User talk:Markussep

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

MOS:ORDER

I've just fixed ~170 German municipality pages which you've mostly started, or significantly contributed to, from 2006 to recently, and I've noticed a pattern of disregard for MOS:ORDER. Please ready it & try to follow it. Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it would help me if you could be more specific about the errors you found. I have no intention of violating any guideline, and in some cases I wonder whether MOS:ORDER was that specific about the order of e.g. stub tags and categories at the time that I made the edits, back in 2006 or 2007. Markussep ^Talk 07:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Map of Carpathians in svg format?

Hi, do you have this map [1] in vector graphics (svg)? It could be very useful, e.g. for localization? Thanks. --Pavouk (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry no, I made it in Paint. Markussep ^Talk 11:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bonnieure

The article Bonnieure has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Couldn't find anything about this river, (other than the name and location). Fails WP:GEOLAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Koridas ^(Heyyyyyyy) 05:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Germany vehicle registrations

I noticed you removed the additional registration codes from the infobox that have been reactivated some years back due to a change in registration laws. I don't see an obvious technical reason for removal as the resulting output is not linked anywhere. Am I missing something? As a general rule the historic codes are available in all districts that inherited parts of the historic districts as long as the modern district makes that option available to vehicle owners. So I imagine that 99% of the infobox usage was correcty stating current codes. Agathoclea (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I removed some, especially from the Erzgebirgskreis (see e.g. this diff) since it was simply too much, and it doesn't make sense to me that someone from Marienberg (former Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis, MEK) would choose a licence plate from a former district that Marienberg never was part of, like ANA, ASZ, AU, MAB, STL, SZB, ZP. If you don't agree, I can also leave them there. Markussep ^Talk 09:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is rather silly, but that is how the rules work. It really took me a while to work out why Hof offers the Stadtsteinach plate, that was down to a hamlet that got merged away from its municipality at the time. Some people with multiple cars have been known to use the same letters/numbers but different prefixes. The question is in the end what each district allows, and I know that in places had been a contentious issue. People have been complaining in the more restrictive districts, especially if there where cars in the neighbouring district registered with a particular towns plate due to those border issues. But I have got no comprehensive overview of the final rulings. Agathoclea (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The France Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work on the Vestric-et-Candiac Page Randoperson1 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Schlüsselconverter

Template:Schlüsselconverter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 19:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Arguenon

After reverting your change to the citation style in Arguenon I hesitate to revert your change to Arguenon where you re-added Category:Rivers of Brittany and Category:Rivers of France, but it seems to go against WP:SUBCAT and the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory. In this case, Category:Rivers of Côtes-d'Armor is a subcategory of Category:Rivers of Brittany, which is (indirectly) a subcategory of Category:Rivers of France. All the rivers in Côtes-d'Armor are, without any exceptions, rivers in Brittany and rivers in France. Adding the river to the parent categories clutters them up and is redundant. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see the note at Category:Rivers of France that says "For convenience, all Rivers of France should be included in this category. This includes all the rivers that can also be found in the subcategories." Since there is no note like that at Category:Rivers of Brittany, one could argue for removing it from that category. In this case, Arguenon is only in three categories, so cluttering is a minor problem here. Markussep ^Talk 16:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not look at Category:Rivers of France, so did not see the hatnote. I see it was discussed inconclusively at Category talk:Rivers of France#Comments back in 2008. I was not thinking of clutter at the foot of the Arguenon article, but as clutter in Category:Rivers of Brittany and in Category:Rivers of France, which has 684 entries. When I look at Category:Rivers by country I do not see any consistency. Some like Category:Rivers of Russia or Category:Rivers of the United Kingdom are diffused by region, some like Category:Rivers of Kosovo are not, and some in Europe like Category:Rivers of Germany have rivers both in the main category and in regional subcategories. A mess. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For me it's convenient to have all rivers of France in one category. I do appreciate consistency, but consistency among all hundreds of thousands of river articles may be a bit difficult to achieve. Markussep ^Talk 19:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be impossible. I would divide countries into those that have few rivers, those that have many, and the ones in between. "Few" could be less than 20 or less than 5 per region, and "Many" could be more than 200 or more than 50 per region. Something like that. The "few" countries would have all the rivers in "category:Rivers of countryname"; the "many" countries would have no rivers in "category:Rivers of countryname", and the ones in between could be decided case by case. Most countries probably already follow rules like this, and working through the others standardizing them would just be a mundane job that would probably find and fix a lot of anomalies.

