User talk:3family6/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk

) 10:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe,

The article Kaga Rebellion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kaga Rebellion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wilhelmina Will -- Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

3family6, it is best practice to mention on the FLC page when you've made changes in response to reviews, but in this case the lack of reviewing activity was the reason I closed it. There was only one (small) review in two months, which is never going to be enough to promote a list. We simply can't keep the older nominations up indefinitely, especially when FLC nears 40 nominations like it is now. Two months is usually about the longest we'll let an FLC go on without any support. When you renominate the list, you might consider reviewing a few more noms, particularly in the music field. I've noticed that some music lists are having trouble attracting reviews, and maybe those nominators would be appreciative and offer you help. Not that I advocate quid pro quo reviewing, but I think we all have a tendency to help those who have helped us before. I hope this advice helps, and wish you better luck if you decide to renominate. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I think I did some QPQ already, and certainly will continue to do so.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please drop me a line when you renominate Lecrae's list. I had actually intended to review this a while back and forgot. --JFH (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC) I see you already did.--JFH (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here . A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of nu metal bands page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Squareroot7 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Squareroot7Squareroot7 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to contribute, and to discuss. Basically, all entries have to be supported by

new, unpublished content

. It merely summarizes what existing sources state. Thus, while you may be an expert in nu metal, we cannot know that your credentials are indeed what you as an editor purport them to be (there have been some famous cases of falsely claimed credentials by Wikipedia editors), and, even then, your opinion would be original. Now, if you work, either for pay or as a volunteer, for a reputable source of music journalism or music criticism, and you write a piece that is published by that source with the oversight of an editor, than your opinion in that piece is valid for use on Wikipedia.

Now, with a genre like nu metal, the definitions and labels have always been contentious. Sources have trouble even defining exactly what nu metal is (for instance, nu metal as opposed to alt metal or rap metal), and many bands object to the label. All of the bands listed, including many of those that you added, are described in reliable sources as performing nu metal, and though you might disagree with those sources, their statements should not be ignored to suit your opinion. What if another editor disagrees with your assessment? And clearly, some reputable sources do.

Finally, I did try to preserve your additions. However, one source didn't even mention nu metal, so that band wasn't supported (by that source, another might support it), and another used a statement by the band itself, which isn't a reliable independent source. And at least one source (maybe two, I don't remember) did not meet the

guidelines for reliable sources

. Sputnikmusic is only reliable if the content is clearly attributable to one of the staff members, who are identified as such in all content that they contribute.

I hope this helps explain things.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

On 8 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amy Bess Miller, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amy Bess Miller helped found a museum while presiding over a library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Bess Miller. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amy Bess Miller), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2016 Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

It's quick and easy to insert a references list.

Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "Insert" menu and click the "References list" icon (three books).

If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.

Finally, click "Insert" in the dialog to insert the References list. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.

Recent changes

The visual editor is now available to all users at most Wikivoyages. It was also enabled for all contributors at the French Wikinews.

The single edit tab feature combines the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. It has been deployed to several Wikipedias, including Hungarian, Polish, English and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as to all Wikivoyages. At these wikis, you can change your settings for this feature in the "Editing" tab of Special:Preferences. The team is now reviewing the feedback and considering ways to improve the design before rolling it out to more people.

Future changes

The "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including: Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Urdu, Persian, Bengali, Assamese, Aramaic and others.

The team is working with the volunteer developers who power Wikisource to provide the visual editor there, for opt-in testing right now and eventually for all users. (T138966)

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. It will look like the visual editor, and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices around September 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

• Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.
• Learn how to improve the "automagical" citoid referencing system in the visual editor, by creating Zotero translators for popular sources in your language! Watch the Tech Talk by Sebastian Karcher for more information.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Kenneth, I've emailed you on a Signpost matter. My best, Tony (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 3family6. It has been over six months since you last edited your

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, This was moved to your userspace over 6 months ago and nothing has happened to it since. Do you intend to work on it? Articles like this one are not supposed to sit in userspace indefinitely. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I want to work on it, but I've been waiting to see if more coverage of the journal will come out when it releases its third issue, which has been continually delayed. This was moved to userspace as a way to preserve it, as the coverage for it at the time was at the threshold of notability. As the article stood, at least one editor would have voted to keep it had I not already suggested that the article be moved to my userspace. So, had I not suggested the userfication, this article may have stood. I will take a look to see if I can improve it some more. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I also have several other articles sitting in my userspace that I've left unfinished, so this will motivate to complete them as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I restored it again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have this film article submitted for GA review. Can you help by reviewing it.--Charles Turing (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk

The article

The article Kaga ikki you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kaga ikki for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

On 20 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Katelynne Cox, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that musician and model Katelynne Cox also worked as a congressional aide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katelynne Cox. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Katelynne Cox), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

	Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)!
	Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by here . Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Anomaly (Lecrae album) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Lecrae discography page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

. Thanks,

talk

) 00:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th Good article nominations ! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I dont want what is for you reliable source.

