Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log

This is a log of featured list candidates from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates which failed to reach consensus for promotion as featured lists, with the most recent at the top Discussions about successful nominations are located in the featured log.

Candidacy discussion about failed candidates in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2025.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

List of emperors of the Ming dynasty

Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about list of emperors of the Ming dynasty. I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets all the FL criteria and it is an important part of the series of articles on the topic of the Ming dynasty that I am currently improving. Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Surely this should be a WP:Featured list candidate rather than a WP:Featured article candidate? TompaDompa (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have fixed it. Min968 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Toadspike

Staking out a spot here, if I haven't responded within a week please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• In the late 1620s, a peasant uprising erupted in northern China – link to Late Ming peasant rebellions.
  • Done. Min968 (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• A total of sixteen emperors ruled over China proper for 276 years. During their reign, China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability. Specify that this refers to the Ming dynasty. (Philosophical note: I believe paragraphs and most sentences in the lead should be able to stand on their own, especially since search engine previews tend to take them out of context, so I think making them technically correct is important.)
  • Fixed. Min968 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• continued to rule over the south of the country – I would prefer "continued to rule over southern China". The definition of country is very vague. It's okay that you use the phrase again later in the paragraph.
  • Fixed. Min968 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• To defeat the rebels, the government troops in the north invited the Manchu-led Eight Banner armies of the Qing dynasty to come to the Central Plains. The Manchus then occupied northern China in the same year. "the government troops in the north" – clarify. I think this is a summary of the Battle of Shanhai Pass that could be misleading. Wu Sangui, for better or worse, is seen as a rogue general. The current wording suggests that the Ming government somehow condoned his decision. The use of "invited" is also probably inaccurate, phrasing using "coerced" is probably better. "Eight Banner armies" could be shortened to "Eight Banners", though this is not obligatory. Northern China should be linked. I prefer "that same year" over "in the same year".
  • Fixed. Min968 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• a similar complex in Nanjing should link to Ming Palace.
  • Done. Min968 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• according to the Hongwu Emperor's decision is vague and begs the question "which decision?" I think there's a name for it, it's been a while since I've read about this period but he did set down some kind of constitution/code of conduct for future emperors. Maybe it's the Great Ming Code I'm thinking of.
  • Fixed. Min968 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• the successor to the throne was always the eldest son of the emperor and empress, or his heir if he had none, followed by younger sons of the empress. I'm not sure what you mean by "his heir if he had none". Could you clarify this, please? Does it mean that if the eldest son had a son and died, that grandson would be the successor? Also, something in this section should link to or be replaced with Taizi – probably the first use of "successor" or "heir".
  • Fixed. Min968 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike I have removed some content from the article. In the near future, it may be included in another more suitable article or a new article specifically about the Ming emperors. Min968 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

General point: The lead seems pretty long to me. Some of the content (e.g. "Court and family", "Burial traditions") seems much more suited for the main Emperor of China article or a new Ming emperors article. I don't mind much for now, but in the long run that would be the best move.

More comments as I re-read:

• I don't think the Hongguang Emperor should be listed under "first emperor" in the infobox. (Will explain my reasons if necessary.)
  • I'm not sure if the start of the southern Ming should be in the infobox either, but I'm not super opposed to it. I agree that the last southern Ming emperor and end date of the southern Ming should be included.
• In the lead, I would put the years for the Wanli Emperor immediately after the words "Wanli Emperor", rather than at the end of the sentence.
• "China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability" might be generally true, but it's not like there was always economic growth and political stability. Could you reword this a little? Perhaps add a qualifying term like "generally" or "broadly". The dynastic collapse and Tumu Crisis are obvious exceptions to "political stability", and one could also argue that the Wanli reign was one long political crisis.
• "The emperor of the Ming dynasty, as well as the emperors during the imperial era of China (221 BC – 1912), was known as the "Son of Heaven"" This sentence has a grammar issue (I believe the technical term is subject verb agreement). However, simply switching to "The emperors" and "were known as" would still leave a clunky sentence. And it also misses the fact that Zhou emperors were also called "son of heaven" (天子), even though they were not "emperors" (皇帝) I suggest rewording along the lines of "Following a practice established in the Zhou dynasty [perhaps earlier, you'd have to fact-check this], Ming emperors were known as the "Son of Heaven" (lang-zh template here)."
• I see a "citation needed" tag in an image caption.
  • Done. Min968 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I suggest referring to the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty for formatting, as it recently became and FL itself and is, to me, easier to understand than this list. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Min968, I second what SilverTiger12 said. The formatting should generally match previous FLs unless there is some need to be different. Seeing as List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty is a FL and looks really good, I would convert to that format. Please ping me when you have responded and made the changes, and I will do a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, I have made quite a few revisions not only based on the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty but also of the Song dynasty and of the Han dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The list currently lacks column and row scopes, which are necessary for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Also pinging AirshipJungleman29 in case they're interested in looking this over, as they recently has a related successful nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty/archive1 (though I suspect they may not be interested as this isn't Mongol Empire related). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look, although I'm also interested in why List of emperors of the Ming dynasty by length of reign is a separate article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 In my opinion, cramming all of the information into one article will make it too long and confuse the reader about the main content. It may also dilute the information. Min968 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Added. Min968 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Airship

