User talk:Markussep

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

SORRY

SORRY FOR my words. Please, forget my words. I said these words in angry. Thank you. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symon777 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (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: [1]--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)

I've been meaning to respond to this, maybe with some page scans, but I keep not getting around to it. Today I decided to just update the page with something about the name, and one additional source. It probably isn't quite right yet, but I thought it was better to put something there than to let mention of the name remain unqualified. The statement I made might be a little strong given the sources, but as a Kyrgyz speaker who has spent time in the village and has close ties to people who've spent their whole lives in the village, I feel the statement is almost not strong enough, if anything. Any suggestions for modification, given all this? —Firespeaker (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (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)

Good point, I'll convert it into something that can eventually be used for the other references to the same document. Markussep ^Talk 18:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Opountia

Hi. When you created the article you chose "Opountia" as the nominative form. But since the Greek name is Δήμος Οπουντίων, shouldn't it be "Opountioi" (Οπούντιοι, i.e. the people of Opus), as Οπουντίων looks like a genitive plural ? Phso2 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You’re probably right. I picked Opountia since Opountion could also be a neutral plural genitive, but your theory is more likely (probably they didn’t name the municipality after a cactus). Markussep ^Talk 18:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

--Phso2 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll move it to Opountioi then ;-) Markussep ^Talk 09:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Imagemap Germany district OG

Template:Imagemap Germany district OG has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Albanian toponyms

Hi! I saw you are active on toponyms. I have a question: Why are Albanian toponyms written in the indefinite form in the title. It is just a curiosity:) Thanks! I'm asking becaus in sqwiki they are reported in the definte form. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, as you probably know in English language definiteness is not expressed by changing the noun or name. What I see in most English language publications is indefinite forms, almost exclusively for the names that would get an -i affix in the definite form (e.g. Durrës), but also for the names ending on -ë , and would end on -a in the definite form (e.g. Vlorë). The exception is Tirana. See for instance https://www.britannica.com/, that has articles about Vlorë, Shkodër, Gjirokastër, Durrës, Berat (and Tirana). Markussep ^Talk 07:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me adding sources to Draft:Patuakhali Government College move it to main namespace? InfoShahriar (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry no, I can't help you on this subject. Markussep ^Talk 10:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Turkish villages

Hope you're well. Concerning, User:Semsûrî is systematically going through Turkish village stubs and redirecting them. Settlements with over 700 people https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyundere,_Tut . Most of these can be expanded. What should we do about it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And nominating the infrastructure for deletion like Template:Sivrice District and a bloated table in the district article with no info but identifying the villagers as Kurdish, I greatly object to that... It's inevitable that we'll have these articles again at some point...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you left a message on Semsûrî's talk page? I agree with you that the way these articles were "merged" is not right. There's not even mention of the villages on the redirect target (Tut, Turkey) in this case. Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable (from WP:NGEO). I'll leave a message on the related TfD discussion. Markussep ^Talk 10:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I spoke to him before, yup, and he said there was no information on any of them I think, which doesn't seem to be true seeing Turkish wiki. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And there was a reference to the 2011 population census in the articles, which I checked. I'm writing a message to him/her now. Markussep ^Talk 11:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there were more redirected than just those he did recently. He might have a point about them being too stubby, but you only have to look on Turkish wiki to know they're worth having.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I found out that User:Dlthewave also redirected many of them. There's at least population sources for all of the villages, I've been restoring and updating a few hundreds already. Probably they could use an infobox wrapper, and there should be separate articles for the districts as well, I think. Markussep ^Talk 12:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

