Talk:Qing dynasty coinage

About deleting part of the content

I found this article is too long, and there are a lot of blogs or store references.So I deleted the blog or store reference that I can notice.I also deleted part of the content to avoid the article is too long, you can link and read through {{main}}{{seealso}}. Rastinition (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I found another problem.If I use Ctrl+F, and then enter [12] or [15], I will see that there are over than 1 hundred paragraphs using the same source, which is a terrifying number. I think this may be a problem. If no one has an idea, I will delete a part after I am sure what to do.--Rastinition (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if the length really was an issue as sections exist and I was working on splitting this article in like a dozen articles but due to real world responsibilities I haven't had much time for Wikipedia. Regarding the blogs, in many cases these blogs themselves reference reliable sources that I don't have access to but in general sources should be individually evaluated and not just thrown out because of the medium it is published in. As for the usage of a single source for lots of content, that isn't an issue. These things are only issues if you make them so, perhaps it would be better to split the article rather than just removing information for the sake of making an article shorter.

Regarding "WP:BLOGS" it reads "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" which Gary Ashkenazy is as he is described as an expert by numerous other authors like Dr. Helen Wang. Simply removing content for the sake of removing content doesn't really add anything, I can agree that some of those Chinese blogs should have been removed but wanting the article to be shorter because it is "too long" is a bit absurd, you can always split it into things like "History of Qing dynasty monetary policy" or something like that. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

In many cases sections about the subjects existed on this article because the separate articles were written. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Too long causes computer crashes when editing on a computer or mobile phone, and this is trouble for other editors.At least I can be sure that the editing is difficult to complete when the computer crashes.
2. Too long makes it difficult for readers to find the point.Especially when there are many titles.If there are no errors on my screen, the title template will occupy at least 1 page when printed.
3. I know you said that the author is credible, but whether the publisher is credible is also important, because an unreliable publisher may forge the author or content.

PS 1:Some pages are too long and cause computer crashs when reading.

PS 2:I'm not sure if you want to copy all the relevant content, because from the editing history I found that you seem to copy a lot of content from other pages.And I found that you seem to like to use content farms or blogs as sources.--Rastinition (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the filter history, you often use deprecated or other unreliable sources and have been warned multiple times.I suggest you use uncontroversial and reliable sources.No one told you that use self-published,deprecated source, blog or content from is a bad habit?

• 05:54, 1 October 2021: Donald Trung (talk | contribs) triggered filter 1,045, performing the action "edit" on House of Nguyễn Phúc. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Self-published (blog / web host)
• 20:50, 5 September 2021: Donald Trung (talk | contribs) triggered filter 869, performing the action "edit" on List of flags of Vietnam. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Adding deprecated source to articles
• 20:24, 18 February 2020: Donald Trung (talk | contribs) triggered filter 894, performing the action "edit" on Bingqian. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Self-Published Sources Rastinition (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of Chinese news sources were recently deprecated due to the fact that some users wanted to blanket ban them because of a lack of political independence, the reliability of a source is subjective and should be individually assessed. In case of the Vietnamese flag list article having a contemporary photograph of a historical flag to source its existence is enough regardless of where that image is from. Perhaps you should actually read the policies you purport to be enforcing. The deprecation of Chinese news sources that occurred also meant that a lot of Chinese content simply couldn't be reported on using most Chinese newspapers meaning that oftentimes no good alternatives were available. --Donald Trung (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

In short

1. This page is too long. This has caused trouble for readers and editors, such as computer crashes.
2. If you can't use any reliable sources, don't add any source.
3. If you want to unban some sources, you should discuss in WP:RSN. Not here.
4. You can use WP:RX to find sources.--Rastinition (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Addressing #1 (number one), "This page is too long. This has caused trouble for readers and editors, such as computer crashes." You seem to be unable to use sections, all sections were short enough to be understandable for reasons and the "Main article" and "See also" links go to more in-depth pages. Articles like "History of China" are also long, if we'd apply your logic here that article would be an empty listicle filled with "see also" sections and nothing more. Wikipedia is written for the readers and editors can simply click on sections to edit. The only reason I can think of how you came to this conclusion is because you seemed to want to remove some deprecated sources and were too lazy to edit section-by-section, there was no issue with the article length.