• The lead outlines the scope of the article, saying that is about the Ming dynasty who ruled between 1368 and 1644. The lists themselves however also include rulers of the Southern Ming, who are not even mentioned in the lead. This discrepancy needs to be resolved, either by removing the southern Ming rulers or by adjusting the lead section.
• "ruled over the whole of China proper spanning 276 years" grammatically this means that China proper spans 276 years, when you presumably meant their rule. That said, seeing as we already have the timeframe, why is the number of years needed?
• "During their reign, China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability." seems far too straightforward a statement for the first paragraph of the lead, see MOS:BEGIN
• "Below is a complete list of the emperors of the Ming dynasty, including their personal, temple, posthumous, and era names." This should not be present, see MOS:THISISALIST.
• "The emperor of the Ming dynasty, as well as the emperors during the imperial era of China (221 BC–1912)" "as well as" is not correct, you're looking for "as part of" or similar.
• Could I ask for a quotation of the source text from citation 5 (Baud-Berthier (2003), pp. 84–85.) that supports most of the third lead paragraph?
• "The Ming emperors resided in the Forbidden City, a 72-hectare complex of palaces and buildings in Beijing. Prior to 1420, the emperors' residence was located in a similar complex in Nanjing." The second sentence disproves the first; you cannot say a statement about all "the Ming emperors" and then immediately contradict it.
• I have tagged an image caption for needing a citation.
• "and drove the Mongols out of China" this could use more elucidation for those who aren't familiar with who "the Mongols" are.
• "As the dynasty progressed, the subsequent emperors lacked the decisiveness of their founder" a tautology with "progressed" and "subsequent", and the emperors themselves didn't have a founder—their dynasty did.
• MOS:THISISALIST also applies to the line at the top of #Posthumously recognized individuals.
• It is not immediately clear what the brackets for the Hongwu Emperors's late era name end date means—it is likely that non-specialists will not understand. Please try to simplify.
• Row scopes are still missing.
• Notes a, b, and c are too far important to the article to be footnotes. They should be dedicated prose in their own section.
• I suspect that the confusion noted above by a couple of reviewers might arise from the excessive columns devoted to names and dates, the habit to bold two different names in each row, and the lack of explanation of who each ruler is. Do the posthumous and temple names really need their own columns, or can they be incorporated in with another column ike I did at List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty? That list and e.g. List of Roman emperors also contain a short summary of each ruler, which would greatly improve the ability of this article to communicate information.
• Might be worth incorporating the "posthumously recognised emperors" in the main list with different shading to indicate their different status, if possible.

Please ping me when you feel you have addressed the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Done somewhat. Min968 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some contention over the list's format I will add my strong preference for the one suggested by Airship. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Just pinging @Min968 to follow up on this review. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• The temple and posthumous names can probably be collapsed for the posthumously recognised emperors, to save space and focus the reader's attention.
  • For the same reason, the last two sentences of Zhu Biao's succession column can be relegated to a note.
• The Hongwu Emperor's succession box doesn't fit.
• "and protected by his imperial guard" at the end of the third lead paragraph is not supported by citations in the lead or body. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done somewhat. Min968 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like they didn't ping you @AirshipJungleman29. @Min968, it'd be helpful if you could clarify what you mean by "done somewhat", as that implies there are parts of the review you didn't implement / address. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, if there was a point you chose not to address, can you add a note underneath it above explaining why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 @Hey man im josh Most of the above points have been revised, and regarding the table, I agree with @Remsense's opinion. Min968 (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  1. We should avoid the use of collapsible lists in their entirety if we can help it. If information needs to be hidden, consider that it should not be here at all.
  2. The use of color added is likewise unnecessary and not accessible—this is something that is best left default, and information should never be communicated with color alone.
  3. I do not think the "life details" column is well-advised. Fundamentally, this is a list, not an article, so we should not bundle paragraphs of prose into a tabular format. If we want paragraphs, we should put them above the tables.
  4. Per color and collapses, we should also avoid the use of small text, or any other text sizes than default if we can help it. The design should generally have as few tweaks and moving parts as possible.

