Talk:Qing dynasty

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

the Manchukuo to Manchukuo in footnote e Noob282 (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I just removed the footnote though, as I do not think it is necessary; ideally this would be explained where appropriate not hidden in a footnote cluttering the already cluttered lead. Remsense ‥ 论 11:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Impossible to link

The format of the page makes it impossible to link to subsections. Why? Is this a purposeful design (for a reason I don't understand) or a mistake that needs repairing? Metokpema (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you rephrase? I have no idea what specifically you're referring to. Remsense ‥ 论 21:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

please correct me if I'm wrong, but your subtitles are sub-sub-subtitles, and cannot be linked per wiki standards. Metokpema (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Military section

I know this article already has a lot written, but should there be a section briefly describing the Qing dynasty military? It's common to have that on other state articles. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The brief section, which appeared under "Government," was removed Here in February 2022, with no explanation. I will restore it, but would be happy to hear any further comment or suggestions for a better way to handle the matter.ch (talk) ch (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that should be restored immediately. Furius (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Done!ch (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Manchu Restoration + Anthem

The lede mentions the Manchu Restoration near the end of the article as a "restoration of the Qing dynasty" (In 1917, it [the Qing dynasty] was briefly restored in an episode known as the Manchu Restoration), but it hardly seems to classify as a restoration of the Qing. "Restorations" when referring to monarchies refer to restorations that had legal effects across the nation and who's monarchs were, at least for a significant amount of time, recognized de-jure or de-facto as the 'leader' of the nation; see the Stuart Restoration, or the Bourbon Restoration.
The Manchu Restoration does not fit any of these. It was a coup localized almost entirely to Beijing which ultimately had no bearing on the political system of the country. It was, at its core, an attempt to restore the Qing dynasty, a fact which is highlighted in the very lede of the mentioned article. It seems to me then that this mention of the Manchu Restoration should be reworded with a highlight that it was an attempt to restore the Qing, or removed entirely.

In addition, the article's exclusion of Cup of Solid Gold also needs to be taken into consideration. I recognize that Remsense has called into question whether or not Gong Jin'ou should be included in the infobox, but the anthem's exclusion from the article outright does not seem to be the right path to take.
We don't simply omit an official national anthem from the infobox, regardless of how long that national anthem was legally 'in force' for- take for example the Beiyang government's page, which lists anthems such as the Song of Five Races Under One Union in its infobox. It seems thus for an official anthem of the Qing dynasty, the very topic of this article, to not be included in the infobox to be strange to me.

Those are the two concerns I had. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

1. You're totally right about the Manchu Restoration, I will fix that.
2. We can (and should responsibly) exclude any piece of information from an infobox that isn't actually important to the subject, and Cup of Solid Gold is pure trivia that should not be taking up space here.

Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This argument that the national anthem of a country is simply 'trivia' makes very little sense to me, especially considering you would then now have to address its usage in other articles, again, such as the Beiyang Government or most modern country pages.

I recognize that the MoS says that "the less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose", but you are missing the point that the information not in the infobox is to be found in the body of the article, and there is no mention of Cup of Solid Gold, or a mention of an anthem anywhere in the article; which means that we have removed information from the infobox, only to then not include it in the main body.

I, of course, am not advocating for adding more to this article. It very clearly is in need of trimming down and being reworked, and adding a section about the national anthem to the body of the article simply bloats the article more, and is generally against established traditions here. This is what the infobox is for.

There will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information may be placed in the infobox, but is difficult to integrate into the body text.

The examples given here are ISO 639 and most of the parameters in Chembox. Do you need to know the ISO codes (or other language codes) of Georgian or Italian or whatever other language it is you're looking up on Wikipedia? Generally speaking, no; but it stays there anyway because it is a piece of specialised information that serves a purpose deemed notable enough for its inclusion in almost every language article.

I know I am repeating myself here, but I feel that I must repeat the point that there's really no established norm here on Wikipedia to remove the national anthem from the infobox, and your justification for its removal (in my opinion) is not strong.

It would probably be best here to bring in another editor to resolve this, though I do not want to do that, as I believe that the inclusion of something such as a national anthem is not deserving of any further discussion like this. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about this article, not any other (cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT). Unfortunately, there are more poorly designed infoboxes than ones that abide by best principles; you're free to help me out and remove irrelevant anthems elsewhere. Again, the established norm is WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, where we don't presume fields should have to be filled as a default, and generally do not unless they are key facts about a topic. I'm well aware of the exceptions given, but this is not some technical code, but rather a large audiovisual block of space suggesting cultural importance that is in no way actually deserved, even for its technical period of two years at the very end of a three-century-old state. Its presence at the top of the article in any form is an undue suggestion of its importance.

If one wants to spend 30 minutes learning about the Qing, they should not be made aware of "Cup of Solid Gold", which is not nearly important enough to be privileged in that span of time. If one wants to gaze in awe at an endless table of trivia, they should consider browsing Wikidata instead.Remsense ‥ 论 05:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a strange use of OTHERCONTENT, considering my point was not to illustrate that a single article follows the method of having a national anthem in the infobox, but that nearly every single article where a country has an anthem indeed has such in the infobox.

I very much know what the infobox's purpose is, so again, by removing information from the infobox that you are not then supplying in the body of the text.

Be a man of your word; bring up this idea of 'irrelevant anthems' to the talk pages of countries like Germany or Italy or Canada. I'm quite certain that the editors there will quite warmly receive your views. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure at all what the point you're making in the last sentence is. Again, those are different articles, and I'm talking about this article. If you made some greater point by gesturing to another article and saying "look, it's even here!", then I didn't catch it. Random editors add cruft and bloat to infoboxes all the time because they see vaguely similar content elsewhere and hysterically shove the square peg into every round hole they can find—it's done a lot of damage we're going to be cleaning up forever—so pointing to the results of that is not a compelling argument in the slightest. You're free to start an RFC if you want to establish a greater consensus here. Remsense ‥ 论 05:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)