Talk:Vault protector coin

China Low‑importance

	China portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Category:Articles with dead external links from 2018年6月[edit]

@Zanhe:, I have no idea how to fix the fact that this article is included in "Category:Articles with dead external links from 2018年6月" without breaking a few parameters. The reference used is <ref>{{cite web|title=半两镇库钱|url=http://www.chnmuseum.cn/tabid/212/Default.aspx?AntiqueLanguageID=5641&ShowType=Image&ShowType2=Use|website=中国国家博物馆|accessdate=2017-12-25}}{{Dead link|date=2018年6月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=no |lang=zh-cn}}</ref>, how can I fix this? --Donald Trung (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: That's odd, the category does not show up when I view the page. -Zanhe (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expert blogs Vs. non-expert blogs[edit]

I undid this edit because blogs by topic experts are allowed. Gary Ashkenazy is considered to be an expert by Dr. Helen Wang of the British Museum and his Primaltrek website is referenced in a number of academic papers and reference books on the field of Chinese numismatics. Furthermore, "Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" it reads "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.". This website meets the inclusion criteria, just because its URL reads "blog" doesn't mean that it's as unreliable as a non-expert blog. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]