Gorbachev."

Hoagland wrote the series of columns during the breakup of the Soviet Union; the winning series of stories are listed below.

 * Gorbachev Feels The Heat, January 16, 1990
 * Iraq: Outlaw State, March 29, 1990
 * Soft on Saddam, April 10, 1990
 * Gorbachev's Choices...And a Soviet Food Crisis, April 23, 1990
 * Turning a Blind Eye to Baghdad, July 5, 1990
 * A Real Arab Awakening, August 16, 1990
 * ...And the Tale of a Transcript, September 17, 1990
 * A Quick Rewrite of History, October 7, 1990
 * Gorbachev's Nobel Lifeline, October 16, 1990
 * As Good a Snake-Oil Merchant as There Is, November 13, 1990

Awards

 * 1971 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, "for his coverage of the struggle against apartheid in the Republic of South Africa."
 * 1977 Overseas Press Club Award for Best Interpretation of Foreign Affairs, Daily Newspaper or Wire Service
 * 1991 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, "for searching and prescient columns on events leading up to the Gulf War and on the political problems of Mikhail Gorbachev."
 * 1994 Eugene Meyer Career Achievement Award
 * 2002 Cernobbio-Europa Prize by the editors of seven European newspapers for his international reporting
 * 2017 South Carolina Hall of Fame, in recognition as a distinguished writer, by the University of South Carolina

Quotes
Regarding the War on Terror:
 * "The United States is engaged in a shadow war that must now be the central priority for this president and his administration for every day of his term." -- The Washington Post, 2001

title: Jim Hoagland


text:
Talk:Former countries in Europe after 1815

to be added:
bogdan | Talk 21:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bessarabia - October 1917 - April 1918 (added 31-8-2005, Electionworld 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Principality of Pindo - 1940 - 1947 (added 31-08-2005, Electionworld 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

Also:
 * Principality of Wallachia (up to 1859) (''added 1-9-2005, Electionworld 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Principality of Moldavia (up to 1859) (''added 1-9-2005, Electionworld 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
 * United Romanian Principalities (Principatele Unite Române) (1859 - 1862) -- was something like a confederation, with two governments, one at Bucharest and one at Iaşi, but one Prince (Alexandru Ioan Cuza); in 1862, they were unified in one country with one government. bogdan | Talk 16:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But these were not independent states. Independence was proclaimed in 1877. Electionworld 21:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But unlike Serbia or Greece, they were not Ottoman Empire provinces ("Pashaliks") i.e. they used a Romanian administration. AFAIK, the only thing decided by the Turks was the foreign politics. Anyway, parts of Wallachia were "independent" during the 1821 and the 1848 revolutions. bogdan | Talk 21:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Transnistria (since 1990) - de facto independent, de jure part of Moldova. bogdan | Talk 08:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not (yet) a former country, so as long as it is limited to former countries it shouldn't be listed. Electionworld 11:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. :-) bogdan | Talk 11:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Countries that regained independence
Slovakia was added. This implies that a country is added, that is now independent again. here is no objection to that, but it means that some other entities have to be added (Electionworld 06:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)):
 * Armenia (added 31-8-2005, Electionworld 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Azerbaijan (added 31-8-2005, Electionworld 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Belarus (added 31-8-2005, Electionworld 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Bessarabia, Moldavia = Moldova~(added 31-8-2005 as Moldavia, Electionworld 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * They don't have the same borders. Moldova includes Transnistria (back in 1918 was part of USSR), but does not include Southern Bessarabia (Ismail and Cetatea Albă) and Herţa/Hotin (in North) regions, which are now part of Ukraine. bogdan | Talk 13:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, therefore it is listed as Moldavia and is mentioned that it is partially part of Ukraine. Electionworld 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Croatia (''added 1-9-2005, Electionworld 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Estonia (''added 1-9-2005, Electionworld 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Latvia (''added 1-9-2005, Electionworld 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Lithuania (''added 1-9-2005, Electionworld 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Russian Empire (added 31-8-2005, Electionworld 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Ukraine (added 31-8-2005, Electionworld 22:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC))

This is a very difficult topic (and every single country is a specific case) but basically, WWII Slovakia had nothing in common with the current country, neither legally nor (to a large extent) territorially, besides the name and the language. I suggest adding as much countries as possible...Juro 01:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Plan to include also present-day countries
I plan to add also the present-day countries in the upcoming period. I created therefore a sandbox. When ready, the entry will be renamed into Countries in Europe after 1815.Electionworld 20:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that we need an article like this one. If you want to include present-day countries, make a new article, but don't rename this one. -- Obradović Goran ( t al k  03:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic
Also Bavarian Soviet Republic should be added -- a short-lived revolutionary state. bogdan | Talk 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

