Talk:Book of Liang

References in English

A Wiki article generally needs references in the language that particular Wiki uses. Here, it is extremely important, because the "Book of Liang" is used by many other English Wiki articles as a primary source. (In the existing situation, there is no easy way for an English speaking editor or reader to review either this article, therefore the dozens that link to it.)

This is a quote from Wiki policy on Verifiability

"Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.

Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content."

Could some work please be done so that this excellent source is available to a wider audience?

Thank you.

24.130.18.100 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Faulty translations

The translations from Chinese given in this article seem to me to be hopelessly mistaken and confused. This is, perhaps, a result of the unreferenced, and most likely false, assertion above that the li of the period was only 77 metres long (I have added a "citation needed" tag here to see if anyone can come up with a source}. Whatever the case, they urgently need revision and correction. I would do it myself if I had the time - but I am travelling at the moment and do not have my dictionaries and other references with me. Could someone else please give us better translations from the Chinese? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this translation reads like second-rate OR. I checked to see if Tsunoda and Goodrich translated this Liang shu Wa section, but they didn't. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wenshen

If you grok French, Schlegel has a translation at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4524963. It's probably collected in one of the volumes of his works as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The nutshell version is that Schlegel thinks it's an island in the Kuriles. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dahan

Also beware that there was an East and West Dahan :-) Schlegel figures that East Dahan was Kamchatka (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4525010 part V), while West Dahan is discussed in his looong article on Fusang [1]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Li

If 1 Li = 400 m, as the article states, 20,000 Li = 1500 km can't be true. It should be 8,000 km then, but then it can't be Japan.--Maelcum (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quici"

Is "Quici" correct, or should it be Qiuci instead? 131.123.1.226 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks so much for pointing out this small spelling mistake. It should read Qiuci, so I will change it in the article. Cheers, :John Hill (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Liang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006204552/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/index.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)