• I provided many sources but you dont accept any source. Today part of: Mean country boundaries of present day, Poland was never conquered by Mongol Empire, but only invaded and devastatet. Poland lost never independence during Mongol invasion. Possible westernmost boundary of Empire was present day Western Ukraine and Belarus, very close to Polish border. After Fall of Golden Horde these areas were occupied by Poland-Lithuania until Partitions of Poland on 18-th century.
• These GIF-File with Mongol Empire was created by user, i dont know from which sources. On other site some panturkists claimed that Mongol Empire stretched to Western Poland but this is no reliable source. As already mentioned Poland was never vassal of Mongols.

here polish wikipedia: in polish language

• https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_najazd_mongolski_na_Polsk%C4%99#Skutki_najazdu

Najazd mongolski doprowadził do dużych zniszczeń na ziemiach polskich, ale nie doprowadził, jak to się stało w przypadku Rusi, do uzależnienia kraju od najeźdźcy

in polish language mean that Poland was devastated but not conquered by Empire in contrast to Kievan Rus.

Here Poland during polish King Władysław I Łokietek of years 1275 - 1300,

• https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_I_%C5%81okietek#/media/File:Polska_WladLokietka_(1275-1300).png

Eastern Boundary of Poland is Halich-Volhynia

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Galicia%E2%80%93Volhynia#/media/File:Kingdom_of_Galicia_Volhynia_Rus%27_Ukraine_1245_1349.jpg

Aftermath of Mongol invasion of Poland

• http://www.liquisearch.com/mongol_invasion_of_poland/aftermath

I hope you understand me. 91.17.56.235 (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this here instead of continuing to revert on the article. First off, I do understand that Poland used to control a MASSIVE amount of territory, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. However, both of the sources that I mentioned in my one edit summary are using the modern-day countries and regions, not the medieval polities, in their descriptions of the territorial control of Poland. Second, the list of "countries today" in the infobox on the Mongol Empire article is not a list of countries that the Mongols conquered, but countries that they controlled. Pan-turkists might argue (strangely, since the Mongol Empire, though composed partly of Turkic peoples, was Mongol in majority rule) that Western Poland was conquered by the Mongols, but I've never seen a source that has claimed that. Now, as to the map currently used in the article: The Western boundary (as well as the South-eastern boundary) of the Mongol Empire is difficult to define, and it seems that it was often in flux. The current map was based off various books, atlases, and some maps from different, online academic sources. Unfortunately, some of the links to those online maps are broken. Two others support your assertion that the Mongols did not control as far as the current map has. I think the foremost source used for the Western boundary is this map, which was not created by a reliable source. That map has the Mongols occupying the territory of Poland and Hungary for about a year, which is what sources confirm. But that is a far earlier date than 1279. However, there are the two book sources that I mentioned, which state that the Mongols did control parts of Poland. The first source I think we can discount, since the entire entry for the Mongols is quite brief, and also inaccurate as it gives a date of 1214 for the Mongols in Vietnam and parts of Poland, which is false. They hadn't even controlled Persia yet at that date. The second source is more reliable - it talks about the rule of Khubilai, which, even though the Mongol territories were effectively four different empires, the Mongols were at their greatest territorial extent. So that source would support the map. I really think that this map needs to be revisited - I've mentioned it myself before. For one, it has the Empire as unified in 1279, when in reality it had already split. In the time being, I think it is best to leave the article as it is, as that is the most researched map that we have, and contact the creator to see if they can explain why the map is done the way that it is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

From history i know that Poland was invaded by three times, first 1241, second 1259-1260 and third 1287-1288 on 13-th century.

• The invasions lastet only some weeks or months
• Polish parts controlled by Mongols were such as Lwów area, today Ukraine.
• I see two books (you gave link to books) that mentioned that Mongols controlled some parts Poland
• From various sources there great diferences over extent of Mongol Empire, is very hard to say which is most reliable source.
• I have a historical book with historical maps to home

Here Historical Book of Poland with maps (on the current topic sites from 30 to 35) about late 13-th century and early 14-th century

• https://books.google.de/books?id=eQv_ZR85ePoC&pg=PA33&dq=atlas+historyczny+polski+1280&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl_quPh7TPAhXnQZoKHXONAQsQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=atlas%20historyczny%20polski%201280&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.56.235 (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here example from turkish source about Mongol Empire, created possibly by panturkist.

• http://www.turkcebilgi.com/mo%C4%9Fol_imparatorlu%C4%9Fu

You can scroll down to Moğol İmparatorluğu Resimleri here small image you can enlarge this image, acording this map Mongol Empire stretched to German state Holy Roman Empire. This is for me not reliable source. Here direct link to Mongol Empire from one turkish site.

• http://www.turkcebilgi.com/uploads/media/resim/premongol2.png

best regards 91.17.56.235 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the second map is not accurate or reliable. The first link has a copy of the GIF used in the Mongol Empire article, which is based (mostly) on reliable sources. I have also found this source, which says that the Mongol Empire stretched up to the border of modern day Poland. The current map in the Mongol Empire article infobox has just a tip of the Empire going into a small part of Poland, which seems consistent with what sources say.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is possible because that Halych-Vollhynia added as vassal to control of Mongol Empire. Some historians said simply that stretched to Poland.

84.149.255.39 (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that is the answer. This source and this source mention how Halych-Volhynia was an (unwilling) vassal to the Mongols, and this source states that "Galicia–Volhynia extended between the rivers San and Wieprz in what is now south-eastern Poland..." This seems to resolve things. Are you content with this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you handle the genre with reliable sources? 123.136.112.176 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look tonight, if I can squeeze it in.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes

• You can now set text as small or big.[7]
• Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[8] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[9]
• Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[10]
• At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[11]
• The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[12] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
• Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[13]

Future changes

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)