These were mainly redirected due to lack of reliable sourcing, for example regarding Sultanuşağı it's not clear that Koyumuz is a reliable source (it appears to be autogenerated from databases) and Nufusune includes a disclaimer (machine translated): "The data on the site are taken from the online TUIK population database. Check the accuracy of the information you have obtained on this site from the official population portal of TURKSTAT . We do not guarantee the accuracy of the information on the site. This site is an information and entertainment site. The information contained herein cannot be used for official purposes and cannot be shown as evidence." I'll try to find some prior discussions when I have time, but the idea was to redirect with the intent that these can be expanded when reliable sources are added. It might be helpful to have a community-level discussion about how to handle these mass-created, questionably sourced stubs which there seem to be tens of thousands of. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked some of the population figures on Nufusune with the ones in the TURKSTAT/TÜIK database (https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=en): they match the 2020 TÜIK figures. The advantage of using Nufusune is that you don't have to go through the TÜIK menus and create a table. It would be nice if there were official lists of villages per district available, I haven't found any yet. Anyway, the places exist, they are probably legally recognised, so they are notable. Markussep ^Talk 14:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Markussep, please slow down. You're reverting redirects without addressing the sourcing concern; instead, you're adding yet another unreliable auto-generated source. Additionally, none of these sources are sufficient to establish notability through either GNG-level coverage or legal recognition. Census tables are not generally accepted as evidence of legal recognition. I would encourage you to replace Koyumuz and Nufusune with a reliable government source at the very least. –dlthewave ☎ 13:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability (and hence whether a village is "entitled" to have an article) does not depend on the quality of the quoted references. If you think Nufusune is not reliable, we could refer to TÜIK instead. The question should be whether the villages are legally recognized, populated places. If I understand this correctly, the villages correspond with local administrative units, level 2 (LAU2). From what I read here about villages (quote: "Villages represent the smallest form of local administration in rural areas and usually have a population of 150 to 5,000 inhabitants. The local administration of a village consists of a headman (muhtar) and an assembly of aldermen.") I deduce that the villages are a legally recognized administration level. I have found lists of villages (köy), towns (belde) etc. here. It looks official, it's from the Ministry of Interior. I suppose we could use these to replace the less reliable sources. Markussep ^Talk 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. I would be comfortable if you include official sources for both the census count and recognition as a village as you've suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, can do. I think it would also be good to create separate articles for the districts, which would contain lists of villages and towns, regardless whether articles for them exist or not. Markussep ^Talk 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

TR villages

So, I just finished creating articles for all the villages and beldes in Hakkari province (see Category:Villages in Hakkâri Province) and would like some feedback for improvement. Planning on continuing with some of the other provinces (just started with Şırnak). Semsûrî (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a nice reference you found there, the population of all municiplaties, villages and quarters in one excel file. I think I'm going to use that one too in my future edits. Where did you find the area of the villages, like at Doğanlı, Yüksekova and Gökyurt, Yüksekova? I made an infobox wrapper for places in Turkey, {{Infobox Turkey place}}. I've been using it for some municipalities, districts and villages, see for instance Palu, Elazığ, Alacakaya District and Çalık, Keban. Another interesting source is the lists of municipalities, villages, neighbourhoods etc. on this page. Markussep ^Talk 20:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Those numbers were erroneously added and removed now. The last link seem to list hamlets as well which is very valuable for me - thanks for sharing! And I'll check the infobox out. Semsûrî (talk)

Good! Note that you have to specify the type of settlement in the infobox, for villages that's "type=village", for towns and other municipalities, that's "type=municipality". I haven't created the documentation page yet, I will do so today. I think the infobox should also be able to handle subdivisions of municipalities, "mahalle" in Turkish. TÜIK calls them "quarters", so I'll use that term. Markussep ^Talk 10:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you make it possible in adding two population figures in the infobox? For example, having the 1985 numbers in the infobox at Aksu, Silopi just below the 2021 numbers. Semsûrî (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an infobox is meant for that, I've never seen it before. Wouldn't it be better to make a (small) table with the populations, using for instance {{Historical populations}}? Markussep ^Talk 08:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Hello again. I need a second opinion on this. How should we take on provinces that don't contain any villages officially? I'm about to create articles for the settlements in Dargeçit District that were considered villages before the reform in 2012/14 and are considered neighborhoods today, administratively. For simplification purposes we could go with 'villages' or maybe 'rural neighborhoods' — the Çatalçam, Dargeçit article which was already created uses "village" while the template I created Template:Dargeçit District uses 'rural neighborhoods', which is not really a term used. What do you think? I think we would confuse readers if we just went with neigborhood as they may think its a neighborhood (quarter) of a city. Semsûrî (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you can see in the lists from the Ministry of Interior which municipality the quarters belong to. I don’t know whether there are more municipalities in this district. I can help you more after my holidays. Markussep ^Talk 20:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright thank you. It doesn't seem like the database has anything except a long list of 'neighborhoods' where the town's quarters and villages are not differentiated. Semsûrî (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that in this case the Dargeçit District has the same population (and probably also the same area) as the municipality Dargeçit. Maybe it's not useful to have two articles here. Markussep ^Talk 18:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The district has a population of 27,307, while the municipality (I call it town) has one of 14,976. The town has four neighborhoods (listed in the article) and the only seemingly way for us to find the population numbers for the town is to add the four numbers ourselves. Semsûrî (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The municipality (belediye) has a population of 27,307 according to the TÜIK reference. I don't think what you call town has any official status, apart from being the grouping of 4 urban quarters (mahalle) as opposed to the other rural quarters. Markussep ^Talk 18:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The two articles are not about the same entity - not all mahalle in the ilçe are part of the belediye. It is the whole district (ilçe) that has a population of 27,307 and not just the four urban quarters that constitute the belediye (check under 'ilçe nüfusu' in the xls file).