Addressing the other claims, you seem to quote policies that you don't seem to understand. There is a difference between blogs written by experts and other self-published sources by reliable figures in a field and content published by non-experts. Among the self-published sources here 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, David Hartill is an award winning researcher associated with the Royal Numismatic Society and his works are considered to be the benchmark in the field of Oriental numismatics, Ulrich Theobald is considered to be one of Germany's top experts on Chinese history, and Andrew West's BabelStone blog (who is a user here named "BabelStone") is also considered to be a leading work on Chinese linguistics by various sources including the British Museum. Per "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.". But going over your filter log you seem to hit the trigger for removing references a lot which would not have been an issue if you would be capable of actually assessing which self-published source is reliable and which one isn't but going over your contributions I haven't found a single content addition and only removals, including this AfD where you wrote "It takes a lot of time and energy to eliminate those problems, which seems to be unworthy for us." Meaning that you are unwilling to actually assess or do the effort to improve articles. Yes, KKNews is a bad source, it presented itself as a news website but contained many articles that contained claims without editorial oversight, this doesn't mean that all and every self-published source falls under it. Regarding deprecated sources, there is nothing to discuss there is it is already policy that deprecated sources should only be removed on a case-by-case basis. That some users think that the Global Times should never be used for any fact because of its political propaganda doesn't mean that it should be removed when it makes uncontroversial claims about archeological finds in China.

Removing entire sections for the sake of reducing article length doesn't improve the article and borders on actual vandalism, if someone would randomly remove the "Shang dynasty" section from the "History of China" article then it would immediately be identified as vandalism, right now the article includes sections about some Manchu Qing Dynasty cash coins but then immediately jumps to another one without explaining the developments in the middle, to the average reader it just reads messy. Large topics tend to have large articles. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You may not have seen Page(s) Unresponsive when editing this page, but I have seen it when editing this page.I think you may not believe this. But it is true. The problem will be more serious when editing on a mobile phone.I don’t think you understand, not everyone can use more expensive computers to edit like you. Rastinition (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I exclusively edit from a mobile telephone, so please tell me how this article is different from "History of China" or other articles of similar size? --Donald Trung (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess you use apple, I use a model similar to Samsung A52, but I haven't used that phone to log in.I guess we are discussing the Minimum Requirements for long pages.If you are rich enough, you can keep trying to find Minimum Requirements, but it didn't improve anything. There is another problem ,Minimum Requirements will increase the editing limit. Ask a question, do you use the web for editing? Or use the app? Rastinition (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that you think my editings are not good faith, and you seem to be tracking my editors in the cross-wiki project, then I think you are actually taking revenge or attacking me.In order to avoid your revenge or attack, I will avoid contact with you.Refer to the history of https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donald_Trung&oldid=18527018, reducing contact with you may reduce my troubles--Rastinition (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I use a cheap phone, it cost € 80,- You seem to assume bad faith simply for hitting a filter log which you seem to have done many times, my issue with you is that you seem to be on a crusade to remove references you perceive as unreliable without doing further research. Furthermore, I saw that you tag established articles as speedy deletion causing me to think that you don't understand the policies you often link to. Importing issues from another Wikimedia wiki doesn't reflect good on you, as you brought up me supposedly adding unreliable sources I returned the favour by showing your filter triggers. If a blog contains an old newspaper article that is otherwise not online then having a link to that through a blog increases verifiability, this is a basic concept that you seem to miss. Your cuts here border on vandalism, would you equally cut the much larger "History of China" article based on its article size? --Donald Trung (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't answer hypothetical questions.I will not read or edit that page just because you ask me hypothetical questions.Confirm one thing, did you answer "do you use the web for editing? Or use the app?"? There is nothing else I can talk to you,because we are already arguing with emotions.And I found that my typing errors are getting more and more, like the word ""because"" is missing a b. Rastinition (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally use the web, it is not my intention to be argumentative towards you or make you feel bad. I prefer to be collegial with other editors and I will admit that my emotions are also getting the best of me. My issue is simply with the fact that sections can edited which are much smaller and cause less issues with browsers. Wikipedia is first and foremost for the readers and presenting half information isn't beneficial to them. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My idea is that the part of the page with {{main}} that we could keep {{main}} only, because we can link to the details through {{main}}.

