User talk:Donald Trung/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #330

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Hi Donald Trung, many thanks for your Asian numismatics articles such as Wu Zhu, Kucha coinage, Ryukyuan mon, and many others. Your hard work is greatly appreciated! Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Thank you, I'm very happy that you enjoy reading them and hope that you found them to be very informative. Plus you deserve this barnstar a lot more than I do, keep up the great work from your end. I really enjoy reading your DYK's. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

21:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Zhaona Xinbao) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Zhaona Xinbao, Donald Trung!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed. Well done, but Paragraph 1 of the history heading could use a footnote

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: sure, but what kind of footnote? --Donald Trung (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Anything to indicate which source the information from the paragraph is from.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@SamHolt6:  Done. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

15:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #331

Da Ming Baochao

Regarding the article Da Ming Baochao, you cited the late John E. Sandrock's paper, Ancient Chinese Cash Notes. Sandrock relied heavily on Meng Lin's 泉布统誌 Ch’uan Pu Tung Chih which is a 19th century forgery. The notes contained in it never existed, they were complete fantasy. Whoever forged it likely forged banknotes designed to dupe collectors of antiquities. Many of the images you've uploaded to the Commons are also forgeries as well. This article on Ming banknotes may have to be rewritten.--Countakeshi (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Countakeshi: Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I was in fact unaware that Lin Meng's work was so fraudulent, I'm new to writing about Ming Dynasty banknotes and probably should've have double checked, I will remove the images from the paper if the ones used in the article are forgeries and fantasies as well (or you could do it as I don't know which illustrations are of forgeries and which ones are genuine), do you by the way have any better sources I could use? --Donald Trung (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm holding out for better sources which is why I'm hesitant to start new articles or make major edits on Chinese banknotes. Hopefully, I'll find some articles published by members of the International Banknote Society.--Countakeshi (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Countakeshi:, yes, but there is misinformation I as a Ming banknote layman wasn't aware of in the article right now, I don't like being responsible for this bad information being here, can you cut out the bad parts? I'd rather see a third of that article go than have 1 (one) more reader believe something inaccurate. Is John E. Sandrock in general unreliable or just Lin Meng? Because I want my final Wikipedia article to be one about Qing Period paper money and would rather leave out a bad source then (Qing paper money is thankfully a subject I do know more about, but only from the Guangxu era onwards). --Donald Trung (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's Meng but Sandrock relies so much on him that they might as well be considered the same in reliability. It will take some time to sort out the good from bad. I don't think there will be any problems with Qing notes as they much more recent and well documented.--Countakeshi (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright thank you, I'll archive this now. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

The science publishing landscape

In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings.

The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web.

The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

Wikidata weekly summary #332