This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
In fact, Nat was the one who twice reverted me without comment, even after I directed him here, so it's rather untoward of him to tell me that I "need" to use the talk page, but all right. Templates are supposed to be concise, but the current "compromise" is far too excessive in its level of detail. In particular:
No other template has the bold/not bold feature; there's really no need for it here.
There's no need, either, for spelling out full titles or putting up italics rather than asterisks for interim functions, or similar flourishes. Keep it simple, you know?
Cuza took power in 1859 as co-prince of Moldavia and Wallachia, and became "Domnitor of Romania" only in 1862. And incidentally, Romania was not an independent state until May 9, 1877 (under Romanian law) or July or so of 1878 (under international law).
If you're going to be pedantically exhaustive, what about the 1927-1930 regency (in fact two distinct entities, since Sărăţeanu replaced Buzdugan when the latter died)? Or the Locotenenţa Domnească of 11 February - 10 May 1866? Or 27-28 September 1914, when, the Throne being vacant, the King's constitutional powers were exercised by "his ministers meeting in council" (art. 86 of the 1866 Constitution)? Or, per art. 81 of the 1923 Constitution and art. 38 of the 1938 Constitution, what about those similar brief intervals on 20 July 1927 and 6 September 1940? Or what about Iliescu? He wasn't elected President until May 20, 1990; before his inauguration some days later, he was President of the FSN Council and then President of the Provisional Council of National Unity.
Yes, for 3½ months in 1947-48 there was an interim committee, then replaced by Parhon alone, but after all, Parhon headed it, so really, there's no special need to mention its other members. And yes, after Groza and Dej died, a couple of guys "headed" Romania for a few days (the real heads being Dej in the first instance and in the second, a competing Apostol-Drăghici-Ceauşescu faction of the PCR, from which the latter emerged triumphant after a couple of days), but again, not that important, not worth cluttering up the template for.
The point is, Romania's heads of state were Cuza, Carol I (domnitori), Ferdinand, Mihai, Carol II, Mihai (Kings), Parhon, Groza, Maurer, Gheorghiu-Dej, Stoica (State Council Presidents), Ceauşescu (State Council President and then just President), Iliescu, Constantinescu, Iliescu, Băsescu, and, if you really insist, Văcăroiu and then Băsescu again (Presidents). Mentioning any other names is overkill; the full details belong in the President of Romania and King of the Romanians articles. Biruitorul (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a well-argued case to me. While at it, just a point of minute detail: when did the Romanian Declaration of Independence occur exactly? Was it May 9 (declaration in Parliament) or 10 (signing by Carol I)? Or perhaps May 21 or 22 (depending on Old Style vs New Style)? Please see my query to Dahn for more on this question, and some context behind it. Turgidson (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
