Talk:Tobolsk

Russia: History / Human geography High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Cities

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 articles

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Russia may be able to help!

is Tobolsk really the city in ezekiel 38?

38 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of[a] Meshek and Tubal; prophesy against him 3 and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of[b] Meshek and Tubal. 4 I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. 5 Persia, Cush[c] and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, 6 also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.116 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is that picture by THE Medvedev?

you have to wonder.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.151.100 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 22, 2011; 12:53 (UTC)

Uncited content

The infobox for this city's article (like many infoboxes) and other cities in the same region, has a range of redundant categories that plainly no one knows how to or intends to fill in so they serve no purpose and are cluttering up the editing space. I have removed a few but there are several other blank ones that I cannot decide the meaning of yet. I recommend that the editing space be made tidier as in other articles by having the category entries all justified in a straight row. Also despite the notice about lack of references, much of the article might be OR and should be removed so that editors can insert verified content instead.--Mevagiss (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters are available because obviously they can be filled out, and are on many occasions (including by yours truly). Just because you or many other people don't know what to do with them is no reason to remove them. I've seen anonymous editors fill them out, with good results! That would hardly happen if the unfilled lines weren't available there to begin with—you can't expect others filling data in a field that isn't there. There are also good reasons why these parameters are supported. "Area_of_what" is important because for cities (like Tobolsk) the area may be reported for the administrative unit, for the municipal division, for the city proper, for the city with subordinated territories, etc., etc. If a source doesn't specify what the area refers to, that's unfortunate but fine (better have some number than none), but when it does, it most definitely needs to be mentioned. "Area_as_of" is important because the population density is calculated automatically, and since the population figures and the area figures aren't always filled out for the same year, an extra heads-up is important. "Pop_density_as_of" would be filled out when the density number is given directly (not filled out as a result of a calculation). "Pop_latest_date" is vital, because reporting "the most recent population estimate" without specifying the year for which it is given is just meaningless. How is any of this can be considered "clutter" is beyond me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 2, 2015; 14:38 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider looking at infoboxes elsewhere, many of the categories you have explained are not needed as separate entries but can all be dealt with on the same line (and are, and should be for the very obvious reasons you have outlined.) That is where the clutter comes from in addition to my point about the lack of justification in the editing space which makes it difficult to get a clear picture of which categories are blank and which are not without carefully reading through all of them, and a lot of them are redundant as I said before. Is this still beyond you?

Further I also note that you reverted my edit on the article and instructed me to use the talk page when you had plainly not bothered to check so yourself, where my comment had already been posted. I think it is fair to expect a higher standard of wikicourtesy from an admin--Mevagiss (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobolsk in Sweden

Maybe this could be interesting. In Godegård, in Östergötland, Sweden, there is a location named "Tobolsk". I have not managed to find any information about its history, but I assume it was named so by a returning Carolean who had good memories of his stay in Tobolsk.--Berig (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]