Talk:Ming tombs

External links removed

I removed the following links from the article.

• The Ming Tombs Photo gallery and guide
• Shisan Ling Ming Tombs Introduction
• The Ming Tombs Online Sources - A Bibliography
• Introduction to The Forbidden City by DrBen(restored Link)
• Preview of the Menu to The Virtual Forbidden City currently under construction by DrBen.Net
• Chong Zhen's Story at the Jingshan Park (soon more photos & info !:
• Nearby Badaling Great Wall of China

These links violate WP:EL in a number of ways and do not contribute to the improvement of the article. While potentially done in good faith, the drben.net links are clearly promotion in nature (violation of WP:EL. The information they provide cannot meet WP:RS. The fact that multiple links to the same site were posted suggest a pattern of linkspamming. The kinabaloo.com link has also been added to China-related articles in a systematic fashion suggesting that these links are intended to be promotional.

To those who want to link there images to these travel pages: External links tend to improve the notariety/visibility/ad-sense revenue/Google pagerank/etc. of the linked website, but not the content of the article. If you have pictures you want people to see, why not properly license them, upload them to Wikimedia, and link to them in the article? If you have a website you want to link, make sure it comes from reliable source WP:RS and stands up to the external link guidelines WP:EL. If it is your website you want to link, there is a "conflict of interest" problem WP:COI and this material should be posted to the article talk page where other editors can decide if it is worth linking. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a link directory WP:NOT. Dmoz is a link directory and submitting your site there and linking the Dmoz category to the article is a potential solution to external link problems. Posting several links to a single website (even across articles) or repeatedly posting is a form of spam. Nposs 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading titles

The titles of the images in the section "More Images" are either incorrect or misleading. For example "Gate at the start of the sacred walk leading to the tombs" is actually the "tablet pavilion" which is the next structure in the sacred way after the gate. Avihu (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Ming tombs. Xoloz (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Ming Dynasty Tombs → Ming Tombs – The phrase "Ming Dynasty Tombs" is not the common name for these. They are commonly called the "Ming Tombs" sans "dynasty". A google ngram search for "Ming Dynasty Tombs, Ming Tombs" shows that the title including "dynasty" is almost never ever used, especially so in modern books. As per WP:COMMONNAME this article should be moved as described above. As second option would be "Ming tombs" with a lowercase 't'. I could be argued that while "Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties" is a propor noun, "Ming tombs" is not a proper noun and so should be de-capitalised thus. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support The Ngram is certainly not a sufficient way to make the argument but my own searches seems to show it to be true. Google books: "Ming Tombs" 25300 hits[1] and "Ming Dynasty Tombs" 363 hits[2].--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support – I was going to propose the same move tomorrow! WP:COMMONNAME obviously applies. See also the comparable Eastern Qing Tombs and Western Qing Tombs. The UNESCO site on the "Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties" has "Ming Tombs" as well. This ngram shows that the capitalized version ("Ming Tombs") is more common than the lowercase one ("Ming tombs"), so my support is for Ming Tombs. [EDIT: per Rincewind42's and Philg88's arguments below, I support a move to Ming tombs.] Madalibi (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The ngram search cannot be use to determine the choice of 'T' versus 't' as it does not differentiate between headings (which may be writen using title case) and body text which might not. For example, a book entitled, in North and Central Chin uses "MING TOMBS" in the title and image captions but uses "Ming tombs" within the paragraphs. Many books repeat the book title and chapter header at the top of every single page, thus a book that uses title case could contain hundreds of "Ming Tombs" but yet prove nothing for us because Wikipedia uses sentence case in headings. We need to look only at the use of the words within paragraph text, ignore the various capitalisation styles of headings and titles. Ultimately, the capitalisation is a matter of correct English grammar and the style guides of Wikipedia. If "Ming Tombs" is used as a proper noun, then it is capitalised. If it is not used as a proper noun then it is not capitalised.

I agree with you, Rincewind42, and I have crossed out my last sentence accordingly. An ngram that supports the lowercase (as for "dynasty") should be considered very strong because it has to contend with capitalized titles, but that doesn't apply here. I'm usually strongly in favor of the lowercase, so per your argument and Philg88's below, I'm switching my support to "Ming tombs". Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Move to "Ming tombs". "D(d)ynasty" is superfluous per WP:COMMONNAME. Article title is not a proper noun but rather a class of entities. Given that, "Tomb" should be decapitalised in the other articles referenced above. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 17:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - "dynasty" not inserted in printed sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support a move to "Ming tombs" per common name and the arguments about lowercasing above. --Cold Season (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support moving to Ming tombs per arguments above. -Zanhe (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.