The settlements that formerly had the status of belde, köy and mezra are now also called mahalle, but they should not be considered part of the belediye.

So, no the two articles should not be merged in my opinion. Semsûrî (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked under 'belediye nüfusu' in the xls file and its the same 27,307... Well, maybe all settlements have been absorbed by the belediye which just makes things a bit more complicated. Semsûrî (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Could we somehow have two articles - one for the ilçe and belediye, and the other for the town without official status? I mean the city of Istanbul doesn't exist administratively either. Semsûrî (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

But there's the metropolitan municipality of Istanbul (which is coterminous with Istanbul Province), isn't it? I wouldn't recommend having a separate article for the town/urban part of Dargeçit. But maybe we should have a broader discussion at WT:TURKEY. Markussep ^Talk 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand in the way for a merge. I probably just need to see how it would work. Semsûrî (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

These are empty. has Semsûrî been emptying and redirecting again? Category:Besni, Category:Gerger, Category:Kâhta♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I created new categories for the districts. Since the town categoroies would only contain the town article, they're not needed anymore. Markussep ^Talk 17:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Turkey, but I think it's a bad idea replacing the standard infobox with Infobox Turkey place, even if a wrapper. If somebody wants to add an image or other data it's difficult to edit now. Plastikspork and others worked very hard to standardise the infoboxes for most countries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just as easy to add an image as with regular Infobox settlement, I used the same field names. Using a wrapper gives us much more possibilities to standardize the content, to fight vandalism and to check errors like the time zones (Turkey is not on Eastern European Time anymore). Markussep ^Talk 08:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Hi again. I was curious to know where you figured that 'Bağpınar Kuyucak' was a village in Adıyaman District when its not listed at the T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı site? There's no page for it (yet), but it's present at Template:Adıyaman District. Semsûrî (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, there's two villages named "Kuyucak" in the T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı list for Merkez/Adıyaman district. One of them is called "Bağpınar Kuyucak" in the TÜIK excel file, so I chose that name. Markussep ^Talk 11:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see that there are two now. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

---

The 2022 population numbers are out. I think I'll still use the 2021 numbers for consistency but here's a link if you're interested. [2] Semsûrî (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you know which file contains the populations of the individual villages? Markussep ^Talk 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't found the xls file yet but the numbers are also here.[3] Semsûrî (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see. I checked the favori raporlar file just now, it is still 2021. Markussep ^Talk 12:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Markussep!

Happy New Year!

Markussep,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pârâul lui Mihai

The article Pârâul lui Mihai has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"Pârâul lui Mihai" is not mentioned anywhere in Enwiki.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And please see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#Pârâul lui Mihai (Mureş). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Advice in deletion discussion

Hi Markussep, sorry I am writing you on a deletion discussion, I hope it will not be seen as canvassing. It is on this kind of articles that I have nominated myself and I believe I have the arguments on my side. Now you brought an argument on Semsuri's talk page to keep stubs, which I would have redirected as well. So I am wondering if you find an argument on this kind of what ever it is supposed to be. There are likely more similar articles as its creator has created several stubs on Sri Lankan settlements and if you do not find an argument, we'll likely go on a deleting spree. But before I'd be glad if you could assist us with some advice. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle, the argument we used for the Turkish villages was that official lists and populations of the villages were available (from the Ministry of Interior and the Statistics Office), and villages have a certain degree of local self-government. It's difficult for me to find information since I can't read Sinhala. For instance, there are the results of the 2012 census here, but I have no idea whether there are population figures in it. From its coordinates this Vanchiyankulam Mavilankeni seams to be in Mannar District and probably Nanaddan Divisional Secretariat, but does it exist? Did you notify WP:SRI LANKA? Markussep ^Talk 16:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone did, but now I have also asked someone directly here. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

commons category is misplaced

your edit, commons category is misplaced. placement info Template:Commons_category#Location. repeated mistake of User:EP111. thank u. <_> jindam, vani (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dereağzı, Bitlis has been accepted