But the basic assumption is that enormous lists in "category:Rivers of countryname" should be avoided, and it would probably be impossible to gain consensus on that. Out of curiosity, what do you use Category:Rivers of France for? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I use the Category:Rivers of France for maintenance, to check (with "Related changes") whether new articles have appeared, or whether articles have been vandalised. That would be more tedious to me if I have to check every regional category. I looked in the guideline for categories, but there are no definitions of "overpopulated" categories. Apparently, Rivers of France is treated as a category with non-diffusing subcategories. Markussep ^Talk 13:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You could maybe get a similar effect with a PetScan query like this one, which sorts by date/time last changed. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting option, but can I exclude my own edits? I couldn't find that option in the manual. Markussep Talk 10:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. But it has the advantage of not needed to put the rivers into redundant categories so avoids inconsistencies like Falleron (river), Canal de Haute Perche, Acheneau, Counamama or Baztan (river). Again, I prefer to be minimalist with categories, but doubt it would be possible to get a consensus on that. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The French wiki takes a minimalist approach with w:fr:Catégorie:Cours d'eau en France. Petscan shows articles for 4,272 watercourses. Maybe someone will set themselves the task of translating them. I only did Arguenon because it was mentioned in another article I started, but there is something peaceful and uncontroversial about articles on rivers... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I think a general category for Rivers of France is fine for navigation if there's sub cats too, though there are some awkward ones. The important thing is that you're expanding our coverage of Corsica, which is much appreciated, I'm sure Markussep will agree.₪ Encyclopædius 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Linking via pipes and redirects

Hi, thanks for your contributions to towns, regions, and geographic features of France. Just to save you a lot of unnecessary edits, there's no need to retarget a link via a pipe to the actual page title that is already working via a redirect, and there are usually good reasons to keep the redirect as is; these are explained at WP:NOPIPE. This is especially so when the page title contains parenthetical disambiguation; one almost never wants to see the parenthetical part in the rendered page. The converse situation, is explained at WP:NOTBROKEN, which concerns links that are already working and point to the correct target page. There is rarely a reason to "fix" these links. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed your revert at Departments of France, with the summary, rvt, there are more rivers named Nièvre. If Wikipedia has articles on more than one river named Nièvre, then the redirect Nièvre (river) should not be targeted at a single page title, and should be turned into a disambig page instead. Do you know how to do that? If not, I can do it if you prefer, if you let me know what the page title of the "other" river with this name is. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're right it's not very useful to replace redirects, I'll give it a break. About Nièvre, the other river is a tributary of the Somme, see fr:Nièvre (affluent de la Somme). There's no article about that one in English wikipedia yet, once that's created we could make a disambiguation page for the rivers and the department. Markussep ^Talk 20:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth creating a redirect with possibilities to Somme (river), and then we'd have enough to create the disambig page? The only thing is, if we created the redirect, then we'd have to use it someplace, maybe on the page itself as a circular redirect. Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I created Nièvre (Somme) and Nièvre (disambiguation), and redirected Nièvre (river) and similar pages to the disambiguation page. I checked the links to Nièvre (Loire), they all seem to be correct. Markussep ^Talk 09:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi

how are you User:Markussep, can you review this Article, and User:İstanbul haberleri 2020/sandbox thank you so much — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry no, I can't read Turkish. Markussep ^Talk 11:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Note above account is locked globally as long term abuser (LTA), for more please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/علي أبو عمر/Archive. Best --Alaa :)..! 11:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help cleanup. Thanks you. Guoimd (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry no, I know nothing about this subject. Markussep ^Talk 07:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

