This template is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
@Wengier:, why use the English names for these concepts here? I've literally never seen an English-language source use these names, meaning that this borders on being a neologism invented for Wikipedia simply based on the literal translation. Per "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)", "Where there is an English word or an exonym for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.". In case of "Great Qing Copper Coin" this might even be a more confusing article because it seems like it's the only copper coin issued by the Manchu-led Qing Dynasty, but in reality "Da-Qing Tongbi" is the inscription present on these coins, as far as I'm aware inscriptions are typically romanised and not literally translated. This borders on renaming "Ming Dynasty" to "Light Dynasty", "Yuan Dynasty" to "Primal Dynasty", and "Qing Dynasty" to "Pure Dynasty" because those would be the English translations, I understand that it's slightly more recognisable for the unfamiliar reader, but I also can't think of a single instance where the inscription would be presented in a way that it's not recognisable. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't see that until I had already written the above, I'll respond there when I have time. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. Just hoped to have the discussion in one place instead, especially for Great Qing Copper Coin which did appear to be the focus. --Wengier (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