Dereağzı, Bitlis, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: İçgeçit, Bitlis has been accepted

İçgeçit, Bitlis, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:MASSCREATION

Hi Markussep, I see that you create articles very fast. Did you apply for a permission here, as mentioned at masscreate? It should not be seen as a bad faith request, I believe your recent articles are in a fair shape, but I'd like to be able to guide some other mass creating editors of poorly sourced or expanded articles to an example like you. I believe you'll get approved, but some of the others I've seen not.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing me to that policy. I'm not sure it applies to my edits, because I haven't created "anything more than 25 or 50" articles per day, and I don't use a bot. I think the articles you refer to are the ones that I have been creating about districts and municipalities in Turkey. I have also been restoring articles about vilages in Turkey, that had been redirected, and I have updated and sourced existing and restored articles. I have discussed that here and here, and added reliable official sources (Turkish statistics office and Turkish ministry of interior). I hope this helps. Markussep ^Talk 09:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No I refer to article creation in general. The 25-50 is just the number that was not opposed, I'd say something like creating three articles between 18.44 and 18.47 is a much a higher frequency than 25-50 per day. And wow, not in need of a bot (or a semi-automated process) when creating three articles between 18.44 to 18.47, 16 January 2023? You must be one of the fastest typers there exist, very likely the fastest. You also add infoboxes to several articles per minute, a tremendous task to perform without a semiautomated process. Sorry for the irony, it is actually meant as a good faith discussion. From my point of view, you are of great service to wikipedia and I believe requesting permission also provides concerned parties with an example to point to.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's my way of editing and saving, I edit a number of similar articles at the same time, add the applicable population figures etc. to each article, and when I'm done and have checked them I save them. It's not that I have typed all that in 3 minutes, and I don't use AWB or anything (semi-)automated for new articles. For article updates, I often use AWB (as you can see in the edit summaries) to add shared info (which district, references etc.) and manually insert the correct population. Adding an infobox is not much work, all I have to do is copy an empty infobox with some shared info and insert the correct population and copy the coordinates. Markussep ^Talk 10:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I also noted the AWB tag behind the infobox edits after my edit. Thanks for the patience to reply.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Using templates for population?

It's a bit late, but I think using templates for the settlement population figures could be more efficient if we were to update them. This could also be done through Wikidata I think. Aintabli (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it is done that way for e.g. places in France and Romania, using the temnplates {{France metadata Wikidata}} and {{Romania metadata Wikidata}}, respectively. But someone has to add the populations to Wikidata, preferably someone who can operate a bot. Markussep ^Talk 06:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any prior experience in operating bots, but I think this is quite necessary. We can also use templates, I think. I noticed that a template with 2012 population figures was used for the Turkish districts before. We can collaborate to determine the structure of the templates, whether we are going to use a separate template for each district, province or combine all in one. Aintabli (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It depends on how often we think someone will be willing to update the population data. That is a bit of a problem for France now, the users that updated those populations in wikidata in the past are not available now. There are several options for population templates, for instance {{Population Germany}} uses a code for each municipality, which you have to specify in the infobox calling this template. The nice thing is that people at German Wikipedia update the files every year, so it's little work for us. There are codes for the villages, municipalities etc. in the TÜIK excel files, so we could use those. Another method is {{Scottish locality populations}}, which uses a data file in Commons, but I have no experience with that kind of file. Markussep ^Talk 07:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Akçakent District for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akçakent District is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akçakent District until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GGT (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Skrapar District

Template:Skrapar District has been nominated for merging with Template:Skrapar div. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Joy (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hello, Markussep,

When you move an article and leave a redirect (which I prefer you do), could you also leave a redirect for the talk page? We end up with a lot of broken redirect Talk pages when there are redirects for the main page. I'm not sure why page movers tend not to leave Talk page redirects (you're not the only one) but if you did, it would necessitate less clean-up afterward. Thanks for all of the work you are doing on the project, especially all of the recategorization. It's seen and appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, thanks for letting me know, I was not aware of that. Markussep ^Talk 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Himare and Himare (town)

A user is proposing merging Himare (town) with Himare [4]. As one of the foremost experts in wikipedia on municipalities, I'd be interested in your take on this. Best, Khirurg (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Markussep, hope you are doing well. Concerning the recent expansion in Himare (town) I believe the article has potential to stay as a separate one. Much of the information is town-specific & can't be part of the Himare article which concerns a wide region of c.22 settlement: especially informations about the various monuments, architectural features, attractions and geographic features that are exclusibely found in that town.Alexikoua (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Markussep!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Florya