They are a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for linking CA Provence-Alpes in the 'intercommunailty' section of communes in the CA. Excellenc1 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Rivers of Corsica

Why are you adding all rivers in Category:Rivers of Haute-Corse and in Category:Rivers of Corse-du-Sud into Category:Rivers of Corsica? Both the sub-categories are in the main category. All rivers in Corsica are in one of the two sub-categories, so by inheritance in the main category. Please undo these pointless changes. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I know your point of view regarding categories, see the #Arguenon discussion above. So I understand why you didn't add the categories yourself. However, it is currently standing practice for rivers of France to be categorized in departmental, regional and national river categories. If you don't agree with that (and you obviously don't), you should discuss it at WT:FRANCE and/or WT:RIVERS. Markussep ^Talk 18:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see where that is documented, and it makes no sense. Following that logic, all rivers would be in Category:Rivers. It is certainly not true for any other country. The Category:Rivers of Haute-Corse is divided into two parts, one per department. If the rivers are also put into the island category, it is impossible to see if there are rivers in that category that are not in either departmental category. The point of sub-categories is to break down large categories into a more useful size, with some structure. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The standing practice wrt. rivers in France is not documented AFAIK, apart from the {{allincluded}} tag in the top directory Category:Rivers of France added in 2015. France is not the only country where rivers are in multiple categories, see also Category:Rivers of Belgium, Category:Rivers of Romania, Category:Rivers of Germany, Category:Rivers of the Netherlands, Category:Rivers of Spain, etc. etc. Personally, I don't object to making the regional categories diffusing (and removing them from the articles), as you did at Category:Rivers of Corsica. But since it involves 700+ articles, it's better to discuss that first. Markussep ^Talk 07:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Since this "standing practice" is documented nowhere, and is daft, I will start by removing the Corsican rivers from Category:Rivers of Corsica so that category is cleanly divided by department. Sorry if I am being abrupt, but I have been trying to get some reasonable coverage and organization into the geography of this island, and I see this massive over-categorization as destructive. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see how the presence of a regional category can be destructive. I see you started the discussion at WT:RIVERS, I'll share my opinion there. Markussep ^Talk 13:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with regional categories that contain departmental categories. But if rivers are listed in both, there is obviously a risk that they are listed in one but not the other. Editors doing gnomish tasks are likely to miss rivers when this happens. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, so you're basically proposing to make all regional categories diffusing, and to leave all rivers in the top category Rivers of France? If you propose that at WT:RIVERS, I can support that. Markussep ^Talk 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

About rural communities

Hello. About the rural communities (or ayyl aymagy) within the districts of Kyrgyzstan, how come some of them only consist of one populated place (i.e.: settlement, village, locality, community, neighborhood, quarter, hamlet, etc.)? And is there like any qualification requirements for how a new rural community should or must be created or formed, whether based on a certain amount of populated places or a minimum amount of populated or a minimum amount of land area? Looking forward to your thoughts. Please and thank you. jlog3000 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, there must be details about the rural communities in this law text, do you read Russian or Kyrgyz? Markussep ^Talk 16:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. And sadly I don't read nor speak neither of these languages. I wonder if those could be at least translated or transliterated. jlog3000 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You can copy the url into Google Translate, it works fine. Markussep ^Talk 16:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Will keep that in mind. Thanks for your hint of advice. jlog3000 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Chüy Region