...and the Hungarian Soviet Republic and Slovak Soviet Republic Juro 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Bavaria could be added, but not the HSR and SSR, since these were counter-governments, not an attemot for a separate state. Electionworld 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * THe SSR was as much an attempt for a separate state (as the name suggests) as the BSR, the HSR is disputable of course given the complicated circumstances at that time...But I think, the best solution for such lists is to add as much as possible. Juro 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The Munich Soviet Republic was a counter-government as well. Since the article is called "former countries", I would propose to remove them. Str1977 (smile back) 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This should also be added:
Labin Republic

 * Added, however by the above discussion I am unsure if it belongs here... as it could be construed as an anti government resistance. --Dex1337 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

other articles
Are there other lists of former countries? For other continents? For other time periods? Kingturtle (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags
How about having flags here? They would help the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.183.72 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would. For instance, to help distinguish the Principality of Albania from the Kingdom of Albania. --Vaximillian (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Baltic States
I will remove Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from that list, because according to their governments, they never ceased to exist, they were occupied by the Soviets, Nazis and again by Soviets, until they regained their independence in 1991. It is virtually the same as with Denmark that was occupied during World War II, but for ca 50 years. H2ppyme (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the same as that at all. Denmark was invaded by the Nazis; the army immediately surrendered, and an armistice agreement was signed which allowed the Germans to occupy the country until the end of the war.  The Danish government continued to function until 1943, and maintained diplomatic relations with Germany, with which it had never declared war.  The king remained in Copenhagne, and the Germans treated Denmark as an independent state.  In 1943, the government resigned in protest at German policies, but even then direct German rule was not instituted; instead, the permanent department heads from the professional civil service ran the various government departments until the end of the war.  The Baltic situation was entirely different; there the Soviets sent ultimatums, which, following some personnel changes, the governments of those countries accepted.  The Soviets then manipulated the new governments into requesting annexation by the Soviet Union, which was then carried out.  Obviously, this was done under duress and had no moral legitimacy, but, legalistically, there's few similarities here.  The Baltic states were annexed by the Soviet Union following phony elections; Denmark was merely occupied by German troops. john k (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary and Russia after WWI
Which parts of Austria-Hungary were ceded to Russia after WWI? According to my knowledge, the north-eastern part of Austria-Hungary was ceded to Poland and Romania, while the Russian border adjacent to Galizia was unchanged after the war. Please, do provide info on this! --Astor Piazzolla (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 * To clarify, which parts were ceded immediately after WWI? After WWII the eastern tip of Czechoslovakia and the eastern part of Galicia were ceded to Ukraine, but this was 25 years after the Treaty of Trianon.--Astor Piazzolla (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Indeed, no parts of Austria-Hungary went to Russia/the USSR immediately after World War I. Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, and Italy received all Austro-Hungarian territory after the war. john k (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Redone
I have just redone the article and hope I got them all. Now everything is in sort-table columns for easy access to a variety of information instead of only alphabetically. Do not revert this edit! If any countries are missing, and I hope there aren’t any just add them by following the format used in the editing box. If you are not sure how to do it it would be best for you to list them here and I will add them for you as soon as possible.

I hope people like the adjustment and see the benefits of it! Please leave comments about it here so I know if there is anything I should add: maybe a column that has the name of the country in its native language, for example. Vadac (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

German states
It is at least arguable that the German Empire (1871-1918) was a confederation of independent states, rather than a single federal state. Certainly the North German Confederation (1867-1871), its direct predecessor, was viewed as the former, and the constitution of the Empire was based on that of the Confederation. As far as the definitions of statehood go, each kingdom had its own army and its own diplomatic service. The smaller states had somewhat less independence, at least militarily, but Hesse-Darmstadt, for instance, accredited its own diplomatic agents to Russia. It would seem fairly straightforward that Bavaria or Saxony met the standards for the declarative theory of statehood until 1918 or 1919 - they had a defined territory, a population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The fact that these states had diplomatic relations with other states in this period would suggest they fit the constitutive theory of statehood, as well. The independence enjoyed by the various German states between 1867 and 1918 was almost certainly more extensive than that enjoyed by the European microstates, with the possible exception of San Marino. The Weimar Constitution obviously ended this status, and turned Germany more formally into a federal state, but prior to that there is a strong case to be made for the continued existence of the various German states as independent states. john k (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Kaiser era German Empire (1871-1918) was a federation not a confederation 109.192.146.247 (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

a quarrel with the title
The Kingdom of Portugal is a former state. It is not a former country; the country continues. —Tamfang (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Lemko Republic and Komancza Republic
Both the Lemko Republic and Komancza Republic should be added. They were short lived republics between 1918-1919 before being absorbed into both Poland and Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:B45E:92D7:E5EF:C410 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Former countries in Europe after 1815. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101081203/http://www.progenealogists.com/germany/articles/ganatomy.htm to http://www.progenealogists.com/germany/articles/ganatomy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050810012252/http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/ to http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:34, 8 January 2018 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Avars.svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Flag of Abkhazia (18th century).svg

Nazi Germany
why is nazi germany not on this list, said infernal state was snuffed out in '45, was is it not on the dead states list, should i add it? anyone please tell me thank you. Tob 888 II (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)