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 AthensTalk04:29, 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 AthensTalk04:49, 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 AthensTalk04:52, 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
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 AthensTalk12:09, 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.
YobMod12:46, 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 AthensTalk14:22, 22 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 AthensTalk00:12, 27 May 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 AthensTalk00:39, 10 June 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 AthensTalk04:29, 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 AthensTalk04:49, 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 AthensTalk04:52, 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
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 AthensTalk12:09, 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.
YobMod12:46, 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 AthensTalk14:22, 22 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 AthensTalk00:12, 27 May 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 AthensTalk00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)reply