Hello Markussep, I asked to move back the article on Florya. The name of the article must be the common name in English, and that in my opinion is Florya. Also, on a purely anecdotal level, I live part of the year in the neighbourhood next to it, and in 20 years I have never heard a Turk call Florya Şenlikköy ;-). If you still want to move it, ask officially so we can discuss it. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alex, the official name of the neighbourhood is Şenlikköy (see for instance [5]), could it be that Florya refers to a smaller or larger area? Google hits should be handled with care, you should check whether the pages actually refers to the neighbourhood and not to the Atatürk mansion or Florya Caddesi, for instance. Markussep ^Talk 17:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ciao Markussep, and thanks for answering! The problem is exactly this: Şenlikköy is the name of the mahalle (and I don't dispute this), but it comes from a small köy/village (which until 1929 was called Galateia). After Ataturk had his seaside villa built in Florya, this quarter (semt) expanded, while Şenlikköy remained tiny. Şenlikköy is actually the part of mahalle near Yesilköy, Florya everything else. It is a bit like the situation in Asia with Moda (semt) and Caferaga (mahalle). None uses the name Caferaga, because 90% of the mahalle is Moda, which is an historical quarter. You made the same mistake I made in the past with some settlements in Istanbul, confusing mahalle with semt (quarter). The solution for me is moving Şenlikköy back to Florya (writing that Florya is a semt of Şenlikköy), and writing a new article about Şenlikköy as mahalle and as semt. This is a very common situation in Istanbul: the mahalle is often named after a quarter, but there are other quarters within the mahalle. I hope I have explained myself. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So do I understand correctly that the mahalle Şenlikköy is part of a wider area (semt) named Florya? Is adjacent Basınköy part of Florya too? Markussep ^Talk 07:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Şenlikköy was a köy that gave the name to the mahalle, Florya is a semt that covers most part of the mahalle. Basınköy is another mahalle further west that belongs to Kücükcekmece (Şenlikköy is part of Bakirköy). ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Basınköy is part of Bakirköy as well, see http://www.bakirkoy.gov.tr/mahalli-idareler. But anyway, I guess you're right that Florya and Şenlikköy are not the same place, so I'll move the article back and create a new one about Şenlikköy. Markussep ^Talk 18:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, my fault! I always thought that with Basinköy begins küçükçekmece, actually it is at the border. Thanks, I think this is the best solution! İyi akşamlar :-) Alex2006 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding Turkish districts, villages, and "neighborhoods"

Hey,

Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey officially do not include villages, since all get upgraded to the status of a "neighborhood" or mahalle once the province they belong to becomes a "metropolitan municipality". But that does not really change the casual language we use, specifically English. Calling each village a neighborhood on Wikipedia will surely cause a lot of confusion, because these are far from being a neighborhood of a city. They are still villages. I believe we should not be restricted by official classifications, which often get arbitrary in a country like Turkey. This is kind of similar to how the government now calls itself Türkiye in English, which did not affect Wikipedia. So, I am not sure how I should feel about how you changed tens of articles of villages to just "neighborhoods". It's not harmful to include that they are classified as "neighborhoods" officially, but at least, both what they technically are (villages) and what they are officially classified as should be included in the lead.

More importantly (and I really find this more important), I just noticed that you have redirected/merged articles of districts such as İslahiye District to/with those of towns instead. I thought there was consensus that the articles of towns and administrative divisions that they are the seats of should be separate. The Turkish population census even distinguishes the district centers/seats (towns) with the whole district, regardless of whether the metropolitan districts cover the same area as district municipalities, which are not exactly the towns themselves. There has been months-long work taking this as the basis, so your recent edits were quite mind-boggling. If there has been a discussion on this that I have missed, please link, or if this was a decision only made by yourself, I would appreciate if you revert all your edits, and we discuss all this before moving forward.

Thanks, Aintabli (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you about distinguishing districts and municipalities in the non-metropolitan provinces, because they cover different areas. For the metropolitan provinces, the situation is different: since 2013 (law 6360) there is no difference in area between district and municipality. I don't know where you found that the census distinguishes them, or the central town from the rest of the municipality, because that is not what I have seen, at least not for census data after 2013. This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey/Archive 8#Infobox and districts and at User talk:Markussep#Turkish villages.