If {{seealso}} links to the details, we could keep {{seealso}} only.Especially when the contents of the two pages are exactly the same.

If you disagree, I guess there are many pages with a lot of duplicate content, which is not a good phenomenon.Because repeated content is not necessary, you can say that a lot of repeated content makes the page complete, but it makes the page unfocused and trivial.Anyway, I don't want to interfere with you, unless the filter action "warn" is triggered.I think my response should be complete and there is nothing to add.At least when warn appears, the system will give you one more chance to check. If you do not check, the saving time will be the same as the warning time. Rastinition (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated content often means that it could be expanded in one or the other article, for example more information about Qing Dynasty-specific information here but more general information elsewhere, in many cases the information here was simply an epitome of the linked article so the information serves a different purpose in different articles, which again is no different from how it's done in other articles that overview a broad topic that contains many sub-topics. Completely deferring to a sub-topic's dedicated page distracts from the narrative of an overview page, so an epitome of information found elsewhere is found here. For example the list of inscriptions is only of the Qing Dynasty and the section contained a bit more information about the Qing Dynasty specifically than the linked article. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It means that duplicate content should be reserved for other content that may be added in the future that is different from the link?

So back to this proposition, is it really necessary? There is no correct answer.But if other content that may be added in the future that is different from the link also appear in the link,multiple related pages may become fatter and fatter.Because they paste, link, cut or refer to each other.

(A had B , B had C , → C paste to B → B paste to A → A add some info about B or C. → A paste to B or C)Finally, is it better to merge A,B,C or split into A,B,C? Because the difference between A,B,C is getting smaller and smaller. I don't know if you know what I mean, but I guess we may have to decide to merge or split in the future. Rastinition (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the two sources you complained about at the beginning of the thread are two academic sources, so you seem to complain about self-published sources by experts but also about peer reviewed sources by experts. User "Zanhe" who regularly wrote Did You Know's also used Ulrich Theobald and Xun Yan is considered to be one of the leading experts in Qing Dynasty monetary policy. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is way too long. History of China may be just as long, but that means nothing: this involves one material and financial aspect of one dynasty which took up a relatively small part of the history of China. And the sourcing--well, there's this, and this hobbyist website, and this, and we should not be citing such websites. Donald Trung, we know you love coins, but this is too much. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Art-Hanoi hosts Toda's book, Primaltrek is written by a known expert, Gxseries is used for the mints which the website illustrates, note that at the time I didn't have access to any books that list the mints of modern machine coinage. Feel free to improve it, again I was working on splitting this article but hadn't find the time for it yet as I wanted to split the various periods. I am not against anyone improving this article, the subject is extensive covered at at the Zh-wiki it is composed of a few dozen articles, I hope to be splitting it this year when I'll find the time.

Websites should be used on a case-by-case basis and while I wouldn't use a Sinologist for Japanese coins and vice versa, websites can also host other sources and it's better to link to accessible sources than just cite a book only a few can read, as with the 1900 book which is partially hosted on a WordPress site. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WordPress link

The linked WordPress website hosts passages from a contemporary book by a British woman who visited the Manchu Qing Dynasty and described its coinage and how it was carried. Such usage of blogs is permitted. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Rastinition:, did you even read this or do you think that edit filters are holy? There is a reason why WordPress isn't blacklisted and that is because tags exist for human review, not for automatic reverting. You need to understand policies before you pretend to enforce them. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  I am in User talk:Donald Trung since 22:40. So i don't make the same reply here. Rastinition (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Copied from http://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donald_Trung&oldid=1065772849

I noticed that you seem to edit 2 times when 22:44, 5 January 2022.Because I was editing your talk page a little while ago, and I just noticed at 22:51. Rastinition (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm always signed in, what are you even talking about? --Donald Trung (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel it very strange why can be at the same time.

