This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
"Yueji" is a present-day created name, no historical document to provide it is be classified to ji.
To Qiushufang:
The Content farm webpage you add is not a reliable sources.So it should be remove. A ISBN number to mean that a exist publication.
About classification.If based on your inference,the
iron horse or the
seahorse will be classified as a
horse ,and the
bearcat will be classified as a
cat.Obviously they are all wrong.A name is not equal to its classification.
The other present-day name of "Yueji" is "Qimao"(戚鉾,meaning axe-spear),and the appearance of Yueji is very similar to some Yue(鉞).Some translations use halberd to mean Fuyue(斧鉞)
[1]. So Yueji should not be classified to ji now.
In addition,the definition of halberd is a kind of long shaft axe, so "axe-halberd" become "axe-long shaft axe", overlying double axe, the name is very inaccurate and absurd.
About "better source needed". Academic sources are not necessary. And academic sources are not "better" than other reliable sources (sometimes maybe worse).Furthermore, you use an incorrect name in reason section.So it should be remove.
Ironbolt (
talk)
18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I did not simply say that it is not only a non-academic source, but I've also failed to find any other source which calls it a "spear". You seem to be bent on terminological pedantism. The object in question, whether you call it a qimao or yueji, is obviously considered and categorized as a ji now. A Google search of either qimao or fuyue turn up little to no results similar to the object in question. In comparison, yueji turns up the most relevant results pertaining to the object at hand. It is obvious that the item is most popularly known as a "yueji" today. Again, this is not an encyclopedia for ancient Chinese but modern people. If they cannot find the object called a "yueji" now, whether are they supposed to find it?
Qiushufang (
talk)
18:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)reply