Talk:鐵木真

@NativeNames The burden of proof is on you.

BTW, check the dates in the infoboxes of w:Middle Chinese and w:Old Mandarin. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Firstly, Wikipedia is not the end all resource for these matters, you can ask @Metaknowledge:. Secondly, it confuses me why you bring up Old Mandarin since the contents of the edits that you are undoing don't even mention Old Mandarin. Thirdly, there are no dates in the infoboxes, there are the names of dynasties Middle Chinese was used during. One of which, the last of them in fact, was the Song Dynasty. A.K.A. the dynasty whose records give us the spelling of the name 鐵木真. As I have explained no less than 4 times in the edit summaries, each Chinese lemma on Wiktionary whose historical forms produced loanwords have their historical pronunciations preserved, compare 秦, or 匈奴, or 獯鬻, or 越南, or 北京, et cetera. Your argument is so vague and lopsided it could be applied to literally any single Chinese page on this website. Why do we include the translations which sounded like Peking on the Beijing page? Your reasoning is "proof that middle chibese is relevant? it's not Tetmükjin". Well, proof that the old chinese is relevant? It's not Pekrang. Proof that the Middle Chinese is relevant? It's not Pekieng.

Also thank you for undoing the edits anyway despite it constituting edit warring. The little smiley face you added was also super professional. NativeNames (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Ah yes, the "wikipedia is Never! Trustworthy!" argument.

2, 3. Look at those DyNasTiEs. In terms of time, how far away is Middle Chinese, and how far away is Old Mandarin, from the Yuan Dynasty?

x.

x.a. Remove Middle Chinese and Old Chinese from 越南 without a doubt. Or should we add |oc=y to 美利堅／美利坚 (Měilìjiān)?

x.b.

x.b.a. 北京 is an old placename.

x.b.b. Translations?

x.b.c. You're being dense. 北京 is not a foreign borrowing. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)