• 22:44, 5 January 2022‎ 68.193.199.8  137,966 bytes −72,978‎  Undid revision 1063973994 by Donald Trung (talk) updated since your last visit
• 22:44, 5 January 2022‎ Donald Trung contribs‎  210,944 bytes +72,978‎  Undid revision 1063972887 by Rastinition (talk). Read the edit summary, the WordPress source hosts a rare 1900 book. If you can't differentiate between good self-published sources and bad ones you shouldn't make it your hobby to remove them. updated since your last visit Rastinition (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't live in The Bronx, haven't been there in 11 (eleven) years either. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I don't want to travel to The Bronx, I am not interested in this.

I am curious just because the time is the same. But looking up the IP's edit records, I guess he may not have good faith assumptions about you? Rastinition (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'm off to sleep here, I will likely reply in two days as my vacation is over and I'll be travelling, I will probably come with a more detailed reply then and I'll check the other sources and come with a reason for why they should be included if you insist on a case-by-case justification by me for every one of them. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If I do not object to your explanation (including no comment or no response) within 13 hours, you can insert those parts that you have already explained. Rastinition (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I use a specific desktop computer to log in, I won't have any activity when I don't use this desktop computer.This is why I set 13 hours.

But if I travel, the computer breaks down, or other reasons make me unable to use this computer,, maybe you will not see me for a few days, weeks, or months.

Because I did not record the password, if I log out for some reason, I will lose access to this account forever, and I have not bound email. Rastinition (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rastinition: Regarding the removed content from this edit I'll note why both the content and its sources should be included in sections below.

Concerning the self-published sources.

In general old Chinese coinages is a niche subject outside of China (and to some extent Japan) and non-Chinese works covering it is usually done by a small number of experts.

Regarding otherwise untrustworthy sources, the inclusion of the China Ancient Coins Collection Blog (中國古錢集藏網誌) in the Jurchen Later Jin Dynasty is to source the inscriptions as the website contains images of cash coins, as you can see I added it a day before I had found a better (academic) source there. In other contexts where this source is used is also mostly because of the images on its website that illustrate these cash coins, not any facts related to the cash coins themselves. Later the website Numista is cited, while Numista's catalogue is user generated, its list of Chinese cash coins was made by an expert based on Chinese sources. You also removed a quote from the Baidu Library, but this quote was from a contemporary document uploaded by a user, this is no different than quoting the Wikisource library for an original source document, which is a good usage of UGC as someone else had already pointed out to you. Artron is also another auction website mostly used for the confirmation of inscriptions, note that auction websites are known to authenticate the items in their stock and can be used for the authentication of certain inscriptions.

Regarding the other sources, namely Primaltrek, Ulrich Theobald, and David Hartill, well I have pointed out before that Primaltrek has been noted as reliable by the British Museum, Gary Ashkenazy has previously been published by the University of Arizona, both Primaltrek and his blog have been used by The Numismatic Bibliomania Society (NBS), the Royal Numismatic Society, among others. Most of the blog translates from and / or reports on Chinese news articles and rarely includes original thoughts by the author himself and in cases he leaves commentary this isn't used to back up facts. In the few cases when Ashkenazy has been wrong I have backed these corrections up with other sources. Regarding Ulrich Theobald (田宇利), he is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Chinese Studies of the University of Tübingen, he is generally considered to be one of the leading experts of Chinese history outside of China. David Hartill is probably one of the more heavier used sources for Chinese dynastic numismatic articles and while over the years people have noted how he self-publishes he is an award-winning writer at the Royal Numismatic Society and while he previously published with them he opted to self-publish. According to him he self-publishes because most publishers say that Western / Anglophone audiences aren't interested in East Asian numismatic books, his catalogue numbers are the de facto standard for Anglophone publications (including academic articles) on cast Chinese coinages and his books are generally regarded to be the standard (reliable) works on pre-modern Chinese coinages.

None of the sources used were randomly selected.