  Min968 (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1. 1) No information needs to be hidden, but for the purposes of meeting FL criterion 5a), it would be best if some was. Two entire columns dedicated to purely honorary names given after death (in addition to probably being UNDUE), is not visually appealing, given the feedback given by non-specialist reviewers above. 2) Again, colour is a viable part of meeting FL criterion 5a), and can be supplemented with other methods for accessibility: for example, at List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty, the regents are both shaded and explicitly identified with ((regency). 3) This is quite frankly nonsense, based on personal preference not the MOS or the FLCR; on the contrary, the latter states "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items" should be used. Also, paragraphs, really?! The longest summary in this version is less than 30 words. 4) Also mostly personal preference, although MOS:SMALL is perhaps some justification. In short, I mostly disagree with the above reasoning, and oppose the promotion of this article as it currently stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

   I respect your opinion. On other points, I can agree with you; however, regarding the table, I fully and strongly support Remsense's opinion. Here, I would also like to sincerely thank @Toadspike for helping me improve this article significantly. Best regards. Min968 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Aza24

I see you too have enjoyed my citations on the list of Chinese monarchs page :) I'll plan to look at this in the next few days. First, some intial thoughts, some perhaps overlapping with Airship to some extent:

• List of emperors of the Ming dynasty by length of reign seems like a needless split that would not survive afd. Surely your main list & timeline essentially covers its content?
• You need to better define the scope of this list. I think you will find it easier to start the list with the Hongwu Emperor; the "earlier" people were basically obscure peasant family of his, of whom practically nothing is known; I'm not surprised the only source you could find was Zhang Tingyu, not really a good enough (recent enough) source, I might add. This is much different than the List of emperors of the Qing dynasty, where earlier rulers were full-fledged leaders in their own right, but even that list seperates the tables.
  • Think of it like this, a reader will look for the first entry in a "list of Ming dynasty emperors" to find the 'first Ming emperor', would it make more sense to say that's the Zhu Bailiu or the Hongwu Emperor is?
  • I would think all four could belong in a note next to Hongwu's name. Perhaps you could link the Chinese pages there so readers have something, i.e. Zhu Bailiu – Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • That may be a little my fault Aza24; I advised merging a separate "posthumously recognised" table with the main one, but I agree that we've ended up with too much emphasis on them, and quite like your suggestion of putting them in a note next to Hongwu's name. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Since this is a more detailed/focused list than the main list of Chinese monarchs, you can afford to include more detail. Specifically, the Life details for Xuande, Chenghua and Hongzhi, for example
• I did not know Qian Haiyue exists but I'm glad he does! – Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hate to do this, but this nomination has been open for more than two months without any supports, so I'm going to have to close it. Feel free to renominate whenever, and consider reaching out to other editors and wikiprojects for reviews if you do. --PresN 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

List of mosques in Hyderabad

Nominator(s): AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have tried to bring it up to standards based on the List of stupas in Nepal article, which is already an FL. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Note that your images need alt text added for accessibility. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• To what extent is this comprehensive and is there selection criteria beyond having an article? It's fair that this is just the notable mosques since all of them here (but the new one) appear historic, but I'm wondering what we may be missing and not many dynamic/incomplete lists get featured.
• I'm thinking this should be nominally expanded to cover all of Telangana even if there aren't others with articles: List of mosques in Jammu and Kashmir and List of mosques in Kerala both have a region-wide scope.
• List of mosques in India and the former of those have a notes/remarks column. As it stands, this list is a very simple table, so without descriptions of the mosques or explanations of significance, I don't think this should be featured.
• Heck, you're comparing this page to the Nepal list, but that one also has coordinates that this lacks.
• And while that national list isn't very high-quality, it doesn't even seem so long that subarticles like this are needed. This definitely needs a lot more information to justify a split, otherwise it fails 3c. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding coordinates and alt text. I'm in favor of expanding the scope to Telangana. The national list is missing a lot of mosques, so I don't know if splitting is justified or not. After how many entries would a list like that generally be split?AmateurHi$torian (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quick comment: Surely in a city with 3,000,000+ Muslims there are more Mosques than on this list. It seems to be missing quite a lot. What was the inclusion criteria for this list? Mattximus (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Only mosques having a Wikipedia article have been included.--AmateurHi$torian (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

AmateurHi$torian a list cannot be comprehensive by only including a select few. Also, please take a look at WP:BOLDLINKAVOID. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In light of comprehensiveness and scope concerns, I'd like to withdraw this. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: - just in case you didn't spot the above.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.