 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This article contains many simplified characters that were simply never on the coins, this basically gives false information. No coin in the history of China read "大中通宝", it always read "大中通寶". 1.54.210.203 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please use Traditional Chinese characters, and Simplified Chinese characters. Traditional Chinese was used on the coinage, while modern Mainland-Chinese readers (except from Hong Kong, and Macau) will use simplified Chinese characters. 58.187.168.230 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone contributing to this page knows which tones to add, and how to add diacritical marks to the Hanyu Pinyin, then please do so. --58.187.168.230 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Literally every Chinese coinage article on Wikipedia up until the Song dynasty isn't just well-sourced, and well-detailed, they're fantastically written, comtain numerous sub-pages basically making themselves into "a detailed encyclopedic wiki within a wiki", and detailed information about every coin, beautiful images in Wikimedia Commons, and every individual coin (right into ever denomination) has their own page, coupled with an army of sources, and an ocean of references. Meanwhile this page is not only ill-referenced, it's badly written, contains almost no illustration, and has very little detail about anything, and seems copied out of a minimalistic guide for Ming dynasty coinage for people who have no interest in learning anything about Ming dynasty coinage, I'll try to add more sources, references, links, and fixes, but as of now this article is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy below the standards of let's say Ancient Chinese coinage. 🙀
Written June 13th, 2017 Hanoi, Viet Nam. --58.187.168.230 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article skims too much over the Ming government coins and goes to Southern Ming rebels too fast, it needs more content on coins issued by the Ming emperors and the contemporary economic conditions. --1.55.196.75 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ming dynasty coinage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}} tag to http://tag.cangdian.com/html/1116/Tag_1116_wz.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I undid this edit because blogs by topic experts are allowed. Gary Ashkenazy is considered to be an expert by Dr. Helen Wang of the British Museum and his Primaltrek website is referenced in a number of academic papers and reference books on the field of Chinese numismatics. Furthermore, "Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" it reads "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.". This website meets the inclusion criteria, just because its URL reads "blog" doesn't mean that it's as unreliable as a non-expert blog. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
