Talk:Buchmendel
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Buchmendel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.onlib.org/website/reading/fearless_reader/stefan_zweig.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306133815/http://www.pushkinpress.com:80/zweig.html to http://www.pushkinpress.com/zweig.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Unrelated image?
editThe Spitzweg thumbnail is cute, but it has no direct relation to the story. I suggest it be removed. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Aristophanes68. It is nice, but not really illustrating the article so much as decorating it – it's more like a piece of slightly vague atmospheric fluff. The period and location are wrong, so it is really nothing more than "bloke with book" and I don't think that's enough to have it here. If it were a picture of a relevant shop or a contemporary reader I could see it a bit more but I fear that this particular image is not really right for here. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)