What do you mean by "correct diacritics"? Kyrgyz is written in Cyrillic.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s right, my remark is about the romanized version. The region is called Чүй облусу in Kyrgyz, which is Chüy oblusu in the standard BGN romanization. I wonder where the old name “Chuy Region” came from, since the river the region is named after is not called ”Chuy” in Russian or any other language in the region as far as I know. Markussep ^Talk 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, you moved it there: [2]--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I see I did back in 2006, but I learned something about the Kyrgyz language (the letter ү, specifically) since then. “Chui” is not better, I hope you agree. Markussep ^Talk 20:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there was some confusion between ү and у, but since the region (unlike the river) is only in Kyrgyzstan, I think we can leave it like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what we should do with Issyk-Kul and Issyk-Kul Region. In Kyrgyz it’s Ысык-Көл, hence Ysyk-Köl. Issyk-Kul is the Russian version, obviously an adaptation of the Kyrgyz name to more Russian sounds. Both versions are used in English, I lean towards moving them to Ysyk-Köl. Markussep ^Talk 20:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess applying WP:COMMONNAME.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the name of the lake should be leading here, that's probably better known than the region or the district. Let's see what the English language encyclopedias and dictionaries say: Britannica Lake Ysyk, Columbia: Issyk-Kol, Merriam-Webster Issyk Kul, American Heritage: Issyk-Kul or Ysyk-Köl, Collins: Issyk-Kul. Google Scholar has about 40 times more hits for Issyk-Kul +lake than for Ysyk-Köl +lake (Ysyk-Kol even less), so I guess there's no strong case for moving to Ysyk-Köl. Markussep ^Talk 09:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like Issyk-Kul is the commonname. I would keep it there, but if not a RM is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ducey-Les Chéris and Grandparigny

Hello colleague, the Dates of population in the footnotes are old. There are newest from 2019. Please correct them all. Thanks in advance and best regards -- 87.155.238.250 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there are about 35,000 communes in France, so it would be an enormous effort to update them all manually. The population data are retrieved from Wikidata, where they are added using a bot. Last week the update was started there, so several communes in the Ain department have 2019 data already. Markussep ^Talk 08:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Burbaliq

Do not change my article !! Do you understand! You don't have enough info for this article! Symon777 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Dusti Hudo is not a mosque.

I've read your recent editing on page Burbaliq. Dusti Hudo is not a mosque. Your content is not verifiable. Your link is not about Dusti Hudo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salman unity (talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ballashen-Pojanë exists.

Hello. I recently just added a citation showing that Ballashen-Pojanë exists. As such, it now no longer meets the conditions specified in the PROD. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 20:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, unfortunately the only information that's really about this place in that reference is the coordinates (everything else, like distances to airports, sunrise times, is derived from that). But that's already helpful, apparently the coordinates that were in the article were wrong, I'll update them. The coordinates from your reference are very close to that of the village Pajanë, so maybe Ballashen-Pojanë is an alternative name for Pajanë, or a part of it. Markussep ^Talk 08:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Imagemap Germany district MEI

Template:Imagemap Germany district MEI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Imagemap Germany district SHK

Template:Imagemap Germany district SHK has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Temen-Suu

Hi! I've noticed that you've several times added or changed the name of Temen-Suu to Tömön-Suu. I see that the reference you added does indeed include that spelling.

However, no one in the village calls it that. Some whom I've talked to recognise that it used to be called that, but they consider it to be an historical name only (and not one they run into modernly, except occasionally from an out-of-towner or in print in an out-of-town source).

If this sounds too much like original research (...because it is), then know that the "Temen-Suu" spelling is in print in Kyrgyz essentially everywhere else. For example, the (currently third) source cited on that page, in Kyrgyz, spells it as "Темен-Суу" (I'd be happy to send you a scan of the page it's on if it would help). You can also see the picture of a sign, in Kyrgyz, with the name spelled "ТЕМЕН СУУ", which I took a few years ago. Given the reality on the ground and two physical print sources (one with intimate information about the village, and one located in the village) versus a Microsoft Word-formatted document published by an administrative body representing no specific knowledge of the place (and not citing any sources or expertise itself, and perhaps even guessing at the Kyrgyz spelling of the name), I would say the former sources should take precedence.

It is true that many other documents (including census records, too, I believe) spell it the other way. This is the historically correct name, and is easily parsed as a place name in Kyrgyz. The modern version of the name almost certainly went through Russian (Төмөн-Суу being transliterated as Тёмён-Суу, and then frequently spelled Темен-Суу, and then read back in Kyrgyz). So people often work backwards from the latter spelling, deduce the original, and assume it must be a Russian spelling and not a Kyrgyz spelling. I think this is what's happened in the national-level Kyrgyz-language sources, as opposed to it having official continuity from the original name (since at the government level everything was pretty much exclusively in Russian for a long time). I admit that a lot of this is conjecture, but my point is that the change has already happened, and in all local sources it's spelled with ‹е›s.