Also, regarding Art-Hanoi, Sema is considered to be one of the leading American experts of modern Vietnamese currency and published together with Howard A. Daniel, III. Also, the Art-Hanoi website hosts articles by François Thierry and Eduardo Toda y Güell for pre-modern Vietnamese coinages and the Qianlong Tongbao issued for Vietnam is mentioned in Toda's account of this inscription. Again, like with Wikisource this is a (largely) reliable book hosted online.

Concerning the content and its layout.

Most of the removed content was first here before being used as the basis for other articles, this doesn't mean that the content has to be identical. Regarding the inscriptions you removed, well they were in the history section and were short summations of these periods, the Qianlong Tongbao inscription was used until the Xinhai Revolution and it was explained in the text way, the Kangxi Tongbao was also the moment when Manchu Qing Dynasty cash coins got their distinctive look due to an altered metallurgical composition, which was explained in the removed section. The Xianfeng and inflation section explains why Manchu Qing Dynasty coinage changed so radically after the 1860's, while it's used in another article in this article it shows the readers exactly how this change occurred. The list of Manchu Qing Dynasty cash coins is an overseeable list of inscriptions, the full list article is about every Chinese cash coin issued until 1912, but this list is specifically about the Qing, if lists could be transcluded it might be a better solution but a more detailed list could be used here, as I wanted to include more details here, but again didn't have the time for it yet.

The same with the other specialised sections, they are specific to the Qing. For example the vault protector coin article also talks about other periods in Chinese history while this one isolates the one issued by the Manchu government. The silver coinages that circulated during the Qing were also summed up here, this article is largely "an overview" containing short summations of periods and coinage types while more details are in other articles, most of the repeated content is just short content here. Regarding Tibet, a reader now has to go through the entire monetary history of Tibet before Communist annexation instead of finding Qing period coins in the Qing period coins article, this doesn't really make much sense to do. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Response layout.

1. Forms or lists may be available.
2. The text content can be copied,when it can briefly show the point., but the reference doesn't need to be copied.
3. When there is too much content to be copied, rewriting should replace copying, and reducing content by rewriting can make everyone quickly find the point.When rewriting, reference should be copied from {{main}} or {{seealso}}. Rastinition (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding 2 (two), internal links aren't references and content should best be verified as every article is a standalone article about a subject and regarding 3 (three) the content was usually originally at the overview article and spin-off (split) after another article was made. If re-writing is better then why didn't you re-write it rather than blanket blank the texts? --Donald Trung (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

1. I think the duplicate content only needs to be read from {{main}}.I think there is no need to copy at all in the beginning.
2. Since you think those should be copied,so I offer 3 2 ideas that might work.When the copied content is exactly the same as {{main}}, it is redundant to copy the reference at the same time. Rastinition (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Usually when copying the copied content is "the skeleton work" from which expansions could be "fleshed out", in case of the list of inscriptions more detailed could be added to the dynastic article's list (as I was planning). Unreferenced sentences are always a bad idea, even if the reference could be found somewhere else, unless it's for something that is entirely uncontroversial and well known to new readers. People want to be able to verify what the text they are reading says and not have to "hunt" for references in another page. Removing references simply for the sake of removing them isn't a good idea if they are otherwise acceptable for the things they are used to verify. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I <s></s> part of 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) and 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC). But if you want to copy too much, I think you should rewrite it to avoid being too long, trivial and losing the point.--Rastinition (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

In most cases the removed sections were relative short and only included a summed up version of the information found elsewhere, more comparable to the lead section than the bodies of the articles linked to. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against copying when copying can briefly show the point.--Rastinition (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rastinition:, The reasoning still doesn't make much sense to me, simply because the information (which more than often is an excerpt) is a summation or coverage of the Qing relevant passages. In case of the Tibetan coinage it is from the Qing period, in case of the Qianlong Tongbao it is a short summation. If we look at the "History of China" article most the content is perhaps written different from its main pages but still the same points come across, the goal of an article is to give the reader a good overview of a subject is about and "main" article links are for more details and "see also" links for related subjects, these links are further reading not substitutes for content. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy content should briefly show the point, further reading can use "main" links and "see also" links. Rastinition (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

But your "solution" seems to show no content and only a link, even if the previous content was only a paragraph long. I fail to see how this is somehow better for the readers. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can't understand what I mean, then I re-list 2 solutions.If you only ask my personal wishes(not relevant to the solution), I will only put "main" links and "see also" links.

