Template talk:History of Mongolia
Now I see that the name "Mongolia" here is used in a rather confusing way considering its contents. Exactly what "Mongolia" refers to here, as a geographic region corresponding to the location of modern Mongolia (similar to Manchuria), Greater Mongolia (including both Inner and Outer Mongolia, and a part of Russia), the modern state of Mongolia, or regions ever ruled by Mongols (e.g. during 13th century)? There should be no nationalism here, but it seems that the usage here is indeed very problematic and should be somehow fixed. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm trying to make the pre-modern period a geographic concept (related to the region of Greater Mongolia). This should somehow help reduce confusions and nationalism (but not yet eliminate them, due to issues regarding Inner/Outer Mongolia etc). For other Mongol regimes (e.g. Golden Horde) there is already a History of the Mongols template. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is trying to act very good and trust each another, and Wikipedia should be a friendly place. Communication is supposed to be the means to get it to work better. Thanks. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not local (e.g. Mongol) wiki. Just see exactly who is the one to be careless in WP these years. Like everyone else I also have my own interests, besides maintaining the quality of (certain parts of) Wikipedia in spare time. Try to communicate directly whenever possible. but as proved no one may go everywhere and fix everyone's work, but should have good faith and care about his/her own work and help maintain the quality of Wikipedia. No communication, then no cooperation. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
What are you doing here again? I'm simply trying to fix your "mistakes" for article quality and convention etc. Do you want me to fix them then? Certainly I could standby and do other stuff instead, but since I do admit I had problems too (but certainly less than yours), I made some effort here. Actually I'm trying to focus on quality or help on fixing, but not that I should be the (only) one to fix them. You said "don't take it personally", but what are you doing here then? (BTW, you added a lot of Mongolian transcriptions, why can't I add a single other transcription? In fact it should be placed in front, but I did not. Are you trying to incorrectly guess others' intention again? Just see what you were doing these years. Also don't forget you are the one who made mistakes to others first, not the other way around. BTW: I was originally only interested in Yuan, not Northern Yuan; some Chinese wiki like Baidu Baike did extend Mongol Empire into Northern Yuan (until 1635, see e.g. here), but that's not the mainstream convention; in other words, there is no universal standard among Chinese; never think there is a single Chinese view; the view I was holding was similar to one of these views, but not exactly identical to any of them, as I was looking for other materials like seals etc [which are certainly unknown to most Chinese people]) Deleted due to not strictly on-topic. --Chinyin (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- You, don't know your change is not faith. I'm trying to make by geographic concept. Please don't undo. If you don't know Mongols in 15th century, you mustn't any complaint this.--MongolWiki (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The version (before I undid) containing Golden Horde, Ilkhanate etc is certainly not a geographic concept as you said. Maybe there was some other issue in my own change, but the version I was undoing was certainly not good. Your new version may be better than your previous version, but still has problems, such as common name and other convention etc. (for example, if it is already a geographic concept, then what does "Post-imperial period" mean? Does it mean e.g. "Post-imperial Qing period"?) Furthermore, you are acting rude claiming other's change is not faith or may not know Mongols in 15th century, but I don't want to say more about this here, as I have aware that this is not a user talk page, even though probably few people actually watching here, but anyway, there are still other issues worth consideration. --Chinyin (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Although Mongolia is indeed usually a geographic concept (for pre-modern era) in English, it seems somehow weird to speak of the term straight for period before Mongols even showed up in the region. After all, the term still have some degree of associations with the Mongol people or nation, usually considered to be established in the early 13th century, or may be back extend to Khamag Mongols. An example is the article title Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia instead of Mongolia during Tang rule. I think we'd better follow the typical English usage for the term and "pre-Mongol period" is probably more appropriate for earlier history.. --Chinyin (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop changing the width, I've put it at 208px for two reasons:
- This way content in the two columns doesn't overlap (Democratic Revolution on the left side and 1990–present on the right side, the next column down, for example)
- This way it's the same width as Template:History of China, which appears immediately above or below it in several pages.
Pre-Mongol period is wrong term, changed to "Ancient".
We Mongols use term "ancient","ancient states' period", "ancient Mongolian states", 'ancient period" but never use term "pre-mongol".Many nations' ancient name were bit different from mediaval and modern name, for example:Slavs and Turkic people.Any ethnicity of world divides into local language dialects and tribes, Xiongnus and Xianbeis were different tribes of Mongols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- In the English world it is usually use the term "Mongols" to refer to the people that emerged in the 13th century. Calling Xiongnu, Xianbei, or the rulers of the Liao Dynasty (Khitan) as "Mongols" may seem anachronistic. Pre-Mongol period should be fine in this sense, but Ancient probably works too. Cheers! --Chinyin (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)