I would like to avoid an edit war, and would love to come to some compromise (as long as I don't feel it misrepresents things). For instance, I'd be very much in favour of acknowledging both names, saying that one name is "historic" and/or even "proper", while the other is "commonly (/ the only name) used in local contexts". What do you think makes sense going forward? —Firespeaker (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We definitely need reliable and verifiable sources. Hearsay, however well meant, is really not verifiable to others. With "third source", do you mean "Чүй облусу энциклопедиясы"? Yes, a scan would be helpful. In the encyclopedia "Кыргызстандын Географиясы", it is spelled "Төмөнсуу" (see page 571). Interestingly, in the map on page 570 it is spelled "Теменсуу". I tried to find official texts with the name in it, and found a nice one: http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ky-kg/63652 about women being awarded for raising many children, see number 2830 (Төмөн-Суу). Another one is about bus fares: http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ky-kg/220234, and says Темен-Суу. Both are from 2014. I haven't seen the version "Тёмён-Суу" anywhere. So I guess we can say that usage in Kyrgyz is mixed. Could you agree with that? Markussep ^Talk 07:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Volmerange-les-Mines railway station has been accepted

Volmerange-les-Mines railway station, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Marienkirche, Tunder and Buxtehude

Marienkirche, Lübeck, destroyed by RAF bombing in March 1942

Hi. I noticed that you have been editing for almost 18 years, with almost half a million edits, which is very impressive!

Removing the images and content about this historic city was not helpful. The paragraph about the composer-organists Franz Tunder and Dieterich Buxtehude has been deleted without explanation. The account of J. S. Bach's pilgrimage to the Marienkirche, Lübeck has been removed, although it is well documented in WP:RSs (Kerala Snyder is the expert, with two editions of her book, plus her account on Grove online). There is also a long entry on the church organs, including the Totentanzorgel, on pages 58–62 in the 2012 I.U.P book "The Organs of J S Bach" by Christoph Wolff & Markus Zepff (transl. Lynn Edwards Butler). The current bare list is not informative, but the article on the history of the church, its organs and organists is highly instructive. Bach met with Buxtehude in 1705 — G. F. Handel and Johann Mattheson had already visited in 1703. Perhaps some relevant images and commentary could be added. Thomas Mann is mentioned in a paragraph, but the paragraph on Tunder & Buxtehude has been blitzed.

Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the images and text. I reverted RandomCanadian’s deletions in the infobox, but I haven’t restored their deletions in the text. Part should be rewritten to clarify the relevance. Markussep ^Talk 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so promptly. I have previously written content about Tunder in the article An Wasserflüssen Babylon (I had forgotten to wikilink the article on the church). I also wrote content connected to the Totentanz in the article on Buxtehude by the Yale musicologist Markus Rathey. Your suggestions are welcome. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Mathsci stalking me, again? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 vs. 2019

I see what you're saying about the table references being to 2019, but why, then, do they have different numbers than the 2019 figures, e.g., 171 vs. 169? Also, if that's the case, the existing reference should be fixed, not butchered back to a WP:BAREURL. Xenophore; talk 20:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The lower figure is the legal (resident) population, the higher number is the total population, including double counted inhabitants. See the intro of the reference for details. Markussep ^Talk 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW "Téléchargement du fichier d'ensemble des populations légales en 2019, INSEE" is not a bare url, since it gives the title and the publisher. The reason why I reverted it to this form is that there are 2116 other articles using this same reference, which makes it much easier for me to track changes to the infoboxes (bona fide updates or vandalism) using template data. For the difference between municipal and total population (resp. 169 and 171 in 2019 in Sainte-Foy-de-Montgommery) see also the definition of municipal population and the definition of population counted apart at the INSEE site. English Wikipedia consistently uses the municipal population. Markussep ^Talk 07:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but given that this is the English Wikipedia, your citation should at least include the |trans-title= parameter. Xenophore; talk 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)