Talk:Pax Mongolica

message: Early draft review notes:
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
*Current ref 15 is missing a page number
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early draft review 

message: The topic of this article is the Pax Mongolica. The history of the Polo family and the decline of the Mongol Empire are already covered in other articles, and don't need to be repeated here. I'm going to remove all material that isn't directly related to the topic. If you think that any of the removed material is not covered in those articles where it belongs, feel free to add it there. --Latebird (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I already commented on the irrelevance of the Polo story above. The decline of Mongol Empire is more relevant, as it is a partial explanation of the decline of Pax Mongolica. What I'd like to see are sections explaining why the Pax Mongolica came into existence (already begun in the "Foundations" section) and why it disappeared (and what replaced it). The latter section should in fact contain some of this information, as it is relevant to the article (but decline of Pax Mongolica should not be confused with decline of the Mongol Empire). PS. That said, for my course, improvements to Mongol_Empire#Fall can be considered for extra credit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The decline of the Empire and the decline of the Pax Mongolica are of course related, but not the same thing. It would be interesting to learn which events in the decline of the Empire had specific(!) consequences for the Pax. Also possibly how the split into the four khanates may or may not have changed the situation. The text I removed, however, didn't relate to the Pax Mongolica at all. --Latebird (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the reasons for removal. The next Decline will hopefully be more Pax Mongolica centered. Gxlarson (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stay on topic 

message: Needs to summarize the decline section. Few others comments: more categories are needed (something related to the Mongol Empire, certainly); decline section could use a picture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello all, impeccable work on the article so far, Kudos all round.
I would however give a few pointers on how to correctly CITE and how to use  and the use of citation templates.
The most common ref you are going to use for this article is  reading through the template pages should give you a very good idea of how to use them. You don't have to fill out all the information on every cite. however the more information the merrier. title= is the only field that is compulsory for .
So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this:
<ref>
As you can see this has left rather a large amount of fields unfilled, that's okay, in fact we can get rid of them, leaving us with this:

Now, obviously, you are using the book multiple times through the article so rather than cutting an pasting each and every time I'm going to show you how to use  so what we are going to do is give the reference a name, we'll call it "hopkins", but you can all it anything "Globalization", "global" or even "asghd" or "iu43gh", ANYTHING, but to make it easy to remember we'll just stick with "hopkins" (it is cAsE SenSItiVE) so make sure you stick with either upper- or lower-case. So you simply put in <ref name= > the first time that you use the ref instead of <ref> and then every time you want to use that ref you simply put in  So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in .
Now you want to quote an individual page, but you don't want to have to cut and paste and modify the cite each time you ref a page, so (as odd as this may sound) ignore what I just told you. Well, not entirely. we'll still use <ref name= > so when we want to quote page three multiple times we'll call our new ref "hop3" and when we quote page 21 we'll call that "hop21", but again it can be anything so now we'll fill the article full of this; <ref name=hop3>Hopkins 2003, page 3Hopkins 2003, page 3 and this; Hopkins 2003, page 21Hopkins 2003, page 21, then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in  and to ref page 21 use 
Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the  template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this:  this will automatically list all the <ref>'s throughout the article and sort them into 4 even columns for us.
Under the ==References== We'll list each of the books like this: . That way when people see "Hopkins 2003, Page 3" listed under ==Notes== they'll know to look for it under ==References== for Hopkins name.
If you've done it all properly it should look like below.
====Notes====
====References====
You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using templates and <nowiki><ref name= ></nowiki> makes it much easier

message: You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: While Pax Mongolica had socioeconomic importance, those projects cannot include "everything". Each period or era had a socioeconomic importance, but we cannot include them all in those projects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing WikiProjects Economy and Sociology

message: The article is very well written, but contains some factual flaws. I think the main problem is that the Mongols sometimes just robbed other countries, and haven't established a political system there. For example, Hungary was broken in 1241, but after a year, the Mongols mainly left the country, which they ruled, but never governed. So to say that "the Mongolian empire stretched from Shanhaiguan in the east to Budapest in the west at its height" is simply misinformation. Mongols governed a very big area, and they often robbed the neighboring lands, but they chose not to govern them.
What do you think?
145.236.146.16 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors 

message: The map labeled 1206 only shows the red (early) holdings.  Below the full size version other colors are given for the later expansions, but they are not on any version (that I can see) of the map itself. Shannock9 (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Map only shows red

message: "At its height, the Mongolian empire stretched from Shanhaiguan in the east to Budapest in the west" Budapest is a city name adopted in 1873 after the administrative unification of Pest, Óbuda and Újbuda. There was NO Budapest in the mid 13th century. Kill that anachronism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.175.136 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budapest