Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Town against small village" doesn't seem to be a reason to prefer one over the other if neither one of them are inherently notable to readers of English, which is the audience this Wikipedia caters to. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any evidence yet presented to designate a primary topic here. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Being “inherently notable to readers of English” is the basic threshold to meet for being an article on the English WP and is therefore a presumed given for both articles. It has nothing to do with determining PT. Being more or less notable is not a criteria to consider. The only relevant criteria are 1) relative likelihood of being sought, and 2) historical significance. —-В²C☎21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Neither one is more notable than the other, size be darned without clarity which subject is more "historical" than the other. And it seems obvious one of my points was missed, but I have no desire to discuss it further; stick dropped as I don't see this debate going anywhere productive. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per the page view data to which you linked, it shows 71 vs 10 views favoring the current de facto primary topic. The daily average shown is 3 vs 0. No contest. Not sure which point you think you made that was missed, but I don’t think you made the point you think you made. Perhaps you think being at the base name may explain the higher page views? That’s not how it works. The vast majority of page views come directly from search engines like Google, which takes users directly to their desired article. Anyone who Google searches with “Heiningen” will see both targets in the search results and will select the Lower Saxony one if that’s what they’re seeking. Heck, WP Search does that too. There’s no reason to believe a significant number of this page’s views are from people looking for the other one. —В²C☎22:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Page views and populations (5000 vs 300) demonstrate PT by usage as well as by historical significance. Remember that it’s easier to clear the usage criteria hurdle when there is only one other topic that uses the name in question. —В²C☎21:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.