1. Copy content should briefly show the point, further reading can use "main" links and "see also" links.
2. If copy can't briefly show the point, you can rewrite it. Rastinition (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Still, only a few sections can be described as such, namely the iron cash coins and East Turkestani cash coins, the others were sufficiently short. As you admitted yourself most of your cuts were because you found the article "too long", duplicate information is only an issue if it's excessive, not when it's relevant. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't comment on how you explain me, all I can agree is that if you want to put back what you want to add yourself, please sort it out with tabulation.If there is no tabulation in the link, please rewrite it to tabulation yourself.If you need a lot of bunk to express all you need to express, I think tabulation can help you briefly show the point.

If you want to explain what I think about being too long, you can see Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues. Rastinition (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Which clearly states that there are times when a long article is unavoidable, which is especially true for the coinage of the last dynasty in Chinese history, which due to existing in the modern age had the most well documented and most changing coinage in Chinese history (though I am planning on covering the equally complex coinage system of the early Republic of China in the future). Furthermore, the Manchu Qing Dynasty extended beyond China proper and included Tibet and Xinjiang which all had their own native coinage traditions which are relevant for the readers and to understand how these developed during this period. Article size should be representative of the content of the subject matter, shrinking for the sake of shrinking doesn't help. And the sections were largely short enough to keep readability optimal for the readers (as sections should be). --Donald Trung (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not point You should not stress China's territorial legitimacy through this article.It doesn't change the territorial issue whether you put it or not.I can't understand why you emphasize Xinjiang and Tibet.I don't care about your opinion on whether Xinjiang or Tibet is Chinese territory, and I don't want to understand.

Back to the point,the point has always been to show the point.Too short is hard to understand, too long is hard to read.So I say if you need a lot of bunk to express all you need to express ,tabulation can help you briefly show the point.At least through tabulation we don't have to focus on issues that are too long or too short.--Rastinition (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What does claims to Xinjiang and Tibet have anything to do with the fact that they were a part of the Manchu Qing Dynasty? "I don't care about your opinion on whether Xinjiang or Tibet is Chinese territory, and I don't want to understand." I think that you just don't want to understand what I write and deliberately misinterpret what is written in "Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues" without ever addressing any of the points I raise so you mention Tibet and Xinjiang being supposed "Chinese" territory even though the discussion is clearly about the Qing. Are you denying history because of modern issues? POV pushing is against Wikipedia's mission. Not sure what you're even trying to say here, are you claiming that Xinjiang and Tibet weren't ever administered by the Manchu Qing Dynasty (linking to the article so you could read it) so their coinages aren't exactly irrelevant during the period they were a part of the Qing.

Again, all the sections were sufficiently short enough and separated enough for the readers to understand the different topics during different periods and the differet types of coinages, removing large sections takes away from the chronology making reading more difficult. This is why removing information purely for the sake of removing it is a bad idea. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

1. There is some problems with heading. 2nd level heading history that is a classification.Everything related to history in the article should be included in this 2nd level heading. In fact, because some content copies 2nd level heading history of other pages,the history classification didn't work.
2. I noticed 2nd level heading *** coinage has historiy classification through 3nd level heading. And these contents have not been merged to 2nd level heading history.
3. About 2nd level heading *** coinage ,*** coins or *** coins ***,they should be changed to 3nd level heading.And they(including ) should be merge to 2nd level heading Coinage or Coins.
4. I has nothing to do with 2nd level heading Mint marks It's fine.
5. This article can use other regions as 2nd level heading, including Foreign silver "dollars" circulating in the Qing dynasty, Xinjiang, Tibet.But since most of these are copy-pasted, it can be completely replaced with the See also link, or this can use See also as 2nd level heading.And See also this 2nd level heading already exists and can be merged completely.

Since I only pay attention to the duplicate content copied from other links before, I simply check the layout this time.I feel that some of the content of this article is that some editors just copy and paste what they want, and only want to copy it completely. They just copy and paste without thinking about the layout of the article.