About village vs. neighbourhood: I think we should make it clear that there is an official difference between a village (köy) and a neighbourhood (mahalle). Of course we could mention that they were villages before the 2013 reform, but we should have a reference for that, e.g. an official list of villages per district, like in the 1997 census (large pdf file!). Or call them rural neighbourhoods, perhaps based on the urban/rural classification in the Favorite Reports file of the 2022 population results. Markussep ^Talk 07:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I stand corrected and will strike out the sentence where I said that regardless of the province being designated as a metropolitan municipality, there is a distinction between a district center and the district itself. It is only the case in provinces that are not metropolitan municipalities. Apologies for my overconfidence.

Though, I still believe that the district centers (towns) should have separate articles rather than getting merged into the article for the district. You see essentially, different metropolitan districts divide large cities, such as Gaziantep, Ankara, etc. but we still have separate articles for the city proper and the province. It gets quite interesting when, for example, a small town/village such as Polateli and Polateli Province are separate because they are distinguished by official spheres, yet historically much more significant towns, which will uncoincidentally be more numerous in provinces with "metropolitan municipalities", such as Birecik, Tarsus, etc. have to be discussed together with the district, which essentially causes articles to be equivocal and even longer and denser. If we were to follow this logic by heart, to merge articles for administrative divisions whose demarcations changed in 2012 and places with centuries of history, we should be merging the articles for the provinces with the cities as well for consistency, which would substantially increase these problems. Eventually, the article for a city would have to cover an area that is the size of Cyprus or Netherlands. Census may not distinguish the population figures for the town itself and the whole district in these provinces, but that is not really why we have separate articles. Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Istanbul Province has recently been merged into Istanbul, I'm not completely convinced that that was a good idea, but on the other hand it's difficult to make a distinction between a metropolitan province and the city it shares its name with. Where do we draw the border, the pre-2013 municipality borders? I have not touched those city articles yet, it would be good to discuss that with a broader audience. I wouldn't be too afraid of creating too large articles for towns/metropolitan districts, for example both İslahiye and İslahiye District were rather short articles. Compare with the article Cologne, which covers the complete municipality with a much larger area than the historic city of Cologne. Where appropriate, subarticles have been created, like History of Cologne and Transport in Cologne. Markussep ^Talk 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Villages in Muğla Province

Hello, Markussep,

I'm not sure where you are at with your mammoth, recategorization project for Turkish villages but there is one article left in this category. I was wondering if there was another suitable category for this page as we've slowly been eliminating these "Villages in X Province" categories when they become empty. Just thought I'd check in as you seem to be the current expert on Turkish municipality transitions right now. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I've removed the category from the last article that was in it, Çiftlik, Marmaris. I can't find the place in the official listings of villages and neighbourhood, nor in the censuses, but apparently, it exists. Markussep ^Talk 06:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Hochheim, Thuringia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hochheim, Thuringia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hochheim, Thuringia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Geko72290 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and best wishes for 2024 for you too! Markussep ^Talk 07:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New infobox

Hello, I created Template:Infobox KR place some time ago and used it at Kelkan. Since you did create Template: Infobox Turkey place, I wondered if you would take a look at see if I'm missing something. Thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see the template works fine, I added a missing "|". I suppose you're going to make a documentation page as well? Markussep ^Talk 13:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've created the documentation page now. Thanks for the addition. Semsûrî (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Map of Carpathians Mountains

Hello, can you tell please what sources you used when creating the map of the division of the Carpathian Mountains? Because in Poland and Ukraine we have another division, and on the map it is similar to the Czech one I think Yestaxiy (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think you refer to these files: commons:File:Mapcarpat.png and commons:File:Mapcarpat2.png. I made and uploaded them in 2005, I'm sorry but I don't remember what source I used then. Markussep ^Talk 11:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Spain infoboxes

Hi, I was wondering if you or User:Plastikspork could organize something to make all the infoboxes of the Municipalities of Spain consistent. I just added a municipal map to Abizanda. It's excellent quality, though has German background names. Spain is a mess, there are either missing infoboxes entirely, or maps not displayed, vital data missing, inconsistencies in coat of arms and format etc. It would benefit from a full update, ideally a bot coded using es or wikidata data to do it very consistently. I think that Swiss editor created quality locators for all the municipalities. I think a pin in Spain and then municipal locator would be ideal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I have time to do that in the near future. Markussep ^Talk 06:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 146 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this cleanup barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Măluț River" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Măluț River has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27 § Măluț River until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Limentra di Sambuca for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Limentra di Sambuca is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limentra di Sambuca until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Lenny Marks (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)