Talk:Qingyang event

Coincidental comet and megatsunami section

I'm certainly no Wikipedia expert, but isn't the sentence,

"The large difference between the timing of the January meteor showers and the 1490 Ch'ing-yang event—which occurred in March or April of that year—makes a relationship between the two appear unlikely.",

without any source provided for that statement, make it POV or original research? (Not sure which that would be categorized under.) Hopefully I'm not upsetting anyone, but I was immediately struck by that when I read it and saw no link to a source saying that. It may seem the two are unlikely to be connected, but considering the previous sentence states that actual astronomers did a study and said that they are connected, then the following sentence says that they are not (with no reputable source showing the reason for saying so), it comes across very strongly as the opinion of the editor.

I could be wrong, though! :)

172.6.17.78 (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For discussion of the above edits, please see User_talk:Harryzilber 1490 Ch'ing-yang event. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"The fruit of an aquatic plant"?

The article says:

The large objects were as big "as a goose egg, and the small ones were the size of the fruit of an aquatic plant".

This is taken from the source cited (Webb et al.), but not directly from the original source discussed (Míng Shǐ). I guess Míng Shǐ may say the small ones were the size of water chestnuts, but who knows ... I do not think we should include this comparison to fruits of water plants at all, and certainly not in quotes, unless someone can dig up the original.--Nø (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC) ːDone.--Nø (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Move to Pinyin Name

Wikipedia uses WP:PINYIN for geographic placenames, including in historical contexts. There is an exception for geographic names that appear as part of particularly well-known names (e.g. "Treaty of Nanking", see WP:NCZh), but this doesn't seem to fit that criteria. The sources cited by the article don't give a consistent name for the event, they just describe where and when it took place. None of the sources that use Pinyin elsewhere make an exception for the name of this event. Therefore, I propose that this page should be moved to "1490 Qingyang Event" to be consistent with Wikipedia policy. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed. Can be reverted per WP:RMUM. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

---

1490 Ch'ing-yang event → Qingyang event – Wikipedia naming policy for China-related articles (WP:NCZH) specifies to use pinyin for geographic placenames, including in historical contexts. There is an exception for geographic names that appear as part of particularly well-known names, but this page doesn't fit that criteria. None of the sources that use Pinyin elsewhere make an exception for the name of this event. Also, the date is not needed for disambiguation. Therefore, I propose that this page should be moved to "Qingyang event". SilverStar54 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.