Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Han Dynasty

Han Dynasty

Self-nom: I believe this group of articles meet the Featured Topic criteria. Two out of six are Featured Articles (i.e. Han Dynasty and Economy of the Han Dynasty), so that meets the 33% rule. The articles Government, History, Science and technology, and Society and culture are all currently Good Articles. Government of the Han Dynasty is a current featured article candidate, but the outcome of its candidacy for FA status will not affect these articles' candidacy for FT status (according to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria). Besides, it's already got four supports! Lol. I hope you guys approve; this will be my second Chinese dynasty featured topic after Song Dynasty. Like the Song Dynasty FT, this one also has a cool template at the bottom!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE! Government of the Han Dynasty is now a featured article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE! Holy rusted metal, batman! List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a featured list!

7 articles

Science and technology

Society and culture

Emperors

Support - All very well-written and researched articles clearly linked under the topic. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for the support.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly believe that List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty should be included too. Nergaal (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see your concern, but I would like to be consistent with the other featured topic on a Chinese dynasty here. If the Han emperor list article was absolutely essential for this topic, then the Song Dynasty featured topic should have never passed, since there is, after all, a List of Song Emperors. Is there a specific reason why you think it is an obvious gap for this topic?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty up to FL status may take a while as well. If you absolutely insist on the idea (which I hope you don't), I could begin research with this book at my local university library: Chronicle of the Chinese emperors: the reign-by-reign record of the rulers of Imperial China (1998), by Ann Paludan. I hope her book (or some other source I can find online) includes information and the exact Chinese characters for all the personal names, posthumous names, and era names in that article. Otherwise, it will never be featured.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paludan's book seems to be the only useful one at my library in regards to citing sources for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty. I just checked JSTOR a moment ago and there are absolutely no helpful journal articles online in their database. It's the only scholarly online database with relevant history articles that I have access to.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong. This IS a very nice topic, and I congratulate you for getting it together, but I think the emperors consists a fairly noticeable part of the topic. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a Featured List candidate.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - like Nergaal, I think List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty needs including. I also thing that the current Song Dynasty topic is lacking in exactly the same way, and have been considering raising my concerns for a while - I'm sorry I didn't do so before you nominated this topic. When the Song Dynasty topic was promoted, it was on the understanding that List of Song Emperors would be added to the topic as soon as possible. Well a year and a half later and that clearly didn't happen. I think it should happen and hence I oppose here, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could use Paludan's source to cite both the list articles for Han and Song, but that's not going to cut it. A featured list needs more than one source, as you know. And there really isn't anything else available to me (do you know of any useful sources? I sure don't). Plus, I have to state the question one more time: why is a List of Emperors an obvious gap? I've yet to hear a convincing argument for this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are FLs with only one source for the whole list. And along with the sources used to write a lead, it should have n problem passing on that basis. I agree that the Lists of emperors should be included as FLs, or they should have been merged into the List of Chinese monarchs, which seems to redundantly cover the sub-tables completely. YobMod 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 128 KB pre-sourcing, List of Chinese monarchs is too big and more realistically needs splitting down into the (often already existent) articles on the rulers of each dynasty. (Ironically both List of Chinese monarchs and List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty transclude {{Han emperors}} and are hence near-identical on the Han Dynasty) I find it impossible to believe that there are no sources out there for this stuff, otherwise how were not only the list but also all the individual emperor articles written in the first place? Maybe these articles aren't sourced but this is not stuff people are going to make up so sources are surely out there - rst20xx (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You can use only one source? Hmm. I assumed that would be unacceptable, since I figured someone would complain if I used only one source for my article List of Chinese inventions, which is featured. Fair enough. Sometime this weekend I will go to the library and pick up Paludan's book. I hope List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty passes very quickly, otherwise it will sabotage this featured topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I checked out Paludan's book from my library, and intend to cite it in List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as well as List of Song Emperors. I will first submit the former article as a Featured List Candidate, followed by the latter. This may take a while, so hold on to your bootstraps, people. Over and out.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. You could also try asking Nat Krause for what source(s) (s)he used when (s)he originally wrote the Han list - rst20xx (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess would be the online Book of Han and Book of Later Han (in Chinese, no English translations yet), but I could be wrong. I've only been speaking and writing Chinese for three years now, so I'm not entirely fluent yet.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a candidate. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty/archive1. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are moving much slower than I had hoped for. So far there is only one support (and no oppositions) for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as a featured list candidate. I'm not sure how long this is going to take, but I should hope that it doesn't last longer than a week's time to get more supports and a pass for the list article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far it has three supports! Things are looking better. Plus, according to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, any candidate list has to wait at least 10 days before the administrators in charge consider passing or failing it based on supports and oppositions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the list article has five supports. It will certainly pass, and then I can add it to this topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now day number 8 of List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty's candidacy for FL status. It now has six supports. It will pass in just two more days. Then, I can add it to this topic. I can't wait!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's day # 10; the list article could pass its nomination any moment now! It now has 8 supports and is well on its way to being added to this topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VICTORY It passed! List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a featured list!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - congratulations! I am now happy to endorse this topic - rst20xx (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ I know I should have brought this up at the FLC, but is "Emperor of the Han Dynasty" an official title? If not, it should be "List of emperors of the Han Dynasty". C.f. List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire for what I mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, never thought of it that way, but yes you could capitalize "Emperor of the Han Dynasty", because it is in fact a title. For example, Han Wudi is a regnal title derived from huangdi, the Chinese word for emperor, only here we are specifying that it is a Han emperor, and the "huang" part is dropped.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I support. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work by Pericles of Athens —Chris! _ct 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and tweaked the emperors entry a bit. Nergaal (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for their support!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as consensus to promoteYobMod 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]