Talk:Ji (polearm)

This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

Types of Ji[edit]

Is it appropriate here to mention the Xiao Shou Ji (Twin shortstaffed halberds)? I know, short question, but. . . CaTigeReptile 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About some weapon classification[edit]

"Yueji" is a present-day created name, no historical document to provide it is be classified to ji.

To Qiushufang:

The Content farm webpage you add is not a reliable sources.So it should be remove. A ISBN number to mean that a exist publication.

About classification.If based on your inference,the iron horse or the seahorse will be classified as a horse ,and the bearcat will be classified as a cat.Obviously they are all wrong.A name is not equal to its classification.

The other present-day name of "Yueji" is "Qimao"(戚鉾,meaning axe-spear),and the appearance of Yueji is very similar to some Yue(鉞).Some translations use halberd to mean Fuyue(斧鉞)[1]. So Yueji should not be classified to ji now.

In addition,the definition of halberd is a kind of long shaft axe, so "axe-halberd" become "axe-long shaft axe", overlying double axe, the name is very inaccurate and absurd.

About "better source needed". Academic sources are not necessary. And academic sources are not "better" than other reliable sources (sometimes maybe worse).Furthermore, you use an incorrect name in reason section.So it should be remove.Ironbolt (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not simply say that it is not only a non-academic source, but I've also failed to find any other source which calls it a "spear". You seem to be bent on terminological pedantism. The object in question, whether you call it a qimao or yueji, is obviously considered and categorized as a ji now. A Google search of either qimao or fuyue turn up little to no results similar to the object in question. In comparison, yueji turns up the most relevant results pertaining to the object at hand. It is obvious that the item is most popularly known as a "yueji" today. Again, this is not an encyclopedia for ancient Chinese but modern people. If they cannot find the object called a "yueji" now, whether are they supposed to find it? Qiushufang (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]