Talk:Ming dynasty coinage

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.

Numismatics Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Traditional Chinese Vs. Simplified Chinese.

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]

Done ✅

--58.187.168.230 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's 通寶, not 通宝。

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]

Pinyin diacritics.

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]

This article is not up to standards. 🤥

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]

Missing content.

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]

External links modified (February 2018)

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:

When 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expert blogs Vs. non-expert blogs

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]