• We can imagine.The title of the article is Novel, in order to complete this article, some people have posted parts of Harry Potter, some people have posted parts of the Lord of the Rings, and some people have posted parts of the Call of Cthulhu. Although they are all about Novel, is also complete enough, but I don't think this article has been improved.--Rastinition (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the heading "History" contains general history while the other sections didn't copy the "history" sections of other articles, they were used as the basis of the history sections of those articles. The layout of the article is about the varying types of coinages of the Manchu Qing Dynasty, the government issued a number of various types of coinages throughout its history and because it had a bi-metallic system these separate types of coinages were essentially separate coinages that co-circulated and had their own histories. Just like if you go to a country you see "Economy", "Demographics", "Administrative divisions", "Language", Etc. as separate headings, the various types of coinages of the Manchu Qing Dynasty were / are also various sub-topics. The comparison with the article "Novel" is a bad one, "some people have posted parts of Harry Potter, some people have posted parts of the Lord of the Rings, and some people have posted parts of the Call of Cthulhu. Although they are all about Novel, is also complete enough, but I don't think this article has been improved." the difference is that the Manchu Qing Dynasty issued coinages to co-circulate together and that these coinages together form a complicated system while individual novels are more comparable to individual coins rather than series of coins.

Just because the Xinjiang and Tibet as well as other were copied doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place there, spin-off forking is acceptable when it's to cover the same subject without subverting (POV-pushing) the other content, this is why they are (largely) identical to avoid forking. Looking at the individually linked articles they are about specific topics within the coinage system of the Qing, since more than one coin type was issued these have their own 2nd (second) level headings similarly to the article "United States dollar" (current version) where "Overview", "History", "Coins", "Banknotes", Etc. are all separate headings with their own sub-headings. The largest difference is that there are many dozens of sub-arricles of this topic, the other linked articles are planned to be expanded (as I have bought several books about Xinjiang and Qing coinage but simply haven't had the time to expand those articles yet) so the copying was provisional. The content below the second (2nd) level headings were all short enough to be considered as short overviews. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You said so the copying was provisional Then I think you should use other places like draft, make sure the content is good enough and then move the content out of draft instead of rough copying.Then I think you should use somewhere else, like drafts, make sure the content is good enough, and then move the content from drafts to articles instead of rough copying from other articles. Rough copy only makes the article worse.Content should be organized or rearranged, not just stuffed--Rastinition (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You said so the copying was provisional Then I think you should use other places like draft, make sure the content is good enough and then move the content out of draft instead of rough copying.Then I think you should use somewhere else, like drafts, make sure the content is good enough, and then move the content from drafts(I'm not sure what you're saying is true or not, so what I can confirm is that if the draft doesn't work you can write it on paper, on a note or whatever else you can think of.) to articles instead of rough copying from other articles. Rough copy only makes the article worse.Content should be organized or rearranged, not just stuffed by copying.Although you explained a lot, the unorganized copying makes it difficult to read, maybe because you are the main original author of the article, so you can't understand it.--Rastinition (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The copying from the Qing Dynasty coinage article to others was provisional to expand elsewhere, I am not allowed to use draftspace because I once had emoji's in my signature. As for the argument that the content was unorganised, it most surely is now as the content randomly jumps decades apart from each other and completely ignores certain categories of coinages and no longer has an overseeable list of inscriptions. As you made it clear that if I would restore it and then edit it that you would just roll it back to how it was before I edited (see the note that I added to the WordPress link that you completely chose to ignore) I can't exactly re-write the content either. You need to provide evidence why the content would be better without those entire sections and not just parts of it to improve it for the readers, your only actual argument (other than complaining about the size of the article) is that it looks redundant having duplicate information but it's only redundant if it doesn't fit in the scope of the article.

Also, are you incapable of editing sections or something? As you always seem to leave messages at the bottom of this page. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to find my own comments when I need to edit.It isn't organized here, it's difficult to find your comments,so I use (cur/prev) to see new comments recently.In short, it's hard to read here.--Rastinition (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)