Talk:Leipzig

message: Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:
 David Brebis (ed.), Michelin guide to Germany, Greenville (2006), p. 324. ISBN 086699077417
I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Many editions of this guide exist, but I could not find an edition with David Brebis as editor, and WorldCat does not list an edition for 2006. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad ISBN 

message: Gdansk Vote Notice clearly states that the vote applies for locations in Germany. Reread it if you plan to revert again. Thank you!  2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Leipzig was part of a state in a personal union with Poland (Electorate of Saxony) and is a location that shared history between Germany and Poland and should include Polish name as per the vote(read the template above). Why some editors persist ignoring and violating the vote? Any excusing reason?2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you need to learn to understand is that Wikipedia rules aren't articles of law but descriptions of consensus practices based on a shared general understanding of verifiability and encyclopedic best practice. Where the Gdansk vote speaks of "shared history", it means places that have historically changed hands between Polish and German domination. And it doesn't speak of them in order to establish a rule, but in order to state an empirical observation: it is those places of "shared history" (i.e. places like Danzig, Stettin or Breslau) where real-world naming practice out there in reliable English-speaking sources will typically vary. English-speaking sources will often refer to those places by their Polish names when speaking of Polish periods in history, and German names when speaking of German periods. It is only this empirical observation that gives the Gdansk vote its justification and its motivation. Leipzig doesn't fall within this observation: no English-speaking source ever refers to it as "Lipsk". For this reason, all your rules-lawyering over whether the fact of the personal union between the Saxonian and the Polish crown constitutes "shared history" is useless nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk vote 

message: Hello  The speaker in the sound file (:File:Leipzig.ogg) clearly does not show standard pronunciation. The last sound is a /ɕ/ (which does not even exist in standard German phonology) instead of the /ç/ that it should be. The "l" sounds quite dark, approximating an /ɫ/ instead of the standard German /l/. The /ɪ/ does not sound very clearly either, it approximates an /ɪ̈/. All in all, this is not a good example of the standard German pronunciation of "Leipzig" (and not the Leipzig local variant, either) and therefore should not be embedded in the article, because it teaches users an irrelevant, non-standard variant instead of informing them of the "correct" German pronunciation. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am German native and have no problems with that Leipzig.ogg. If you have a better one, replace it. Deleting is not necessary. Greetings --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are very tolerant vis-a-vis non-standard pronunciations or you use a non-standard pronounciation yourself. But that is irrelevant for Wikipedia. The sound file does not render the standard pronunciation as it is transcribed in the IPA symbols. Therefore it is confusing to readers who will ask which one is correct: the sound file or the IPA transcription? All information in Wikipedia has to be correct, no matter if it is written or spoken. Lots of city articles do without a sond file, this is not a necessity. But it is a necessity to avoid incorrect information in order not to misinform our users. --RJFF (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

text: The lateral is fine. To my non-native ears it sounds within the Standard German range, I cannot detect any significant velarization that'd mark the pronunciation as Colognian or Swiss. I cannot comment with confidence on the final two sounds, especially the consonant -  is possibly a bit too central indeed, but the word has only one stress (it's not a compound, which would be  in very explicit phonetic transcription, where  marks a morpheme boundary and  secondary stress ascribed to the second element of the compound noun), so it's not that surprising you'd hear a more central vowel in an unstressed syllable (compare lit  with rabbit  in Southern England English). In the recording, the second vowel is still nowhere near the schwa  and can be readily identified as  due to its unroundedness. This leaves the realization of the final  as the only (potentially) problematic sound in the recording. I cannot distinguish  from  in actual speech of other people. I think I articulate the ich-laut as  or at least , which is close enough to get by. Sol505000 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: in the Table Demografics, 8th (Turkey)
the figure of German Turkeys is printet as 218. In the linked source it is 918.
As test: 2,467 (all) minus 1,549 (without citizenship) isnt equal 218, please change it, thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.27.234 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics, Turkey with German citizenship have wrong figure 

message: The article cites a book that, apparently, says the liberation involved fierce fighting, whereas http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html says the liberators were greeted.  I don't have access to the book, and the Web site  gives no  citation.  Maybe someone could check. Kdammers (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII