User talk:Ramblersen

Hi, Ramblersen. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 16:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ramblersen. I've left a response to your question on my talk page. Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 08:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramblersen - just to let you know, I wasn't undoing your edit at Copenhagen when I made this revert. You had made a perfectly fine edit, and I was just cleaning up after an anonymous editor who was vandalizing random pages. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. I see that you've already restored your own edit a moment ago (my bad, I didn't refresh my browser). :-) Jamie^☆S93 20:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry...I'm totally confused and don't know what the hell I'm reverting anymore. Please don revert my reversion if I've made a mistake, I'm still quite new to this and may make some mistakes. Anyway thanks for the support!:)

Ramblersen (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it looks like the current version is the right version; if you look on the right side of the the latest edit, you've restored your own good edit (from less than an hour ago, or so), which contains {{cite web}} templates you had added for the refs. That's because you undid 172's edit, which then restores the article to its most recent version, except for that one user's edit which you've removed. The technical details of reverting can be a little confusing at times, and kind of hard to explain, so leave me a note if you ever need further help. :) Jamie^☆S93 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome. :) As for your edit that was initially reverted, nothing was controversial about the changes you were making; this user was just randomly reverting recent edits that had been made. I don't know what those folks' intentions are—maybe being entertained by having everybody clean up after them, actually having some grudge against the website, or just boredom, I don't know—but it's simply called vandalism. Well, best wishes for the new year ahead! Jamie^☆S93 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a redlink from a "seealso" template. You undid my removal, and changed it from M to m in the link, but it's still a redlink. There really shouldn't be redlinks in seealso templates, so unless you intend to start this list, I think we should remove it again. Figured I'd discuss it with you first, but if you disagree with this altogether, we can talk on the Copenhagen talk page as well. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have logged off. I'm going to revert your edits on the article, as I strongly believe that {{seealso}} should not contain redlinks. I'll start a discussion on Talk:Copenhagen so we can keep discussing - and if, indeed, you are currently creating this article, I of course will have no objections to you reinserting the seealso. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all the time I was complaining, you were creating the article in question :-) Good job, and my apologies for reverting you. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my apologies for doing things in the wrong order.:-)

Many thanks for your contribution to the article on Arne Jacobsen. It is much appreciated.CtznofRvna (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned to look at the article about Arne Jacobsen for the first time after some months. Many thanks for making such a very good contribution to it. That is an understatement - you have, in effect, created something wholly new. The previous form of the article was greatly lacking in significant information. I think the problem may well be that there is so little published in the english language about Jacobsen's architectural work - with reference to his furniture (and related) designs there is considerably more.CtznofRvna (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know that someone actually reads it. You are right that there is not too much information in English (imo a good reason for improving the article) although there is certainly a lot more than I am used to as a contributor to articles on Danish architecture and other cultural fields. The article could still need quite a bit of work though, especially the part on furniture design. If you happen to know any good sources, do feal free to post a link here or on the article's talk page if you don't want to spend time on expanding the article yourselfm that is. I may return to it at some stage to see if I can improve it further. The choise of available images on Wikipedia Commons is also quite sad unfortunately so if you happen to pass some Arne Jacobsen furniture in public spaces (especially notable ones), consider taking a photo. Well, thanks again for noticing my effort.Ramblersen (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bryggebroen, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dw.dk/uk/projects/bryggebroen.aspx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bryggebroen, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.dw.dk/uk/projects/bryggebroen.aspx, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Bryggebroen and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted ''under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Bryggebroen with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and note that you have done so on Talk:Bryggebroen. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Bryggebroen saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! MER-C 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could be good article that I would like to see kept. It just needs to have the copyright issue resolved. Copy-pasting text is a big problem for Wikipedia and cannot be permitted. It is best to write text from scratch using your own words. Please read WP:PLAGIARISM for information on how to avoid plagiarism problems. I've relisted this article which will allow another week for you to rewrite the article without it being deleted. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states the surviving base is five storeys. photos appear to show only three storeys. Which is correct? Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to information posted by the National Museum of Denmark, it should have five floors. Maybe there are some "half floors" (I don't know the correct English term) due to the untraditional character of the building. I can go and have a look to check soon though.Ramblersen (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a cellar to the mill, which would count towards the five. Can you get a photo or two and add to Commons? Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I haven't got a digital cam, but I guess I could borrow one or try to find someone who would do some photos. Generally the selection of photos from Copenhagen on commons is extremely poor and in many cases non-existant. So the easiest sollution would be to find someone with a large stock of photoes already or an interest in photography.Ramblersen (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to The Lakes (Copenhagen), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to The Lakes (Copenhagen). Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 10th International Architecture Exhibition, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.henrikvaleur.dk/hv/awards-grants.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I believe the problem with this one was the extensive use of quotations. WP:NFC sets out that we may only use brief quotations of copyrighted material. Quotes that are extensive in relation to the original source or the article that uses them are still a problem under "fair use" allowances. I have for now simply removed these quotes, since somebody familiar with the topic (probably you :)) can better determine how to properly summarize the information in these quotes and which brief bits may be necessary for direct quotation in accordance with that linked policy & guideline. If you want to talk further about this, please feel free to drop by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these articles. Can I suggest, however, holding off on writing them until you have more to include than the Monarch and Prime Minister? Some references would also be nice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; in future though, note that the standard system is the other way around. While we don't expect finished articles on a first attempt, but something informative is really needed more than lots and lots of lots of uninformative ones. I'm getting an admin to grant you Autoreviewer status by the way :). Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Langebro (song), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Langebro. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I've cleaned up the move you made, and now the page histories make sense. Next time you want to move an article, please use the [move] tab at the top of your screen. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates and new sub pages to the Biennale Wiki. Excellent and easier to overview! I have updated and added the 9th and the 8th exhibition pages as well.Chrdit (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for stopping by. It was a red link on a page I had created and when I read about it, I realized that it had an interesting life and was under appreciated. I have a soft spot for under appreciated thing that are interesting so wanted to improve the article. I've done what I could with my awful Danish to English skills and was in need of help. I think the page is 75% done and just needs a wee bit more love. If you'd like to help I could set up a sandbox for it so we can work on improving the article. When that's done we'd need to get some sources as it only has one right now. Then we'd need to get the information into English. Once it's in English I can do most of the editing. I'd also like to find someone who'd be able to get some photos. Maybe since it's a museum they'd probably even help if we emailed them. So what do you say, are you in ? (Ice Explorer (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

OK.. I've set up the Sandbox here. User:Ice Explorer/Sandbox3 You can write anywhere you like. I've also set up a section just below My Notes called, Ramblersen Notes, for you. In My Notes I've left some comments. You can comment after it even in My Notes. No worries... actually it's best to write comments in the area where the comment is about. You can look at my Sandbox2 to understand what I mean. If you have questions just ask. Don't worry, I'm easy going. Oooh and thanks again for wanting to help. It will make all the difference. Cheers ! (Ice Explorer (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nice work so far by the way. (Ice Explorer (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for finding the sources. Do you think you could find if there are some books you might be able to get from the library that mention Marienlyst ? (Ice Explorer (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've just been looking at your enterprising work on Bjarke Ingels. May I suggest you include a short summary about the architect and BIG in the Architecture of Denmark article, stressing the recent successes of the company. Ipigott (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned your were having difficulty in finding photos of contemporary architecture in Copenhagen. Perhaps there are many buildings or projects which still need to be photographed but here are a few I found in the meantime:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Bryggebroen 2007.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Let me know if you think any can be included in Architecture of Denmark. Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps with better sequencing and pertinent captions, some of them could simply be included in a gallery at the bottom of Emerging Practices. I think you are in a better position than me to add some of the captions. Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for participating so keenly on Architecture of Denmark. As the sections on modern and contemporary architecture are largely your own work, I am glad you defended your position vis-a-vis NVO. Although he does make a number of good suggestions about the article, I do not really agree with his criticism of these sections. To me "Emerging practices" is a perfectly good heading and I also feel that Danish architecture abroad should be included in the article. The only possible change might be to have two separate sections on contemporary architecture, one about developments in Denmark and the other about successes elsewhere. Do you think this would be useful - or just confusing? Ipigott (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very clear conversation with you about Marienlyst Castle. A palace is a property of the sovereign only and since Marienlyst is not owned by the Queen or the State it can not be called a palace. Why you would go behind my back on this when you clearly know I've been working on this article is very disappointing. (Ice Explorer (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have by no means "gone behind your back" &ndash: and you would really do yourself a favour if you stopped seeing everything as some kind of conspiracy against you. I actually refrained from correcting this obvious error (as I have refrained from commenting on several other issues regarding your wikipedia activities) since I did not want to make an issue out of it prior to your self-proclaimed departure. Nor did I want to offend you, eventhough you seem to think otherwise, and Marienlyst Palace was obviously "your" project. However, you rather dramatically proclaimed that you would no longer write here (because of a conflict with someone else) and you have to realize that wikipedia is by nature a collective work and not personal property. If you had not proclaimed that you had left here I would not just have moved it though but either taken the discussion (again) or let it go (and I had gone for the latter).

Now as for what to call Marienlyst: I have two driteria which I find relevant, though I have not checked what Wikipedia says on the matter: !)What is the name officially used by the place itself? 2) What is correct? The first one is easy ndash: the Marienlyst is called Marienlyst Palace in official pamflets and on websides. Now what is correct? A "castle" is a defensice structure and since this building obviously isn't it is not a castle. As for your definition of "palace" I think it is too restractive (though I may of course be wrong). I think the word can correctly be used to refer to any major building originating as a residence of a sovereigh – which this does. Furthermore "palace" seems frequently to be used for "larger mansion". But this is an interesting question since I often think it is unclear how to translate generic term's like this since the words often cover different things in different languages. Since this building came into existance due to the garde, maybe "Pavilion" would be the most correct translation? Still I think it has a lot to say whata place (or anything else) is officially called in English and that is in this case Marienlyst Palace. Still that is just my opinion and I suggest you ask someone else to get a third opinion on this matter instead of taking everything as a personal insult. Now I will move this to Marienlyst's talk page where I think the discussion belongs and I suggest the discussion continues there.Ramblersen (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ramblersen. I don't know whether you have noticed but Ice Explorer has had the Marienlyst article deleted. He also seems to have completely disappeared from Wikipedia himself. I realise he was very upset by recent discussions about the title, etc., but the article was in fact quite well researched and should be reinstated. The admininistrator involved is User talk:Willking1979 . You will see I have complained about the deletion on his talk page. Perhaps you would like to intervene on this too. Fortunately I happen to have a copy of the latest version of the article. Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've just seen the article's gone. But I haven't really contributed to it - neither while it was in his sandbox, before or after. So I don't really see I have any legitimite right to complain about it. I just find it a shame that all his efforts have gone to waste. I had no intension of offending him in any way and the title issue only came about because I thought he had left and would clean up some obvious mistakes (such as Lundhave instead of Lundehave). But if Wikipedia policy says that the sole author may delete an article, I haven't contributed enough to have a right to object. And I have no knowledge of its age or character prior to Ice Explorer's taking an interest in it. To my knowledge it was his baby and if he wants it gone I've got no legitimite saying in it. If you have been more involved in it that I, it should of course not be deleted though but I'm sure Wikipedia will agree with that.Ramblersen (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand your position. But there had been quite a good article in the English Wikipedia on Marienlyst. If my memory is correct, it had been there for about two years or so. Ice Explorer's work went much further than the original article but I think it's completely unfair simply to delete the whole thing on the grounds that someone comes in with a new version from his sandbox. Unfortunately I have had no response from Willking1979 - so it is impossible for the time being to create a new article. Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little knowledge as to how this all works but I'm sure Wikipedia can dig up the old version og put the new one back up, can't you ask someone else to look at it if one hasn't got the time? Most people weem very cooperative and helpful around here. Or does it have to be that specific administrator? Otherwise I'm sure he will respond later, maybe his just not in right now.If there was a wikipedia article before I'm sure it's not wiki policy that there isn't now. Then you can basically make all articles go away by replacing it with another one from your sandbox and then delete it. Ramblersen (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few suggestions in your sandbox. Hope they help.Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been copy-editing your interesting article on Bellevue Beach. I have noticed that both here and in many other articles, e.g. Glorup Manor, you often repeat the same reference, sometimes several times during the article. There is a way of avoiding this. You can give a name to the first reference and simply repeat the name sequence followed by a slash as many times as you want during the article. I suggest the easiest way for you to see how this is done is to look at my last edit of Bellevue Beach. You will also find other examples in my article on St. Bendt's Church. Ipigott (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for enlightening me on how to do that. I've always just copy-pasted the reference when I used it more than once. Part of the reason is though that most of my articles are works in progress (I'm terribly bad at bringing them to a fairly final form before I get myself engage in something new, very bad habit) and then it may end up getting very messy if the first reference disappears or is moved along the way. You are perfectly right that I should start doing it the proper way though. And thanks for cleaning up after me in the Bellevue and Glorup articles!.Ramblersen (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a line to let you know I've edited your sandbox version and recommend you put it up on the main Wikipedia where others might like to participate in its improvement. One aspect which probably needs futher attention is Jacobsen's influence on design work in general and on architecture in particular. But that can be developed in due course. Ipigott (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I've tried to assist with your articles on churches. As far as I can see, the others to which you contributed do not really require much attention. Please let me know if there are any other areas in which I can be of assistance. Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, you have done a great job, the article on the Jesus Church is now the article I always wanted it to have. I will definitely have questions (probably too many) that I will want to consult you on along the way. But now I think you must really need some time to concentrate on your own projects here so I will do my best not to take too much advantage of your kind offer. It would be great to have you go through more articles but generally I think I need to spend a bit more time on most of them before it is worth your time to look at them. But you are of course more than welcome to correct or expand any that you might come cross, if you want to, it is always appreciated and you should not hesitate to make any kind of changes that you think is needed. I made a small correction to the picture you added to the article on the troll sculpture since it is of another copy in Jutland. Ramblersen (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the caption correction. Glad you are happy with the Jesus Church article now. There is something you might be interested in assisting me with too. I have spent quite a lot of time on Art of Denmark and also on Culture of Denmark. I realise you are mainly interested in architecture but you might like to have a look at these too and either make contributions yourself or offer some suggestions for additions or improvement. I have unfortunately not found any other Danes who are keen to become involved. I noticed that you had begun to show interest in the Golden Age which is an important topic for both. Ipigott (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing immediate interest in my article on photography. You may be able to help further by finding vintage photographs from Denmark or Danish photographers. They should all be out of copyright anyway. I know there are physical collections in various places but I have not been able to find any digital archives. In particular I would like to add a few landscape pictures. The other problem is with contemporary photographers. It would be great to be able to show some of their work on Wikipedia but they all seem very possessive about their rights. If you have any personal contacts in the area, you might be able to arrange something. In the meantime, your contributions on museums, galleries and archives are very useful. Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm affraid that it is minimal what I have been able to contribute with so far, both because you do such a great job that I feal I will be more in your way than of help and because I'm stuck with a bad computer and an unstable internet connection (and not much time) over the week end. Tomorrow when I get home I will try to put something more substantial together, including more on various museums, exhibition spaces and archives, but if you think such information should rather be incorporated another way (e.g. in a 'see also' section) just change it of course. As for vintage photographs I will give it a try when I get home to a proper internet connection tomorrow, though I suspect it will be difficult to find since you have been unable to. Have you tried the "den Nationale Billedsamling" (REX?) of the Royal Danish Library? I thought it was digitalized and accessible online though it may require a password. But I have never used it and may be alltogether wrong. As for more recent photographic works, I think it will be very difficult to find anything since their intellectual property rights of their work is their bread and butter. Maybe using some external links can be a (poor but necessary sbstitute). Another possibility is, in time, to take some pictures at exhibitions or of posters in a way which make them fall within "freedom of panorama". It will not illustrate their work very well but at least provide the article with some illustrations - just a thought. Unfortunately I have no contacts to draw on.

As for whom to include of contemporary photographers you seem rapidly to work your way through those I would have suggested. I think I would include Jacob Holdt, Henrik Saxgreen and Morten Bo in that section though, all seem more to be documentarists/social realists than press photographers to me (now). Of younger names I think Jacob Aue Sobol would be relevant to mention. Maybe also Jesper Just allthough he is more famous as a video artist. Maybe also Lars Schwander (international portraits) , though I'm not sure. He is also the man behind Fotografisk Center at Gammel Strand which I will make a small article on when I get home. Maybe it would be an idea to make a seperate section with short mentioning of notable photographers within specialized genre. In that case Per Nagel is very respected internationally as an architecture photographer and Jens Lindhe is also very good (he also makes more artistic pictures and uses some very special techniques which may make him interesting just for that), Erik Refner within press photo, matbe some fashion photographers would be relevant too (if any have an international name, no idea if there are though). Another thing I thought about is wheather it would be relevant to mention something about the relationship between early photography and painting in the History section. Wulhelm Gammershøi used some "photographic techniques" in composition/perspective (and a camera lucida if that is considered early photography) but I'm unsure if he can be said to have been influenced by the emerging photography as such - it may well be irrelevant though, again just a thought.Ramblersen (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thsnks for all your useful suggestions. When I have a bit more time, I'll look more carefully at the people and topics you mention. Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is surprisingly difficult to find early Danish photographs online. There are some landscape photographs by German-Danish Wilhelm Dreesen but they will generally be from localities now located in Germany. Elfelt's [File:Efter Kapsejladsen by Elfelt.jpg After the boat race] might be a candidate. Some other early stereoscopic photographs can be found here but they are not all by authors dead more than 70 years ago. Are there any photographers you are particularly interested in finding pictures from? Then I could make an inguiry at the Royal Library if everything else fails.Ramblersen (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult but I am now beginning to find a few. Unfortunately the Danish digital collections all pretend they have copyright on vintage photos although both EU and US regulations allow free copying if the author has been dead for more that 70 years. I have used this explanation in my uploads. Hope no one complains. Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think it matters if anybody complains. I guess they will just be informed of the rules.Ramblersen (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You might like to have a look at the new section on Art or Science? I think it might provide some of the background behind the relationship between photography and painting. Please feel free to edit it further. Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it now and think it covers the point nicely. I thought there would be something to say in relation to Hammershøj as well but while his work is often compared to photography and exhibited with it, there doesn't seem to bea connection which is relevant to cover here, it is rather something to write about in the Hammershøj article at some stage. However, I think the last paragraphs (from the third one and onwards) of the "Art or Science" section fits better in the "Exhibitions" section. Alternatively, the very short exhibitions section could be merged into the Art or Science section.Ramblersen (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of photograhers to the list of famous Danes. I'm sure there are others who should be there too. Please feel free to add any missing names and also let me know if there are other Danish photographers who deserve an article in the English Wikipedia. Ipigott (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After your tour de force of Danish photography and photographers (which I have been following silently with joy from afar), I doubt I will have many names to have. Great work and in the end quite well illustrated as for the oldest ones. As for the list of Danes, I'm kind of wondering if they should all be mentioned in that list or if it should only be the most notable ones with a reference to a separate—more exhaustive—list of Danish photographers (cf. the section with architects for what I mean). I also think that sollution should be implemented for some of the other professions. Otherwise that list will end up VERY long and while that may not be a problem as such, it may not give the best overview. But talking about lists, I've been wondering if it would be a good idea to rearrange the list of architects according to style (cf. the list of English architects), it will be considerably more informative although it may lead to some difficult destinctions. BTW another thing I thought of, do you know if special rules apply for the uploading of pictures of stamps (like with CD and book covers? If so that might be a partial sollution for the illustration of some of the newer photographers since quite a few of them are on stamps.Ramblersen (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that there are quite a few more names one could write articles about - and not just the ones mentioned in Photography in Denmark. For example, as a result of all the recent reports on Rigmor Mydtskov, I though I should do a write-up on her too. After all, everyone loves pictures of royal families... But I don't want to dominate the scene myself. As for lists, I think the List of Danes serves a useful purpose as it stands but I do agree that there is room for separate lists of artists, architects, photographers, etc. The Swedes have such lists (see List of Swedish architects, List of Swedish artists) which certainly helps you to find people about which no EN articles have yet been written. It may indeed be a good idea to divide them up by style, etc. The only problem is that once you start, you land yourself with quite a bit of maintenance work. As for stamps, you have to be careful. Commons explains: "Note that the copyright status of stamps, especially recent ones, is often obscure; US stamps before 1978 are in the public domain, as are all Soviet and Russian stamps, while Sweden claims copyright on all designs ever issued." And if you look at Commons category Stamps of Denmark, you'll see they are all ancient! So I think it is best to stick with book covers for now. Ipigott (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see with the stamps, it was just a quick thought since I noticed there quite a few of the most interesting new photographers featured on stamps and I thought special rules might apply - but I guess not. I'm sure there are lots of photographers out there who could deserve an article but that goes for a lot of trades and therefore I think it is useful to prioritize. I think Rivad, Helmer-Petersen and Clement should get articles and possibly also a short one for Morten Bo but apart from that I think you have the subject very well covered. Thanks to your admirable effort I think Danish photography is noy one of the topics within Wikiproject Denmark with the finest coverage as best coverage as well as one of the finest photography clusters of any national wikiproject! And the more you dominate the scene the better, I think, since you do such fine work. I do understand if you would have liked more people to lend a hand though and I am sorry for not having done so but I feal I work very slow with that sort of articles compared to the ammount of traffic they are likely to get while you spit them out so fast and to a much better standard so I have felt I was of more use elsewhere. There is so much work to be done here that one never knows where to start.Ramblersen (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your kind remarks. I agree with your suggestions re Rivad, Helmer-Petersen and Clement, all of whom get substantial coverage in Gyldendal's Dansk Fotografihistorie. I'll also be nice to have a few males among all the women I seem to have written about recently! Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe if that's a criteria I think we'd better make some articles on women architects (actually I made one the other day on Dorte Mandrup). But actually it is interesting that there are so many women among the pioneers, with the technical side to it I would have thought it appealed more to men while women were off doing watercolours or something. Now Wikipedia has taught me otherwise.Ramblersen (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramblersen, thanks for comming back regarding Tegnestuen Vandkunsten. I haven't found much independent critique on their work so far, but I think the Alvar Aalto Medal Press Release [1] gives quite a good summary for a start (unfortunately haven't been able to locate the original on www.safa.fi as I don't understand Finnish). I will keep searching, and be happy to cooperate with you on improving these articles. Elekhh (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following your discussions on this. First of all, it seems to me there is quite a lot of background in the reference you quote. And then there are a few details about the organization of the company on their own website. I have looked at the Finnish site and could not find anything useful there. I suggest you start filling in some of the details on the stub and let me know when I can be of help. And if you can find a good reference for the reasons why you would like to add the firm to Architecture of Denmark, then please go ahead and do it. Finally, as you raised photography, I think you should have a look at the article on Jan Grarup - quite a star! Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another line to say that the original press release seems to come from here. Ipigott (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, here's an interesting snippet in Norwegian:

• Siste uke mottok den danske Tegnestuen Vandkunsten den finske Alvar Aalto Medaljen, som deles ut bare hvert femte år til en verdenstjerne. I et intervju i Weekendavisen reflekterer en av tegnestuens grunnleggere, Jens Thomas Arnfred, en av 68-generasjonens opprørere, over hvordan arkitekturen er blitt ”pen – medgjørlig, ordinær, ufarlig”. Boligbevegelsen er død, boligkooperasjonen er blitt vaktmestre. ”Arkitekterne gør stort sett, hva de bliver bedt om, så standen er ikke længere kulturbærende. Engang var der noget, der hed Kritisk Revy, og det var ret politiserende at beskæftige sig med arkitektur”. Grådigheten har fått bedre kår, sier han, selvtilstrekkeligheten har vokst og eksperimentbyggeriet er satt i bero. Ligger det ikke lenger i det profesjonelle noe man kan lengte etter? Kanskje er det viktigere enn på lenge, minner også Arnfreds åndsfrende Jan Carlsen oss om, å bringe arkitekturdebatten ut i det offentlige rom.

It's from here. Ipigott (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up the original source and some supplementary material, Ipigott. I should have a password for Weekendavisen's site somewhere and will have a look at the interview referred to in your Norwegian sourse. I still think that it's a problem that none of their projects seem relevant for separate articles and therefore it will probably just be something very basic that I put together. And right now I have gone a little wikipedia tired so I'm not quite sure when it will be. I can't really make up my mind as what to write about currently and everything seems to go so slow. But hopefully my enthusiasm will return in a few days though.Ramblersen (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ramblersen and Ipigott. I did some work on the article and nominated it for DYK, but of course still much can be improved and expanded. If you have time and interest, this is the right moment to contribute to it :). Elekhh (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your inputs on this. If you look at Art of Denmark, you'll see I have added a few names. I also looked into all the others but I must say some of them seem on the borderline of art as far as I am concerned with their videos, strange "installations" and everything but a painted picture! The next step, I suppose, should be to improve the articles on each of the individuals.

Yes I merely tried to mention some names that are generally considered to be leading Danish artists of the time. On a personal level I totally agree with your description of many of their works, I don't take any interest in that kind of creations either and therefore I don't think I'm the right person to write about them. But especially in those articles that try to give an overview (such as art of Denmark), I think it is important to set personal tastes aside and try to be objectie and representative. And I don't agree with you that it is on the borderline of being art.Ramblersen (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too get periods when I get a bit tired of WP but somehow or other there always seems something to trigger new interest. I was thinking of having a go sometime soon at Cinema of Denmark which requires a lot more work and some sensible updating. The main contributors up to now have been anonymous.

Yes it is very important to find something that triggers one's interest to stay motivated. Personally I have a very big problem with Danish films. I think they generally have a very weak plot/story line, an uninspiring way of presenting it and unappealing cinimatography. They also tend to be so uniform, it often seems to be the same social-realistic, tragicomic,narcissistic story told over and over again with all the same characthers. And considering how many fantastic films there are out there, I think that it is a waste of time.

As for your own work, I always find your articles very interesting. It seems to me there is still tremendous scope for adding articles on Danish castles and manor houses - not to mention churches. I remember you once sent me that well-developed article da:Danmarks førindustrielle bebyggelse which also has lots of good starting points for the EN WP.

You are right that there are certainly no lack of things to do around here. Within the field of architecture, a lot of smaller "red link" architects have now gotten articles due to our joint efforts but most of the leading ones which had an article already still only have a stub or very poor, unreferenced articles. The same goes for a lot of the most important buildings. Maybe that is part of the problem, there is so much available inmformation and they seem to deserve more comprehensive articles but working so slow as I tend to do, it ends up taking so long before it looks like anything - and still it is just a drop in the ocean. Other subjects I have considered going into some detail with (inspired by your great photography article) are Jazz in Denmark (there seems to be some interesting stories there both with the large number of American jazz musicians who ended up here in the 50s and the considerable Danish talent both earlier and now, I don't know much about jazz though) or the Golden Age (the Danish article seems pretty good and there seem to good possibilities for some articles which can bind articles on individual artists together, eg an article on the Danish artists colony in Rome might be an interesting article to research, illustrations will for once not be a problem either). Again it just seems all too comprehensive to embark on right now and more likely I will - with some detours along the way - just keep working on the cityscape, history and architecture of Copenhagen as well as the main cultural institutions of Denmark which have been my main focuss until now.Ramblersen (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I hope you will at least be around as one of the few Danes who seem to be interested in contributing to the cultural content of Denmark. Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all your reactions. On contemporary artists, you are of course right that we should put our personal appreciations aside when writing biographies, etc. You may however be interested to know that I looked quite carefully at the coverage of all the artists mentioned. In particular, I looked at the number of page views on both the English and Danish WPs and included those who seemed to be most popular. I do nevertheless have a problem with "artists" who specialise in, for example, automatically repeating videos. While you could argue that they are somehow covered by the global notion of the visual arts, I do not think that many native English-speakers would expect to find a video specialist in an article about art. It's more like film or TV, perhaps even a category in its own right. But I do realise the Danish Royal Academy is moving very much in this direction. Last year only two of the graduates specialised in painting.

I think we have misunderstood eachother a bit, you wrote 'art' but was obviously talking about 'visual art', my bad. I am not sure I agree that video art is more related to film or TV, I do think it is visual art. Visual art has always adopted new technologies — from carving in rock, bone and wood in the earliest times, over painting on wood and later canvases as well as the development of various graphical techniques to photography. Its ambitions – wheather or not it suceeds – is still to convey some kind of artistic message, sentiment, impression (or whatever it is that art does) while film and TV drama are pro-occupied with story-telling, they are based on some kind of narratives (but you are probably right that the destinction is not clear). But I think it is a very good idea merely to define that it belongs in a seperate article (like with photography) since I don't care the least for it either. Then it is easy and unproblematic to make it an article one chooses NOT to write.Ramblersen (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As for mainstream architects who deserve better articles, please let me have some specific names and I'll see what I can do.

I'm thinking of those architects who dominated their time, names such as Nicolai Eigtved, Lauritz de Thurah (done a tiny bit of cleaning up and added a few notes there), Nicolas-Henri Jardin, Caspar Frederik Harsdorff, Christian Frederik Hansen, Ferdinand Meldahl and Vilhelm Dahlerup. These generally have articles of some length but very poor ones and with no references and I think they all deserve more consiedering the role they held and the buildings they have left. Most of them can probably be made into pretty decent articles quite easily, noone has just done so yet. C.F. Møller and Vilhelm Lauritzen probably also deserve a bit more than their stubs (both due to their roles and because their respective firms still thrive) while their styles don't make working on them very appealing. Jørn Utzon's (apart from the opera house) and Henning Larsen's articles are pretty non-existant too. Still it was mainly the older ones I had in mind when I wrote it.Ramblersen (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you are right about Danish cinema. Personally, I have been quite impressed by some of the more recent work, including drama on Danish television. And there have been some recent prizes for documentaries - a bit like the photo awards. So I just thought the article deserved at least a good work over.

What I wrote about Danish film was probably more a matter of personal taste than right or worng. It probably came out a little harsh since it is a bit of a 'favorite aversion' of mine. I haven't really looked much on any of the wikipedia articles, I'm sure they deserve more work though.Ramblersen (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As for jazz, you are quite right. It deserves a separate article. Denmark is famous for its jazz. The section on jazz in Music of Denmark might be a good starting point. I am not really an expert on jazz either but I do know quite a bit about classical music. So perhaps I'll have a go at that. In any case, Music of Denmark needs cleaning up. If I do start working on jazz, it's nice to know that you too have an interest in the area and that you will no doubt come up with some good ideas. It should probably be called "Danish jazz", just like Dutch jazz, Swedish jazz, etc. I've already found one good starting point here.

Seems like a very good source you have found there. It was Niels Lan Doky and others' current plans to re-open Montmartre as an ambitious, non-profit enterprise that made me think of jazz. As for classical music I have only done a small article on Trio con Brio till now but I have some intentions to do a few more articles on noteworthy ensemles and orchestras and especially through articles and improved categorization to try to highlight the many particularly smaller and more eclectic venues where it is possible to find calssical music (Glyptoteket, Rundetårn, Louisiana, the Black Diamond etc).Ramblersen (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And by the way, if you really think the photography article is so great, why not give it a B in WikiProject Denmark. It already got a B for History of Photography. Maybe we can get it a GA too. -- Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I would and should have done that a long time ago, I just almost never look at these ratings and thought it was rated B already. Now it's fixed.Ramblersen (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see your are progressing so well on this. I have just about finished editing the jazz section in Music of Denmark. It may still be a bit too long considering there is now a separate article but I thought it was just as well to include the main trends. Perhaps you would like to take a look to see if it ties up with what you have been doing. -- Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm affraid it is a very diminutive progress I have done till now. I do think though that it seems a very worthwhile topic with many possibilities and I will try to start putting a more systematic effort into it soon. The good thing is that there seems to be quite good English-language sources for once (apart from those you have already mentioned, THIS is another good one) while illustrations are once again scarce. I think your section in Music of Denmark looks good for now, maybe when the separate article has progressed some minor adjustments will be relevant or a concentration. I think Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen should be mentioned though since he is no doubt one of the most significant name in Danish jazz at all. As for the sections on Rock and Pop, I think the Rock section could use some adjustments though I have very little knowledge as well as interest. If someone else doesn't take it upon them I could try to look on it if that is fine with you (I assume it isn't exactly your interest either). I think Alphabeat should be moved to the Pop section and there Infernal should probably have a mention as well. As for the earlier sections, I'm ondering if the music under Christian IV deserves a bit more coverage, maybe its own short section which would make it easier to link to a seperate article or a more comprehensive section in Christian IV's biographical article. See THIS source and THIS one with a painting which might make a good illustration. I'm also having thoughts about the implications of your change from a genre-based section on Opera to an epoch-based section, where do more recent developments now go? I think someone like Kasper Bech Holten as well as the most important opera singers as well as venues should be mentioned somewhere or do you consider that "Performing Art of Denmark" rather than Music of Denmark material? Same goes for classical music. I haven't looked to much on the revized article yet thoug, these were just some quick thoughts I had.Ramblersen (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these constructive suggestions. You have certainly identified some of my main problems. It is often difficult to decide whether to take a chronological view or one based more on the various genres. Furthermore, inasfar as modern music is concerned, there seem to be many grey areas between, for example, light classical, jazz, rock, pop, electronic and folk. Some artists seem to cover them pretty well all! My initial challenge was nevertheless to try to ensure that the information presented could be properly sourced and that the latest important developments were covered too. While there are now plently of sources, I am still not sure whether I have covered the latest developments. I'll continue to look at this aspect in more detail and will also take your own suggestions into account. I also think there is a need to include something about Danish choirs, "national Danish music" (i.e. anthems, military, etc.) and the rather special way Danes have of writing and singing songs at family celebrations and the like. Maybe it could all come under a general heading "Music in everyday life". Perhaps a section too on all the organizations which are supporting the music scene in Denmark. I had not realized, for instance, that there was a specific initiative on "Danish Music Export" which seems to be paying dividends. But I don't think the article should be too long. There could certainly be separate articles on Danish opera and Danish musicals but you can't do everything at once! There should of course also be much better articles about all the individuals concerned.

The next challenge will be to improve the article on Danish rock.

And to change the subject, you might be interested to know that Photography of Denmark is now in the queue for GA assessment. -- Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to follow up on most of your suggestions. I'm not sure whether the contemporary addition to Opera works too well - but at least there is something there now. Perhaps there should be a separate article on Danish opera but I must say how disappointing it is to see how little interest there is in the classical composers (only a few dozen page views a month) compared to the rock and pop (who have thousands). I would very much appreciate any contributions you can make to the rock scene within Music of Denmark and perhaps also in revamping Danish rock which is pretty dreadful at the moment. -- Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, good to hear that the photography article is progressing nicely, it's been a while since I have looked on it. It is quite true that it is difficult to find the optimum structure since different approaches often hold each their advantages and disadventages. I don't think I would go too much into music export councils etc in this article, rather in the article on the Ministry of Cultural Affairs (if it is not under the Ministry of Trade, that is). It may seem to pay dividends but part of the reason why it seems to be so successful may be that a lot of the English-language online information we rely on come from themselves. I think it is more relevant to mention the most important venues for each genre and maybe also educational institutions. I do realize that some articles get very little traffic but I once looked a list of the most visited pages under WikiProject Denmark and I must say that I prefer to write articles that noone bothers to read than to write about the subjects that attract the most attention (there were only a handful of articles which I found interesting on the top1000 as far as I remember. And I also think that an article such as this one can be instrumental in attracting a bit more traffic to some articles but it will be interesting to see if there is any detectable effext in a while (I'm probably naïve for hoping so). Refarding your thoughts about making a 'Sing' section, I think the Danish 'revy-vise' tradition (Osvald Helmuth, Poul Henningsen) would also be relevant to mention. It is of course not too interesting for non-Danish speakers since it is in Danish but still it seems very typical and still (surprisinglu) alive. I don't know to which extent similar traditions exist in other countries. I will try add something to the rock section, one of the sources I used in the electronic music section (Hvad lyttede vi til i 80'erne? or something like that) gives a pretty good overview of that decade and also a bit which can be used for the 80s. I'm not keen on spending too much time on it but the amount of traffic it attracts does indeed make it relevant to improve it. Hopefully these articles can also be used for canalling some traffic to the Music of Denmark article.Ramblersen (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that the Danish revues have more or less become part of the infrastructure but I am not too sure if they should be included in Music of Denmark. Culture of Denmark may be a better home. I think the answer to Music Export Denmark is to write a short article about it with appropriate links. If I remember correctly, it all started as a result of Aqua's international success some time back. But they do have a pretty good website, geared to young people of course, and it gives a good idea of how the Danes are faring outside Denmark. As for the venues, there are the prestige developments like the Opera and the new Concert Hall. These are probably followed by some of the other Copenhagen theatres (The Royal Theatre, Det Ny Theater and perhaps Nørrebros Theater). I'm not too sure about the provinces. Then there are the clubs and night spots about which you probably know more than me. You can probably help with the educational side too. -- Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whem I mentioned the Ministry of Culture (with relevant subpages), it is because I think it would be good to provide an overview of the various regimes and initiatives that exist to support music and the arts in general in Denmark. Things like support for regional music venues (which seems more genre based to me than regional most of the time) and particularly the Danish Arts Foundation and their 3-year work grants and life time grants etc. The latter would be good sections to be able to link to since a lot of artist biographies refer to them without explaining what exactly they are. In this connection I also think the Music Export initiative is relevant but when I am a little sceptical, it is because I get a little tired of the Danish tendency to believe that we are world champions just because a single or a few acts do reasonably well for once. And if written here I just think it easily comes out as pathetic and biased (not that I think you would in any way present it this way, I am talking about a general tendecy). I doubt this is very successful compared to most other countries where I am convinced that similar initiatives exist. Rather I prefer just present the facts and let people form their own opinion wheather this is a success. And I certainly think it takes more than Music Export's own sources (and I doubt others exist) to deem it a success - they are stakeholders with an obvious interest in furthering their course and keeping their jobs/funding by presenting themselves as a huge success (I frquently see almost comic examples of something similar in Danish media and am always puzzled, distrubed actually, that Danish journalists are so uncritical and easy to manipulate but I guess printing a press release is just attractively easy). Therefore I just think the topic should be covered with some caution, apart from that it is relevant enough.

As for venues, I think those that are relevant to mention are pretty uch there, I merely meant that it is good that they are. Mainly because I think it is worthwhile to spend a little time on their articles as well, I think they are likely to get a fair amount of traffic and they can also be used to direct traffic to both the genre articles and those on individual artists or acts, thus contributing to integrating the coverage of Danish music ("building the net" - similarly with museums and artists). I am affraid you overrate my knowledge of "clubs and night spots", these kind of places also tend to come and go, making them irrelevant for coverage or there will be a very big need for maintenance. But I do think that some of the smaller and more eclectic venues such as Rundetårn, the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek's auditorium and Louisiana's concert hall deserve some attention but something as simple as better categorization can often be of use here combined with a short section and a link, they are probably not relevant to mention in the Music of Denmark article (rather in the culture section of the Copenhagen article, with that article getting 80,000 hits a month it is very useful for drawing attention to articles such as Music of Denmark too). I pretty much mentioned educational institutions for the same reason, something as simple as a list of "notable alumni" which most such articles have can be instrumental in drawing attention to relevant articles. Still, I guess I won't finish working my way through Danish jazz until sometime in 2024 so I probably shouldn't make too many plans of promises about what to work on in the future. Ramblersen (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thomas Fryland, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.thomasfryland.dk/index.php?ID=2&lang=da. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should start a new section on this as we seem to be moving further and further away from Danish jazz.

In connection with the culture of Denmark in general, I began to look into support mechanisms for the arts some time ago. I have hesitated to enlarge on the issue, however, as not only are the regulations difficult to understand (and probably even more difficult to explain) but there have been a number of administrative changes in recent years which seems to have changed some of the priorities. You may be aware of all this yourself but if you are not, just take a quick look at this summary of The History of Danish Arts Policy and this brochure from 2002 on Danish Cultural Policy giving details of both the old system and the one which was about to be introduced at the time. While all this information is probably not too interesting for people outside Denmark (as they are unlikely to be able to benefit from the subsidies), I could perhaps include a few lines at the end of the article Culture of Denmark. Unfortunately there is nothing about the Danish Ministry of Culture in the EN WP and what there is in the DA WP is not very complete. It is even more difficult to explain the involvement of the regions and the municipalities. And finally, most other countries have similar setups although the extent of the subsidies seems particularly high in Denmark (to be verified). -- Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on ministerial support for music, I just found this. So most of the funding is being spent on education. -- Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been pretty active on both the jazz scene and now theatre in Denmark. I thought it might be a good idea to have a change too and so I started an article on Architecture of Luxembourg which Elekhh helped me submit to DYK for inclusion a day or two ago. As you are interested in architecture, you may have some suggestions for further improvements. And while I am here, you might also be interested to know that the Photography in Denmark article is in the queue for GA nomination. I thought it might be worth a try. As for Music of Denmark, I have been through the basics but might return later. It seems to be quite a popular page. I also think that next time I am in Denmark, I might have a go at performing arts. Perhaps you would be interested in helping out? Please let me know if there´s anything I can do to help you with your recent work. --Ipigott (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can see I have become a rather infreguent contributer to Wikipedia lately (though extra infrequent since I've been away over Easter) and it is probably going to continue that way – at least for a while. With the minimal activity within the areas of WikiProject Denmark that have my interest it simply seems a bit futile to put an effort into trying to improve anything, it takes me so long to do so little. I will probably continue to do an article now and then though. I am of course sorry to see and hear that you are lost for WikiProject Denmark for now since you have been such a great asset but I totally understand that you feel a need to explore new horizons after making such a tremendous contribution for such an extended period of time within this rather small and unremarkable corner of the world and it is good to see that you continue your work within other at least just as worthwhile subjects. If you choose to return later at some stage to have a go with performing arts pr spmething else, do drop me a note here and I will probably be happy to try to help out to the best of my ability. Good to hear that everything progresses as planned with your photography article. And thanks for offering your help if I have any questions, I will probably take you up on that now and then!Ramblersen (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have not moved away completely from WikiProject Denmark. If you look a my contributions over the years you will see that they fluctuate mainly between Luxembourg, Denmark and France. I'm sure it won't be long before I return to the Danish scene. Thanks once again for all your support and interest. And let me know if ever I can help you along with your own articles. -- Ipigott (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really impressed by your article on cycling in Copenhagen. It gives an excellent overall view of the situation. As you will see, I've made a few additions myself. I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to start a separate article on the Bycykler. There's quite an interesting history and it could be of interest to all those cities which are now using Copenhagen as an example for their own schemes. I see that there are already articles on a number of similar schemes such as Stockholm City Bikes. What do you think? - Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again there, long time no see. Great to see that you have picked up on that article and made some great improvements. I have myself quite a few updates and additions for it which I ought to get around to making. And it is certainly a lot easier to find the motivation when others show interest in an article and improve it too. I think it would be a very good idea to make a separate article on the Copenhagen City Bike scheme and would certainly try to contribute to it if you decide to do it. I can also¨try to make it but have not been too productive lately and there are also so many other articles which I would like to get staarted or improved so I'm not sure when I will get around to it. They are working on a much needed new design of the bikes, the current vikes are so bad that they could also be treated in the article on cirporal punishment. I also intend to make a separate article on the system of Copenhagen Greenways which is under development but it has progressed quite slowly due the shortage of funds and therefore it has also been less apealing to spend time on an article.[[User:Ramblersen|

BTW have you noticed the vintage clip I recently added under External links with footage of Copenhagen in the 30s? I find it very interesting that so much of the commentary still seems relevant today. Plus it offers some beautiful pictures of a Copenhagen of the past.Ramblersen (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clip from the 30s is really great. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. However I couldn't help thinking of Peter Seller's Balham, a skit on an American travelogue. You should listen to it.

I know too that the Copenhagen City Bikes are now pretty antiquated and that there has been a competition encouraging proposals for replacements. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any recent news on how things are progressing in this regard. Perhaps you can help. As you will see, I've already made a start on Copenhagen City Bikes but it still needs some work. It would, for example, be good to have some user reactions. And I have not been able to find out to what extent they are really used by tourists. I have not yet had time to look at recent newspaper reports - so I might find something there. And I don't know whether H. C. Schmidt has any plans concerning bicycles. Perhaps the current austerity measures have curtailed further interest... Any edits or suggestions you may have would be very welcome. - Ipigott (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• HAHA got to love that Peter Sellers vlip and yes a major appeal of that old Copenhagen is certainly the comic quality of it. Great you have already made a good start of the Copenhagen City Bike article, within the next couple of days when I have the time I will have a closer look at it and the general biking article and see what I have to add.Ramblersen (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Eskilsø is listed twice in your table with two slightly different areas.

I'm trying to update all the populations and propose to give only one reference to Danmarks Statistik at the top of the column. - Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is also duplication on Hirsholmene - also with different areas. When I have time, I'll reinsert all the Gyldendal references I deleted. - Ipigott (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been doing a good job on some of the articles about Danish islands. Your info boxes are particularly well presented. Would it be asking too much of you to apply the same approach to some of the new island articles I have completed recently? These include: Birkholm, Fænø, Hjarnø, Gavnø, Enø, Glænø, Bågø, Venø, Alrø. Some of these articles may be more "deserving" than others. I'll leave it entirely up to you. - Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has more or less only been with the infoboxes I'm affraid. But I will continue to add infoboxes to those islands that have an article of some length - or seems to deserve one. As for the list of islands, we discussed if anything more should be added to the table, you talked about coordinates or island group I believe, and I guess a coloumn with images was an possibility. Have you made up your mind on thast one? If you want anything added I'll see to the practical side of it. I tend to think that it is fine the way it is. Also I was wondering if a photo would be a better choise at the lead than that map? I was thinking about this one, Anholt may not be the largest and most significant Danish island but I like that it is an aerial photo because it immediately sends the "island" message - and Anholt is not without interest plus it is a true island and not one of those that is attached to the rest of the world by bridges or dams. There may well be other better candidates out there but it was the best I could find when having a quick look. To stick with the map is also fine of course.Ramblersen (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the infoboxes are really good, particularly the location map for the larger islands. There might, however, be a problem using the same locator for the smaller islands as it will be almost impossible to see where they are unless they are ringed or clearly named. Is this something you can do? I think the list of islands is fine and see no need to add any further information as those who want it can simply click on the name of the island in question. I have noticed some discrepancies in the location column which need to be looked at more carefully when there is time. I don't really think there is a need to include images in the list. Personally, I think it is easier to get an overview by leaving the list the way it is without images. I was nevertheless wondering whether it might not be useful to provide a list of, say, the 10 (or perhaps 20) most populated islands in order of population. This could come after the main list. As for including a photo against the lead instead of a map, I'm not too sure. The map might not cover the whole of Denmark but it does at least clearly show the location of most of the islands at the top of the list. I think this information is useful for those looking at the Danish islands for the first time. - Ipigott (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I wan't quite sure about what to do with the locator maps for the smaller islands and decided just to go with the general Denmark map for now. One possibility is simply to have the islands marked out in red on more detailed regional locator maps. It has the disadvantage of not givin the same overview - where about in the country are we? - for outsiders but I think it is fair to destinguish about islands of (inter)national interest and islands of more local interest, assuming that people interested in very small islands have at least some knowledge of Danish geography. However, some of the smallest islands may well even be too small to mark on the more detailed maps. I'm personally not too crazy about those others maps, they seem very old/unattractive/crabbed to me and hard to get an overview from. I think it is important to remember that this is an encyclopedic article, if somebody wants the exact location on a map they would probably make a search on Google Maps instead or as a supplement. The way it is now you get a clear overview of where about in the country the islands is located and in most cases I think that is more useful than a very detailed map that gives no overview but rather the island's relationship with some surrounding islands that the reader is not likely to recognize either. A possibility is to keep the locator map in the infobox as an overview and then have a detailed map further down in connection with a geography section. I think it would be a good idea to see how it is done in other countries - I'm sure some small Scottish islands will provide good guideance although I haven't got the time to look into it right now. Right now I think I'm most tempted by the sollution with as many islands as possible marked out in solid red on regional locator maps. And for a few - Fanø, Fur and Anholt - I think it might be okay just to have them marked on the general Denmark map. As for the practicaæ side of it, I have no idea how to create these maps. But I guess it would be possibly to write someone who has made some of the islands for the larger islands and hear if he would create some more.

As for a list of the most populous islands, the table already provides that. You just have to click the symbol after "Population" one or two times (depending on wheather you want it from top or bottom) and it rearranges the list. You can also use it to get the list alphabetically or arranged after location alphabetically by clicking the symbols in the other columns. I thought it was better to get all in one table but I guess a lot of user may not be aware of this function and therefore it may be relevant to make an extra list. If you think so I will happily do it.

And another thing is that I had problems getting the locator maps centred as you can see, they kept going to the right. I will of course fix this when I find out how to. Ramblersen (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was one of those who did not realise I could change the display by clicking on the headings - so there you are! I tend to agree with you on the locators. The most important thing is probably to deal with the larger islands anyway. And I'm afraid I can't help you with the colouring in red. Perhaps Dr Blofeld knows how to do it. We could contact him later when we are clearer on what needs to be done. The top priority at the moment seems to be to improve the articles on the larger islands anyway and perhaps create some new articles on those in the list that still show up in red. Perhaps this whole discussion should be copied to the Danish islands talk page?? - Ipigott (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is much need to move this discussion to the talk page. My experience tells me that not many are likely to take an interest and that discussions just tend to die there because noone notices them. But if you think it is better, it is of course fine with me. Right now we will both know to have a look there. I agree with you that the priority should be the biggest islands, the largest 20 ones or so. I will try to get rid of some red links every now and then so that it doesn't end up that you can concentrate on more important articles. Copenhagen-related articles remain my main interest though so I may squeze a few of those in along the way.Ramblersen (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made some inquiries on the talk page of the List of islands of Denmark about some possible entries on the list. Just so you don't miss it in case you have any answers or comments.Ramblersen (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a new section to your own talk page as mine seems to be getting rather confused. First of all, I must apologise for missing your "Miscellaneous" queries. There were probably two additions to my talk page by different people at the same time. And then I found it difficult to see your latest comments on an older topic. Anyway, here are my comments:

Oh no need to apologize, I am missing and forgetting things on such pages all the time. I just don't loke to fiddle with something other people have spend time on without having discussed it first.Ramblersen (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sydhavsøerne: I suggest you start by writing a short article on what this covers. I would also suggest that you make a redirect to it from "Danish islands south of Zealand" which seems to be the English equivalent.

Will do.

• Læsø: No comment

• Gavnø Castle: There could indeed be a separate article on this although I think the Gavnø article could remain as it is.

Oh I did not want to change anything about the Gvnø article (only add a *main article* reference), it was about moving St. Agnes' Priory, Gavnø to Gavnø Castle and making the info on the priory a subsection of the history. Since it is without references it will neeed a bit f work anyway and I thought it would make more sense that way. But when I wrote it I actually thought that the article on the priory was your article under development which I realize now that it isn't.

• Cycling - Expo pavillion: I mentoned this in Cycling in Copenhagen. I included the section on similar initiatives as I thought it was interesting to see how interest is spreading. It could be more closely connected to "Influence". Alternatively it could be presented as a template. Feel free to edit accordingly. I think the concept of bicycle monuments is interesting. Why not include a new section?

It is indeed interesting but I am from the section not sure if 'similar' initiatives relate to "creating bicycle-friendly cities" in general or bike sharing schemes. Either way I think it belongs in a general article unless sources are provided that the relied on inspiration directlt from Copenhagen. For the latter, there is the Bicycle sharing system article whereas Bicycle culture or the long article on Utility cycling might be a better place for the former. It might also be relevant to include more info about cycling in Denmark/Copenhagen in those articles.

• Bispebjerg Bakke: I cannot find this.

It is at Bispebjerg Bakke (building) but I see that the template is now gone so no need for you to look at it anymore.Ramblersen (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this answers outstanding queries - and thanks for the box on Nekselø. I am still working on the article. - Ipigott (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Nevsky Church, Copenhagen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bredgade, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Anton Rosén, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tomas e (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...I thought I was on the talk page Anton Rosen, not Anton Rosén after removing a redirect.Ramblersen (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Albert_K.C3.BCchler. Hope you don't mind. Put WP Albania, for the Albanian girl see also talk page. Very nice article. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Küchler, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following with interest the work you have been doing in connection with the Danish Golden Age. The English WP article currently concentrates almost exclusively on painters from this period although the concept is of course much wider. Do you think it would be a good idea to expand the article to cover architecture, music, literature, theatre, and related areas? The Danish Golden Age site gives an excellent account of the movement as far as Copenhagen is concerned while the Danish WP article also offers considerable depth on the various fields together with many excellent references. In addition, there are sections on the Golden Age in the English WP articles on Danish music and Danish literature, while the article on architecture also contains some useful material.

Given these sources, it should not be too difficult to expand on the theme. The real question is whether there should be separate articles on, for example, the Golden Age of Danish literature, the Golden Age of Danish music, etc., or whether everything should be put together in the general article on the Danish Golden Age. Any views? And perhaps you would like to contribute to whatever we do with architecture?

Your own work on the Golden Age template should also offer guidance on the topic.

And while I am here, I wondered whether you had done anything with my recent translations? - Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have atually been meaning to ask you about the exact same thing but since you have aeemed rather busy at the time, I figured it could wait. I definitely think that the Danish Golden Age article should be made into an overview article covering all artistic disciplins. As for seperate articles, I think that at least painting will require one. My suggestion would be that it was called Copenhagen School (painting) since at least some sources I have seen states that this is the name the Eckersberg school usually goes by internationally. I also think that it will be useful to introduce that term to avoid constantly using the rather long phrase "Golden Age of Danish Painting" and simply to get a possibility of varying the language more. But maybe it is better to stick to Golden Age because it is probably somewhat broader in scope and then just to mention the other phrase. As for other artistic disciplins, I think there is less of a need. I think the subject can be covered fairly good by making some improvements to the most important biographical articles. The relevance for English-speakers is probably also smaller (I doubt many will spend their vaccations reading Christian Winther) and therefore I think less energy should be invested there. I agree with you that the Golden Days-site is very useful for an expansion (and the template I made is largely based on it and with an expansion of the Danish Golden Age article in mind).

I will of course be happy to contribute to the best of my ability. But I was kind of wondering if you would be interested in being the wtriter of it at some point. I think that both the importance and character of it calls for better language than I am able to offer. But I will of course be happy to participate and also put in a lot of work in creating and upgrading related articles (as U am already working on with a few digressions now and then). If you haven't got the time or will rather work elsewhere, I will probably expand the article a bit but it will neither be as much or as good as the subject deserves, I am affraid. And the subject is so big that it is a bit overwhealming for one person - at least if that person is me.

As for your translations, I have implemented one of them so far. The one on Assistents Cemetery has not been put in yet since I have been looking for a source I saw earlier and now cannot find which I also intended to use for an expansion of the article. But it is certainly not forgotten and you are right that I should just put it in now and then I can always add more later. I will see to it right away.

Did I forget something? Well I have a few questions to you about the Danish islands cluster but not to get things all too chaotic here, I think that'll better wait until some other time. Oh and thanks for the sopy edits in various articles – they are as appreciated as they are needed!Ramblersen (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small addition to my previous answer: I htink that it is a good if "Golden Age" and "Modern Breakthrough", where relevant, is also used as headlines of subsections in related articles&Mdash;that will built a net of articles which is very easy to refer to relevant main articles and thus create a good network of articles. For example those two headlines will be useful subsections of the history articles in the articles on the Royal Danish Academy and the Royal Danish Theatre. It will also be a shortcut to upgradfing such articlesRamblersen (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try to make a start by enlarging the generic article to cover the other areas. Do you think the Copenhagen School of Painting is really fully equivalent with the Golden Age? If so, it should at least be mentioned in the article. -- Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of your Swedish quote is http://www.kobenhavnshistorie.dk/bog/kko/a/kko_a-39.html. - Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naah it is probably not fully rquivalent so it is probably better to stick with Danish Golden Age. But I will have to look more into it to know for sure. But Danish Golden Age seems also a bit difuse towards the end. Some sources see National Romanticism as a movement in the gap between the Golden Age and the Modern Breakthrough while others see it as part of the Golden Age it seems. But I guess that is how it always is with terms like that. Sounds great that you will start on the article already - but if you will rather finish your work on the Skagen movement and related articles I think it can easily wait? Then I will just continue working of related articles. But sometimes variation is good.

Thaknk you for posting the link but it is already in the article with the quote. It was another source I saw at some point (and with some illustrations) which could be used for a further expansion. But it is not important, there are so many other articles that need work and now the quote has been implemented.Ramblersen (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under architecture, you have Hans Jørgen Koch which links to someone now at the ministry of climate and energy. I have found vague references to a Hans Jørgen Koch who was an architect but nothing of substance. Could you look into this? - Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of Jørgen Hansen Koch and when the link came out nice and blue I did not realize I had made a mistaking. Thanks for pointing it out.Ramblersen (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more item on the template: I see you have included Niels Laurits Høyen under Law and Science. I had added his name to the section on Painting as I thought it was there he exerted the greatest influence. But he now appears twice and should no doubt be removed from one of the categories. What do you think?

Well to me he seems a bit misplaced under 'painting' with all the other names being artists. But maybe a group could/should be renamed, or a new one intruduced. For instance 'Theorists', Critics' or simply 'other central figures'. But if you want him under 'Painting', it is fine with me.

I think I have now more or less completed the expanded article for the time being. I decided not to go into law and politics as these appear to be of little international interest and I have also omitted the Danish poets who have not been translated into English. There may however be important gaps in some of the other areas. I would, for example, particularly appreciate your views (or edits) on architecture - and indeed on any of the other sections if you think they need attention. I was also wondering whether it would be useful to add an introductory section on the context and history of the Golden Age as a whole but am not sure whether it would really be helpful. I have a feeling that most people who read the article will be most interested in one of the cultural disciplines rather that the movement as a whole. I await your comments. - Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I mention law in the template was to fit in Anders Sandøe Ørsted somewhere. The Danish template also lists Jonas Collin under law but I think he is more relevant as a patron (to H. C. Andersen and others) or an administrator. A group with politicians could imo be relevant to include if someone at some stage decides to write something more substantial on the process leading up to the Danish Constitution of 1848 but since there is not much there as of now and this focusses on the arts anyway, I don't see any point in including politicians either. I think my fist choise would be simply to make an 'Other central figures' group in the template which replaced 'patrons and administrators' and which could also contain Høyen and A. S. Ørsted.

As for an introductory section, I think it will be very useful annd should fefiniely be there. It does not have to be very long but I think the article should link the movement to the historical context. I think it is particularly relevant to mention that this culturally rich period came at a time which was otherwise dominated by disasters and national crisis: The Fire of Copenhagen of 1795 and of Christiansborg the year before, the British bombardement in 1807 in the Battle of Copenhagen, the National Bankrupcy in 1813. I even think it would be worthwile to mention this contrast in the lead. I also think it is relevant to mention the constitutional process which was going on at the time in an introductory section since it is obviously a very central part of Danish history. I would also include something about the centres, that the movement was very centred on Copenhagen unlike later in the century when other centres formed, and the significance of Rome. I would at least myself, if I was a foreigner with enough interest to read this article, appreciate like this. But it only has to be very short to provide an overview and I will happily make a draft proposal which you can then copy-edit or reject if you don't want to bother with it.

As for architecture, I think it would be relevant to include something in the History of Copenhagen which the template links to under 'centres'. See my short article on Højbro Plads and the relevant page on the Golden Days site which it relies on for an idea of what I mean. Right now the Golden Age section of the History of Copenhagen article almost exclusively gives a detailed account of the Battle of Copenhagen while it ignores that a large part of Copenhagen (central Copenhagen today) was shaped during this period, as does it ignore the entire Golden Age issue,that the city had a thriving cultural scense eamidst all the hardships.

Ramblersen (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've now included a new section on Background and history which addresses most of the points you suggest. I'm not too happy about addressing the History of Copenhagen article at this stage. I think you would be much better placed to do so yourself - and I could help with the editing if you wish. As for the constitutional process, I think this is an issue which deserves a separate article - but not from me, thanks.

I have, by the way, come across many other people who seem to have been associated directly or indirectly with the Golden Age but I hesitate to add more complexity. I think the article is about the right size at the moment. - Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. One more thing about architecture though. As it is now I tink it appears as if Harsdorff was part of the Danish Golden Age. But Neoclassicism set in well before the Golden Age and he died just before 1800. Instead I would stress the point a nit more that the main sourcve of inspiration for CF Hansen was the original Classical architecture of Rome and Greece for Harsdorff whose inspiration came from France (through Jardin, as you write). Another point I think is relevant to touch upon is that it was mainly prestige buildings which were designed by architects proper while the majority of buildings were designed by craftsmen (like Andreas Hallander) with some extra training at the Academy. I think it could be mentioned in this article too although it may be more relevant to the section in the History of Copenhagen article. I will rewrite it when I get around to it and will of course be greatful for a copy edit afterwards. In the section of painting, I think I would save the subsections about landscaping and genre painting for an article dedicated specifically to Golden Age painting, and then supplement them with sections on portrait and model painting.

I am also wondering if the "Background and context" section should rather be called "History" and then describe the progression of the movement. Some developments are cross-disciplinary and are there maybe best covered here. Apart from the background and the context which is already there, I am thinking about something like the inset of National Romanticism around 1840, prompted by Høyen, and how the Golden Age ultimately faded out and the transition phase until the Modern Breakthrough. According to this article /which is right now a dead link but hopefully it will come back bacause it was a very good article about landscape painting) landscape did not establish as a subject in its own right until 1837, that might also fit into such a section although it probably belongs in a more specific context. But it is just a thought and whatever you prefer is fine with me. The section is good as it is.Ramblersen (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to work on your suggestions regarding architecture but would really appreciate more background on Hallander and if possible some illustrations of his work. Perhaps you would like to write an article about him. - Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding until now but I have been away for a few days. I have looked a bit on Andreas Hallander and must admit that there seems to be less soureces than I though (mainly the Danish wikipedia article and an even shorter mantion in "Den Store Danske".). What I suggested was mainly based on this and this from the Golde Age site as will as various pages from the suggested city walks such as this one. but since there is so little on Andreas Hallander, I think the best sollution is that I try to include this aspect in an update of the relevant History of Copenhagen section while your short mention in the Golden Age overview article will do there for now. I am on my way out the door again now but will look more into it as soon as possible.Ramblersen (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it would nice to have a few addresses of buildings he designed. Maybe photos already exist on Commons but without specific mention of his name. - Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find a list of buildings in his Danish biography. I think I looked for pictures of his work at some point earlier but am not sure. Right now I am on a very bad connection so I can't look again unfortunately. I can probably get a picture fairly soon if you don't find anything and think one is needed.Ramblersen (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I finally got around to doing a very short piece on Hallander. As you seem to be something of an expert on the streets in the centre of Copenhagen, I hope you will be able to insert at least one photo of his buildings. Most of those I have found don't have the street numbers which would identify them. It now looks as if John Martin Quist should also have a page. - Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see that you have filled in this blank. I got really stuck trying to put something together on him and the related chapter on Golden Age Copenhagen which I have in mind as well as a few other articles I was working on so I ended up simply turning to other articles to get back on the wiki-hurse – and thanks for the copy-edits of my recent batch of articles in that regard. I have a few questions for you so I have put the rest of mu answer in a sandbox here not to get things messed up here.Ramblersen (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a huge shopping list you have put together for me! I'll try to go through the items one by one as time allows. But on the issue of photographs of Copenhagen, I have found the share alike area of Flikr very useful. You can begin your search here - just remember to specify Flikr. For example, searching on Amaliegade I found this which, with a little cropping would not be too bad. But I am not sure of the house numbers or whether Hallander was the architect, though I suspect he was. You can find many other good images by specifying other pertinent Copenhagen streets and squares, all of which could be uploaded to Commons. If you have time, perhaps you could play around a bit and let me know if you find anything useful. - Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry about that! It was by no means meant as a "shopping list" - well only the translations but please just say if you don't want to fiddle with it. And I see that the first part sounded all wrong but it was rather meant as an an attempt not to step in your way and an offer to express your opinion before I go ahead with any of it. Pease just ignore it, please just ignore it.:)

As for pictures; I have uploaded tons of then from Flicker already )although far from put all of them to use yet) but I am not sure I have used the search tool on Flicker right so maybe I will have more luck with the one you suggest. I'll look at it.Ramblersen (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the List of online encyclopedias? Not a bad list but it's nearly all English-language resources. I was wondering if it would not be useful to compile a list of Danish online encyclopedic resources. For English speakers, these resources are not easy to find but they can be very useful, particularly now that the Google translation tools can do a pretty good job with Danish too. You no doubt have lots of ideas about this but for a start I would mention:

• Den store Danske
• Kunstindeks Danmark & Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon
• Kendtes Gravsted
• Dansk Kvindebiografisk Leksikon
• Project Runeberg
• REX
• Bibliotek.dk
• Dansk Architektur Center
• Salomsens konversationsleksikon

Then there are scores of databases here but most of them require registration, login and usually payment.

I know about Leksikon for det 21. århundrede but it seems to have very little in it.

Do you think it would be useful to put these and any others you may know into a list for WP with short explanations? It might help to develop many of the articles about Danes and Denmark which are completely unreferenced! - Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea to me. As usual you seem to have pretty much nailed it. A few candidates could be:

• • Dansk biografisk leksikon which can be found online here: Dansk biografisk leksikon
  • Selskabet for Københavns Historie has been a very useful ressource for me with my interest in Copenhagen related articles but I don't know if it would qualify for this list
  • This site is new to me, stumbled over it just yeasterday, but it seems to contain quite a lote of info on Danish writers. But it probably relies on some of the others. Its front page may also provide some further links, I haven't looked at it yet.
  • This one also seems to pop up frequently when it comes to literature but I doubt many non-Danish speakers (or Danish-speakers) or will find it particularly interesting.

But there are obviously a lot of specific ones. There are great online ressources both on H. C. Andersen and Bertel Thorvaldsen for example where you can find pretty much any doodle they ever made on the backside of a piece of paper and info on where they were and who they met on any given time. But that obviously belongs an their respective pages and not in a general list. On a general note, I think it is best to keep it short, less is more.Ramblersen (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you mention are very good too. I agree that those devoted to just one person are not really what we need here. As you are so good at lists and things, do you think you could put something together? There should be space for providing a short description of what the resource holds. If you can put together a model, I'll fill in some of the details. I suppose that each one probably deserves a short article in Wikipedia. There are in fact already three articles in Category:Danish encyclopedias. But those can come later. I think the list would be useful now. - Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand what you have in mind, you plan for a seperate article on Danish online ressources? Alternatively the Danish ones could just be added to the various tables in the article you linked to initially, there seems to be lots of ones that are not in English? I think it will be a rather short list for a seperate article. BTW it is important to destinguish between Den store Danske Encyklopædi which has been made available online and their wiki alternative which is made by the user. There is btw also [Absalon - Københavns historie på nettet Absalon] but I don't think it is very successful, I never run into it when searching. But I'll make a table when I am sure I have understood what you are after.Ramblersen (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have in mind is a separate article "List of Danish encyclopedic resources", rather like the main list but separate. The reason is that the people behind the main list are not too keen to include Danish resources until they have been proven to be useful and until they have a specific Wikipedia article. You can see the discussion here. But if you like, I'll try to put something together myself. Thanks for your useful suggestions. - Ipigott (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See List of Danish online encyclopedic resources. Feel free to edit, make additions, reformat, etc. Thought it was important to get it off the ground quickly. - Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think that at least the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi belongs in the main article but I think it makes sense that they want entries to have a wikipedia article first – to avoid spamming with all sorts of weird publivations. I'll try to make a draft, I just wanted to be sure which sollution would be best for this.Ramblersen (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gace now made a draft here but I was much in doubt as what to include (publisher, year etc?). Another problem is the matter of different editions, they vary quite a lot in content and it is in some cases only the older versions which are available online. I am wondering if it would be better not to put this in a table but instead to have (sub)sections on the individual ressources – since it seems to vary which information is relevant to include.

As for the main list, I think the best sollution would be to split it into tables for individual countries, compare the List of concert halls, but that is not a discussion I am going to take with them.Ramblersen (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Den store Danske is in fact already in the main list. I appreciate your efforts to prepare a tabulated list but I was wondering if it would not be a good idea to wait for a while (a) because there might be reactions and suggestions and (b) because I would first like to write short WP articles about each resource. I don't really want to open a discussion on the main list either. For the time being, I have just put the Danish list in "See also" there. It will also be interesting to see how many people actually access the Danish list as it is now.

If the Danish list is a success, I was thinking of compiling similar lists for German, French, Norwegian, Spanish and Swedish. Then we can see how they should be accommodated at the global level. Thanks for all your help. - Ipigott (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that we are misunderstanding eachother again then. I thought a table was what you asked for but agree with you that it is better without the table right now. I doubt it will get much traffic, even if people are interested, the chance to actually encounter it seems fairly small.

I see that you have already made the translations, thabks! I will start incorporating right away — if Wikipedia will cooperate, it has been making trouble today (here at least).Ramblersen (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my attention to the Carl Nielsen article. I have had a look at it and at the assessment by Magicpiano. As Mirokado appears to have been the one who requested the assessment, I have made a number of suggestions about how to improve the article on his talk page. You might like to have a look at these too and may have some more suggestions of your own. In any case, I will try to make some improvements to the article myself as time permits. (And BTW, you were quite right in saying that I had asked Elekhh about working the Skagen Painters up to GA. But when I went back to it, I realised there was still a lot to do. So I decided that for the time being, my time would be better spent on Nielsen.) - Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is how Wikipedia works. You tend to consider so many options but at the end of the day it is only possible to persuit so few. I am looking forward to seeing the Carl Nielsen article developing. Ramblersen (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding illustrations to CN articles. We could do with more, if you have them, especially for the generic article. Have you any suggestions on other pieces of CN's music which deserve to be covered, either in the main article or separately? - Ipigott (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded some more pictures to commons but will leave it to you to decide if any of them will fit into the Carl Nielsen article and where. I would suggest the one from his study next to his Symphony no. 3 since it was completed in that room and the picture is pretty decent. I find it surprisingly hard to find any good pictures though. I have been looking around for some painted portraits for variation and some colour but without much luck – strange considering he had many artists among his friends. Here there is a painting by Willumsen which seems to have been inspired by a dream Carl Nielsen had, I don't know if it is too far fetched but it will certainly add colour and some variation. Maybe it is worth adding a bit on his social life which included various Danish artists. Probably not overly interesting for English-speakers but in such a comprehensive article I think it is of relevance and imo it is always good to tie articles together and it could just be a short mention. It also relates to his "democratic" view on art as opposed to Willumsen's eliterian one which could be worth a mention. Maybe it is also worth mentioning the Carl Nielsen International Music Competition] and the Carl Nielsen Prize. But I have not yeat given the article a proper read since you made your huge expansion so I will return later if I have any more suggestions. Maybe a picture such as this one from the Copenhagen Concert Hall can also be fitted in as an illustration since it is one of the premier venues for Carl Nielsen performances as well as the venue of the above-mentioned competition etc.Ramblersen (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work in some of the illustrations in due course. I would like to expand on the current repertoire, especially the works performed at concerts in DK but it might also be interesting to draw on current discography. The CN Music Competition probably deserves a separate WP article. I am still working on articles related to his compositions: String Quartets, Viola pieces, Snefrid, Hymnus Amoris, Søvnen, Fantasirejse... Do you have any further suggestions here? It might also be interesting to expand on CN interest in Scaninavia, the USA, UK, France, Germany, etc. - Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum to the above, I have spent some time analysing all the info about current concerts from the Carl Nielsen Society. I have added a list of the most popular pieces to the CN article but I was rather surprised to see that although all the symphonies are on the agenda, only two of the string quartets came up. There were one or two performances of the violin and flute concertos (done), a few Serenada invanos (needs to be done), a couple of Faroes Fantasies (to be done) and one or two performances of At the Bier of a Young Artist (??). There were also a couple of performances of Pan and Syrinx and one of the organ piece Commotio (should be included). In DK, there were also performances of Violin Sonata No. 2 and of Springtime in (on?) Funen. So in fact the CN article pretty well covers all the more popular pieces but could be extended to a few more. I still need to look at recent releases of recordings and the forward programme for radio/TV performances. I have used some of your illustrations and am looking for more. Thanks for your help. - Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have already taken the Nielsen coverage far beyond my rather limited knowledge of his oeuvre so I am affraid I cannot come up with any additional names of works wchich warrants articles or just mentioning. But great to see how fast this has evolved since you decided to get involved. As for the part about how much which works are performed, I suggest you simply drop the Carl Nielsen Society a mail and ask them if you want to look further into it. The must be very pleased with your efforts and I am sure they will be more than happy to answer this or other questions you have. Actually it puzzles me (as it has done so many times before with other topics and stakeholders) that they have not themselves put a bit of work into putting a decent article together ndash; Wikipedia seems a quite potent wehicle for broadening knowledge about him.Ramblersen (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked more carefully at "Performances" on the CN Society site and found out all I needed to know. As for the CNS contributing to Wikipedia, in my experience organisations like this usually do not contribute. That's the way of the world! Thanks for your interest and support. - Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Adolph Sigfried von der Osten itself and its red-links, as well as Kurantbanken. Neddyseagoon - talk 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words but I am affraid I only did a bit of cosmetic work on the Heinrich Carl von Schimmelmann. As for the other articles you mention, I am sure they would be interesting subjects but I am trying not to explore too many red links currently since there is a lot of work to be done on contemporary cultural institutions and buildings in Denmark which is my main focus. Red links tend to lead to red links so before you know it you find yourself wanting to give opretty much any article there is a make over – the Six degrees of separation theory is as valid for wikipedia articles as it is for humans I guess. And I am very slow working So I am not sure I will ever get to those articles. You seem to be doing some great work so I hope to see some Denmark-related articles make it to your to do-list one day. :)Ramblersen (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leda and the Swan (Copenhagen), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/Scenic/Rome/Scenery/scenery.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems very confused indeed. The page is not even about the same subject matter – only briefly mentions Leda&ndash as far as I can see, and I have certainly never seen the page before.Ramblersen (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramblersen, is great to see how much good work you are doing in this area! Indeed it would be nice to increase exposure of your contributions by bringing the best ones to DYK, and I believe Knud Arne Petersen is definitely main page worthy. I would be happy to help or even nominate as needed. Hope the flickr uploads are working well now, I had no issues recently. Another feature you might be interested in is automatic spelling check, which can be integrated in your browser if you're using Firefox (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/) by installing the required dictionary add-ons. As a non-native English speaker I find it extremely useful. --Elekhh (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I have understood that it is quite a drag nominating for DYK so I have chosen simply to ignore that possibility since I would rather use my time on writing new stuff than "paperwork". Plus I feel I mainly leave a trail of very unfinished articles so I haven't really considered much of it relevant for DYK. But if you could point me in the right direction or would nominate something for me, it would be great of course. As for Knud Arne Petersen, he seems rather insignificant as architects goes but due to his Tivoli liassion I thought I'd throw him an article anyway. And I prefer to write about small, insignificant topics since I tend to get utterly stuck whenever I try to write about something which I think actually deserve good coverage.As for the Flicker uploader, I must admit I got so tired of having problems with it that I have ended up simply doing without it. But I guess I should give it another try, it used to work fine for me. And yes I should definitely take more care with the spelling/typos but I don't use Firefox unfortunately. But if it can also work without fox, it would be great with a link to a place which can teach me how.Ramblersen (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hotel Astoria (Copenhagen), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hotel Astoria (pictured) at Copenhagen's main railway station was designed to look like a steam locomotive? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see this proved so popular. Over 4,000 views is quite an achievement. Well done! - Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes quite an effect. But I am displeased to see that it did not seem to work that Elekhh added you as an author too, it ended up being much more your work than mine with your thorough research and large contributions to what was otherwise a very thin article. So well done to you really - and thank you for taking an interest and spending so much time on a building you do not even like! Well I do not really like it either actually (partly because it seems so dirty on the outside)but was rather trying to populate some categories and "Modernist buildings" and "hotels" were up. Reading up on it has nuanced my view on it.Ramblersen (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Danish Barnstar of National Merit
		You have created many fine articles on Danish topics and I think you deserve some credit for this. Congratulations! --Urbandweller (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Ramblersen by Urbandweller (talk) on 07:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.(:Ramblersen (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you that are working on a template showing country houses in the suburbs of Copenhagen. You might want to add Frieboeshvile in Lyngby, Søholm (at Emdrup Lake), Møllmanns Landsted (Allégade, attributed to de Lange), Bakkehuset, Ny Bakkegård, Hassagers Kollegium and Møstings Hus, all in Frederiksberg, and Heslehøj in Hellerup, but that depends on whether you want to include privately owned places as well. There is also an extant Rolighed in Frederiksberg and one in Skodsborg (see Danish Wikipedia). Bernstorff Palace was actually an estate (until 1812), comprising most of today's Gentofte Kommune, whereas Lille Bernstorff was a "proper" country house. At Strandmøllen there is the Drewsen family's country house by N.S. Nebelong. If you want demolished houses as well, candidates could be Vilhelmsdal at Strandvejen (C.F. Hansen), Havslunde in Springforbi (N.S. Nebelong), and in Hellerup: Hellerupgård (Ramée), Store Mariendal (Philip de Lange), Store Tuborg, Blidah, Taffelbay and Constantia. ----Urbandweller (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the many interesting and useful names to look into. I was aware that there were many others—part of the reason why I haven't uploaded the template yet:mdash;but many of the names you mention are new to me and will be interesting to look into. Another reason why gave the template a rest was that I was in doubt which criteria to apply for what properties to include, cf. your own point about the origins of the Bernstorff Palace. I was also unsure if Kastrupgaard could be called a country house in the proper sense of the word. When it comes to the ones you mention, Bakkehuset was originally an inn (for centuries) and Knud Lyne Rahbek made it his primary home. But I guess it is not so critical as long as the articles are acurate. I will expand and adjust the template within the near future. But another thing, you seem to know a lot about these buildings (much more than me for sure), you wouldn't by any chance happen to have some photos of any of them that you would care to upload to Commons, would you? There doesn't really seem to be much available on Flicker unfortunately.Ramblersen (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a question of selecting the most prominent country houses from 1700 through 1900. I have uploaded what I have of new photographs to Commons, but I will do some photographing this summer. I can't promise it will include the country houses, though. We will probably have to live with some vintage photos for the time being. By the way, Schæffergården is also relevant. ----Urbandweller (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added most of the buildings you proposed. It has made the template terribly 'red' though and I am not sure how many of the articles I will get around to writing since there are also so many other topics to expand on. I will try to put a short overview article together though. And I will probably add a few more articles along the way, particularly if I get hold of some decent images.Ramblersen (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Danish equivalent of your template here. I doubt that it is complete so feel free to add any candidates you might come across. However, I have not included 20th century houses, thus omitting Ordrupgaard, as there is a myriad of notable World War I country houses. That will have to be a separate project to deal with later on. Btw, here is a link (PDF) to a brochure on country houses in Lyngby. ----Urbandweller (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good initiative. I agree with you that 20th-century buildings belong in a seperate template on Danish wikipedia but I think I will leave it in the English one for now ;ndash; as long as there are so relatively few articles. As for the Danish template, maybe the headline should be linked to the 'landliggeri' article – at least until a specific article on 'Landsteder i Nordsjælland' turns up? Just a thought, although the scope of the article is of course broader than that of the template.Ramblersen (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your work on the "Year in Denmark" articles in the 19th and 20th centuries... Ipigott (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thank you, I guess that barnstar is a perfect match for the "years in XXXX"-articles. Although it coyld also have been named the Sisyphus barnstar when thinking of all the content which still needs to be added, as well as central dates in other articles to be linked to the relevant 'xxxx in Denmark'-article, for these articles to make much sense.Ramblersen (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jørgen Knudsen Urne, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.geni.com/people/Sophie-Urne/6000000002013973121.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC) _Very confused bot, it is not even about the same person. The only overlap seems to be his name and that of his wife.Ramblersen (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your query: "Would you happen to know anything about This picture? I have tried to find out what room it is and who executed the portraits on the wall but with no luck so far."

This is the dining room at Brøndoms Hotel, now a central part of the museum. See the article Skagen Painters and in particular File:Brøndums Hotel 1891-92.jpg. It was transferred to the Skagen Museum in 1946. You can read more about the spisesal and the artists' portaits in the panel here. Thanks, by the way, for your work on Skagen. The articles are coming along quite well. Do you need any more help? - Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought it looked like the something from the hotel but had missed the fact that the room has been integrated in the museum and it therefore seemed odd that what seemed to be an official iploader referred to it as Skagen Museum. Therefore I hesitated to upload the image until I know exactly what it was. Thanks for clearing it up. Any further additions or modifications (also drastic ones, should you find them relevant) will as always be welcome but I am not sure how much work I will be putting into them myself right now. A gallery with some examples of their holdings should be affed though.

Something completely different. In your article on Sven Havsteen-Mikkelsen you might want to mention that his work on church decorations have also included some sculpturing. He has at least created the doors for Frederik IV's Chapel (or tomb?) at Roskilde Cathedral but I have no idea if there are other examples. Commons has this image which might be worth including to show another side of his work and a link can be found here.Ramblersen (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's very useful. - Ipigott (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thank you for documenting Fredensborghusene! I've been searching the web for a long time and couldn't find a single free image. The DYK is already in the preparation area, might appear on the main page today. --Elekhh (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, a very small contribution to your and ipigott's current upgrade on Utzon and his works. I have probably uploaded too many images though - especially since the quality is unfortunately not the best - but couldn't really decide which ones to upload. Feel free to delete some if they are too similar. I will leave it to Ipigott to decide which images should be usRamblersen (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is pretty good, seems that you had a fine day. The images don't duplicate, they add up to provide an overall picture. Pity though you don't have a helicopter, since the aerial perspective would have given the best overview :) --Elekhh (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just around the corner anyway and two Japanese guys on a similar mission made me company - I should have asked them to upload some of their pictures. Judging from their equipment they probably turned out a whole lot better. The colours tend to be very dull with the camera I used, particularly the greens. As for the helicopter, I suggest you try to e-mail Queen Magrethe II of Denmark since the development is located right next to Fredensborg Palace. I am sure she will help you out.:)Ramblersen (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could let me know whether any of your photos have the central module with the restaurant and library. I saw there were one or two with rather larger buildings but I am not sure what they are. - Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that it is this one which I assume is the one you are referring to. I have uloaded this additional image of it. I can very easily drop by again so if you have seen any specific images which you would like something similar to, don't hesitate to tell me and I will try to do my best.Ramblersen (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've already added the new image. I don't see the need for any more for the time being. - Ipigott (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dronningegården, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the design of the Dronningegården residential complex in Copenhagen was shaped by the shortage of materials during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dronningegården.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on this! Over 8,000 views is excellent for an article of this kind. - Ipigott (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah those DYKs are very effective. I should really start to follow them myself.Ramblersen (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon is the charm of the "å" which attracted so much attention :). PS. Btw, if you wish to take advantage of the "designer" parameter in Template:Infobox park is now ready to be used. -Elekhh (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great, you're a wizard! I will certainly do so in a number of articles, existing and upcoming, but I am on my way out the door so will have to be later. Would you happen to know what has gone wrong with the Danish Golden Age template btw? Somebody modified it to remedy some problem and obviusly meant well but now it cones out as too broad - on my screen at leat. I have tried to ask hum on his talk page but he has not responded and doesn't seem to be very active currently. But since he obviously tried to fix some problem I hesitate simply to undo his edit. And thanks again for nominating the article (and promoting some pictures I assume), you are probably right so I'd better write more articles with Å in the title I guess!(:Ramblersen (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? --Elekhh (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Yeh, I thought some green would look good on your Commons talk page :) --Elekhh (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Problem solved, thanks again-again. Can you also get me 30 degrees celcius and sunshine all weekend in Copenhagen by any chance?Ramblersen (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, you just tempted me to vandalise Copenhagen, but no, I will not do that. Sorry. :) --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Culture of Denmark box and the three red links! Dance is covered fairly well under Music at the moment and there's a bit about sculpture under Art but it will take quite an effort to write a representative article about sculpture alone. As for folklore, all we have now is Scandinavian Folklore which tends to forget many of Denmark's traditions - so that will take quite some effort too. If you have any suggestions in connection with any of these, please let me know. - Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I basically just ripped off the correspnding American box with some minor changes: Removing comic books, merging radio and television into media amd addinmg design and photography. When it comes to folklore, I agree with you that it should just link to the article about Scandinavian folklore. But since the article doesn't really cover Denmark right now as you point out, the topic should maybe just be left out in the box for now. As for dance, I must say I think it deserves an article of its own. But until someone has actually created that article, it may well be better again simply to remove it from the box. As for sculpture, it is only there because the American box had one and I agree with you that it would probably be overkill to make a seperate article. And 'sculpture' is obviously covered by the general term 'art' of course. Another thing I was wondering about was the relationship between 'decorative arts' and 'design'. Royal Copenhagen and Georg Jensen quite strong brands internationally and both the Kähler factory in Næstved and Axel Salto could also deserve some coverage in English since I believe there is some international interest in their works. In general, and quite a lot of the artists associated with "Den Frie" worked with decorative arts which was an international trend of the time of course. Some sort of top-down article would be good but it should probably just be included in the Danish desgin article which is pretty terrible right now. I still think there is a difference between design and decorative arts though but sonce coverage of the latter is pretty non-existant as it is and getting illustrations will be quite a hassle, it is probably better simply to ignore that field. For now I will just remove th three red links. O never meant to add red links with it but simply to highlight existing articles anyway.

• BTW last Saturnday, Politiken, in their weekend supplement 'Lørdagsliv', had a large feature about the Fredensborg Houses. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available online. And this Friday, the American architectural writer Michael Sharidan, in connection with the publication of his book 'Mesterværker', was on Danish television and supposedly commented that the Fredensborg Houses was world-class architecture of the same quality as the Sidney Opera House. Unfortunately I did not see it myself and have not been able to identify what programme it was on so again I cannot provide you with a link. Not that any of these mentions, being in Danish, are relevant to any of the wikipedia articles, but I thought it might interest you all the same since you hav seen you commenting on the lack of coverage and appreciation of Utzon's other works.Ramblersen (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the very fact that you included the red links shows that there are important aspects of culture that still need to be covered. By all means remove the links for now but as I intend to expand on all three, they can be reinserted as the articles become available. In the meantime, in regard to Danish design, if you have any suggestions as to how the article could be improved, let me know - or simply work on it yourself. Thanks too for the info on the Fredensborg Houses. Good to know they are receiving some attention. - Ipigott (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I began to work on Danish design (some of the undergrowth articles) but gave up on it since there seemed too much work to be done. And I tend to get utterly stuck with the longer articles and end up with a result which is pretty useless and will rather keep others from taking an interest in improving the article.Ramblersen (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But as I started the article myself, I would very much appreciate to hear what you think is missing - or what's wrong or misleading - and I'll try to take care of it. After all, Danish design has almost become a world trademark. - Ipigott (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well my choise of words were not really very fitting and my apology for that. It just seems very short compared to some of the other articles, completely ignoring everything before the Danish Modern era. It is pretty understandable since the term is so much associated with that particular style (as the article mentions) but if it is to correspond to the other top-down articles, as well as other national design articles, I think some coverage of early Danish design is needed. Apart from the names I have already mentioned, Thorvald Bindesbøllis should probably be mentioned. He may not have a name internationally but is in Denmark considered an important name in Danish design (his oeuvre was eg included in the Ministry of Culture's rather silly cultural canon initiative). Bit again, it will depend on the destinction between design and decorative arts what exactly is relevant to mention here. The existing coverage of the Danish Modern period (hate that term but here it is practical to destinguish it from Danish design) covers the most important points but I think it could go into a bit more detail with a few of them: Kaare Klint and the furniture school could maybe get a few more lines; the introduction of the annual furniture exhibition could be mentioned; perhaps a few more details details about the transition from craftsmanship to industrial manufacturing and the international breakthrough could also be added; maybe it should be mentioned that Finn Juhl (who was the first to experience succes at least on the American market if not internationally in general) represented a bit of a opposition to the Klint school; FDB is mentioned but maybe the significance should be made more clear: That it was a supermarket chain that made quality furnityre/design available to the general public. I also think Poul Henningsen could deserve a few more lines, maybe also for his significance in the public debate and call for modern design. Le Klint lamps could also be mentioned. But it is almost all there already and a question of adding a sentence here and there. Amd maybe it is not needed at all.

I also think a little names could be mentioned in the section of contemporary design/modern trends. It is definitely true that Danish design has been stuck in the past but still some contemporary names could be mentioned: Louise Campell, Kasper Salto, Christina Strand and Hans Sandgren Jacobsen. And companies such as Gubi, Norman Copenhagen and Hay and KIBISI all try to modernize Danish design. But let me stress again that my previous comment was not fitting at all.Ramblersen (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ramblersen! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to improve coverage of Danish design, I have been doing some work on the Danish modern article. Perhaps you could have a look through it and see if there are any important omissions (or other points requiring attention). As you will see, I have had difficulty in finding illustrations of the works of several of the most important designers. Any assistance you could provide would, as always, be greatly appreciated. - Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. You certainly seem to have covered the most important names. Maybe a subsection for 'other names' could be added for designers which hardly needs a whole section themselves but still could use a short mention. The brothers Mogens and Flemming Lassen, Mogens Koch, Poul Volther etc. It is a matter of taste of course but I think that I would prefer single (or a few) illustrations at each designer instead of individual galleries. There are a lot of 'competing' articles: Danish design, Danish modern, designer biographies, and articles on specific designs. I think this could lead to too many repetitions, especially since there is a limited choise of good images as you point out, and to me it seems more important to illustrate a broad selection of a designer's oeuvre in his biographical article. Since some of the images have more than one piece of design in them, there could still be a fairly representative illustration of the subject even with fewer images. But that is just my opinion and I do see the adventage with galleries of course.

2. I have uploaded some more images but unfortunately most that I can find are of the same designs that are already fairly well represented. Still there are a few new ones as well and some of them are of quite good quality. You can get an overview of the new pictures here. A few not desing-related images sneeked in so you have to look past them and go to the next page to see them all. For some reason that I have still not been able to identify, this image won't upload even though there is no problem with the license. And it is the only one I have been able to find with Nanna Ditzel's Trinidad chair which I suppose is one of the illustrations you were missing so hopefully the problem can be solved. This image looks like a variation of the Grasshopper chair to me and since the picture is from Illums Bolighus there is a good chance that it is some sort of Danish Modern design) but I have not uploaded it yet since I am not sure what it is. This image could also be a relevant design since they are from Statens Museum for Kunst but once again I have not been able to identify them and have therefore not uploaded the image yet. If there are any images that you miss in particular, please say so and I could try to get it although it will probably be of inferior quality compared to what can be found online.Ramblersen (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate all your comments and images. I really am in two minds about the galleries. You are right that there is some duplication with Danish design and the individual biographies but all of these articles really need quite a lot of attention if they are to be properly illustrated and referenced. (So in a way, expanding Danish modern is a lazy man's approach to the problem!) Another concern is readership, page views, etc. Some of the designer biographies have a pretty low number of page views and while Danish design itself has a reasonable number, I hope that with time and the right links from other articles Danish modern will attract more viewers too. So for the time being, at any rate, I think I'll continue to enhance the Danish modern article with more illustrations. I'll also include the other designers you mention and I was considering devoting a new section specifically to the cabinetmakers who often seem to be forgotten. Maybe at the end of the road we could reconsider merging Danish modern with Danish design but personally I think it is important to develop the furniture side of design separately. - Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good points you are making (sace the 'lazy man' reference, and you are indeed right that the potential work burden is absolutely overwhealming. Perhaps we could share it, if you tell me what articles have your interest, I could pick up on some of the others with my 'improvements light', making surethat they at least have some references and illustrations. I also think you have a good point with the 'right links' part. Do you have any plans about extending the articles on the design museum and the design centre? Otherwise that might be a good place to start for me. An easy way to get more links is of course a nav bar. I am not sure if it should cover just Arne Jacobsen, Danish modern, or even Danish Functionalism (indluding architects) which is right now an independent section in the Functionalism articles. I think all of them have adventages but Danish modern is perhaps the best compromize?Ramblersen (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think the Danish Museum of Art & Design (which perhaps should be moved to Design Museum Denmark) could do with some careful attention for a start. Perhaps a nav bar specifically on Danish Modern furniture would indeed be useful. It could include all the main contributors - designers and cabinetmakers - (some have yet to have their own biographies written), perhaps broken down into furniture and lighting, museums and exhibitions, related articles on design, Mid-Century modern, prizes, etc. I'm not sure whether it would be worthwhile including manufacturers and suppliers at this stage. A modest start might be the answer anyway. But I'm sure you will do an excellent job yourself. As for the other articles requiring attention, I think you probably have a better background than I have for choosing priorities. - Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are having difficulties with this term. In most English-speaking countries, the equivalent would be admiral of the fleet or fleet admiral. Reich Admiral looks very German to me. "Admiral of the realm" is understandable but not very common in English, although it does appear to have been used in Sweden as the equivalent of Lord High Admiral of Sweden or Riksadmiral. Maybe the easy way out is to use the Danish title rigsadmiral with an English equivalent. Perhaps "admiral of the realm" would be the most suitable. And maybe you would like to write a little article on the topic, along the lines of the Swedish one? - Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thbaks for the answer even before I posed the question.:) I was indeed having problems with that term as well as many other so I thought I would compile a small list of the offices and terms which seem to pop up at regular events and then ask you how best to translate them instead of having to trouble you with it again and again (the German term was a bit of a temporary sollution but in its defense they did speak German as a first language at in that day). I think the best way to go is to have it translated in the text and linked to a dedicated article which lists the 'authentic' Danish word and if possible with a list of office holders sp I agree with you that I should make a short article of some sort. What about 'Lord High Admiral of Denmark'? I think it makes sense to use the same terminology for the Swedish and Danish offices since they are so related both in terms of language and history. But I will be happy with whatever translation you find most fitting and try to put a short article together. Are you satisfied with Steward of the Realm (Denmark) for Rigshofmester? It did seem to be quite consistantly usded in existing articles. But the more common translation of Rigsråd on Wikipedia seems to be Privy Council rather than Council of the Realm. All these older topics about Denmark are such a mess. I also remember noticing very long ago that English wikipedia somehwere completely mixed up the Danish Rigsråd and Statsråd, I did not fix it back then but maybe others have done so in the meantime.I find it very hard to write about (and a bit dusty) but will try to look more into it at some point.

And now that we are at translation of names, do you think 'Danish House in Paris' is okay or would you prefer 'Maison du Danemark' or 'House of Denmark (Paris)'?Ramblersen (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am not so keen on Lord High Admiral is that it is calqued on the English nobility where we do have lords and high lords and lord high admirals. I can see why the term has been used for the Swedes but I really think that even for them it would have been better to use something like "admiral of the realm", "grand admiral" or "fleet admiral". There is in fact a Wikipedia List of Fleet and Grand Admirals for a number of countries but Denmark is not included and the Swedish listing seems rather strange. So I would suggest that we use Admiral of the realm (Denmark) as the basis for a Danish category or list, with redirects from Rigsadmiral, Admiral Danish Fleet, and any other top ranked adminral in Category:Danish admirals. As for Danish House in Paris, I did not like the title very much. I made a redirect from Maison du Danemark which might be more meaningful as a title. Up to you how many additional articles might be needed to explain all these problems to the wider world. As a footnote, I have enjoyed reading the articles you have been writing on castles and manor houses. In a number of cases, though, I have had to go back to your sources to check your dates and similar details. You should also be more careful with the boxes which increasingly seem to refer to the wrong article. But don't worry. It doesn't take long to run the checks. - Ipigott (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral of the realm it is. And i will take more care with the articles.Ramblersen (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1728 in Denmark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Viborg

Prince's Mansion, Copenhagen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jens Juel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After starting this article and looking at "What links here", I saw you had been working on the same topic in August 2010. I've included your box, etc., and would also have liked to draw on some of the other material but there are no references. Can you help? - Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously needs to be moved to Gammel Dok (building) but there no longer seems to be a "move" function available. Can you handle it? - Ipigott (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my attention to it – and for all the copy-edits. The 'Move' bottom seems to be where it has always been on my computer.Only reasons for its abscence I can think is that you were logged out when you looked for it or something with your screen width compared to text size. In the latter case you may have to point at the small black triangle to see the move bottom in a munu which pops up. Otherwise it must just have been Wikipedia irregularities, at least it seems to be back now. I hope everything is well in the Duchy and that you I enjoying the coming of spring in all its splendour.Ramblersen (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a Danish windmill to Wikipedia. You may not be aware, but there is an infobox available to use on windmill articles - {{infobox windmill}}. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know but for a short stub like that I figured it would be sort of an overkill. Furthermore I couldn't really identify some key info such as the construction date.Ramblersen (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=

Dr. Blofeld has been discussing how to go about covering buildings in the Copenhagen region. We would very much like to benefit from your views. See my user page (a few lines up from the bottom). --Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederiksberg Courthouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faze (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally created the Template:Bornholm Denmark based on your own excellent work but, for the time being at least, I have taken out the windmills and lighthouses. Perhaps some day we'll get around to writing articles about them too. I'll now try to copy it in to the various pages. Look forward to your comments. --Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the churches and probably a good idea taking out the windmills and lighthouses for now.Ramblersen (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has recently been quite a bit of discussion on the inclusion of red links in this list both on the article's talk page, on User talk:Sionk and on my own talk page. Maybe you would like to help us out by suggesting which names you see as priorities for the English Wikipedia (and perhaps also which are only of marginal interest). Perhaps you would even like to develop some articles yourself? --Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Jacobsen House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ice house (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether United Shipping & Trading Company should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Shipping & Trading Company .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, — ṞṈ™ 16:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of DLG Group, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dlg.dk/en/frontpage/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing 1672 in Denmark, Ramblersen.

Unfortunately Olowe2011 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hope all goes well with your page 1672 will be looking forward to the finished result! If you need further assistance don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on Olowe2011's talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 940s in Denmark should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/940s in Denmark .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 950s in Denmark should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/950s in Denmark .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 960s in Denmark should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/960s in Denmark .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for your contributions :3

Olowe2011 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 970s in Denmark should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/970s in Denmark .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 980s in Denmark should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/980s in Denmark .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Olowe2011. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1665 in Denmark, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Olowe2011 —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ramblersen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 1672 in Denmark for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Orikrin1998 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I don't think its worth it, unless you're going to add content. Noone is going to expand articles like 1681 in Denmark, You'd be better off writing a 1680s in Denmark with content and sources and for early ones start off with 10th century in Denmark. I'll see what Ipigott and several others think. You've already attracted AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/950s in Denmark. I'd work through them slowly, create articles for each decade with some content an sources first, otherwise is a heck of a lot of work to even get them up to half decent level.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't create the articles unless I intended to add information and sources but for practicalreasons it is much easier to create the articles first and then add content. It is both faster to create the articles that way and for instance when adding births it is easier to add the same persons under deaths at the same event - which is easier if the article is alreadu there. I really don't see the problem in this approach considering how many stubs are around.Ramblersen (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a giant amount of work though, and wikipedians who promise to fill everything rarely have the time or energy to get them up to a level we all think is ideal. fact I'd say redirect years to a 17th century in Denmark type article for now and as built up can be split into decades if it gets too long and eventually into years if there is really that much to say. Naturally I'd like things like 678 in Mauritania with full content but is unlikely to ever be completed. So I say take it a stage at a time, build a comprehensive outline of each century first. A well written sourced 17th century in Denmark with chunks of prose and list of the most notable births and deaths would be worth 10,000 of the stubs which just say one or two who lived and died.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the individual Years-articles to create an overview of existing articles. This will of course be a work in progress but I can assure you that there will be content on all the articles within a reasonably short period of time (but especially if others would contribute to them of course). Well-written articles are always more interesting but not being a native English-speeker I can't really contribute with that and add content on these pages when I get tired of my own bad English. There are lots of these Years-articles around from other countries with no or extremely little content so I don't really understand the fuss. I wish this discussion could be postponed a little while since it is right now taking all my time and energy, keeping me from solving the problem it adresses.Ramblersen (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually my reasoning behind the architect stubs, I don't speak Danish so translating them in full put me off...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the similarity between thouse two discussions so if you try to make a point, I am affaid that you will have to more explicit about it.Ramblersen (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you Ramblersen have put a lot of time and effort into creating a whole series of articles about years in Denmark. I know too that once you created those for the 20th, 19th and 18th centuries, you managed to fill in quite a bit of content. But from the page view stats, the further you go back, the fewer the hits (only a couple a day for the 18th century). So I really have to agree with those who suggest it would be more useful to first cover key occurences century by century and then only to cover the most important individual years once you have content for them. I realize too that there are similar year by year pages for England, Irland and Norway but the last two also suffer from insufficient content. However, if you really want to continue along these lines, why not keep them in your user space until they are ready for inclusion in the main space? --Ipigott (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I completely agree that this comprehensive prose-voased century by century articles (or rather period by period) would be more valuable but as I see it, that is an entirely other project. Then I might just as well work on a lot of other articles which I find more interesting. A for these articles, I was under the impression that it was Wikipedia policy to create them - there are even nav bars for the most recent years. I use the articles for getting as a sort of directory for existing articles and in the same time to sort out categories and corresponding wikipedia commons files. As for keeping it in my use space, that would be very chaotic and I think there is an adventage in having the articles in place if it is a long-term policy to have them at all since it is then possible to add key events and date as new articles are written. It may well be a waste of time to make them but that is not really relevant to the discussion wheather or not they should be created/deleted. On a general note, I think this discussion belongs somewhere else than on my talk page. If similar articles had not existed for other countries, I would never have embarked on them in the first place. Therefore I sort of wish that someone would have raised this discussion earler and now I think it should be taken somewhere else and relate to the general discussion.Ramblersen (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ramblersen, you asked for my comment: I support this way of writing articles, obviously starting from centuries, and then splitting them as more material is identified. The question is how far we should subdivide. I think for any European country, we can justifiably start by using centuries for the period before written records, and then decades for at least the early middle ages, with expansion to years for those countries and periods where there is enough material. England, for example, has the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle going back reliably to about 600 AD, with 2 or more items for most individual yeas after about 660. For Denmark I don't know the sources, but I can't imagine that the switch to years should be later than 1400 or 1500. Regions outside Western Europe, depends upon the available sources. Some, such as China, should go to individual years probably earlier than England, some possible not till 1900.

For more specialized topics, like Years in Music, it would again depend on the topic and the precision of the dates that are known. For specialized topics in particular countries, it would be well to be cautious. I do not know the sources here at all, but for Music in England or France one could certainly switch to individual years by 1600.

As a related point, if one is making decade (or other period) articles, even if not all have much or any content, if there is enough to fill some of them, it is much more facile to start them simultaneously; some people do object to this, so I would advise playing it safe & not making them until there is at least two items of content, or possibly three, As for whether they should be done as prose or as a list, ideally I think they should be done with a prose introduction followed by a list. It's much easier to start with a list.

The great virtue of such lists is that it provides a stimulus for readers to add additional entries--it particular, it should make good class projects. To do this, they must be in mainspace. The number of readers who use a page right now does not indicate the potential readership. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact not know that I had asked for your opinion but appreciate it very much. There will certainly not be basis for year-based articles for the period before 1600 in Denmark's case (unfortunately quite a few libraries and archives have burned along the way). However Christian IV's reign was one of the most eventful in Denmark's history with lots of buildings, establishments, wars (unfortunately) and notable people and that is why I have made the switch as early as that. And there will certainly in general be plenty of sources information to add. As for the beginning of the decades-based articles, I have gone back to Gorm the Old who is the first monarch in the List of Danish monarchs - seems a pretty reasonable choise which I cannot understand why any anyone would object to. As for the prose vs. list discussion, I could just see that lists seemed to be the solution opted for elsewhere (without any objections) and I therefore figured that what is good enough for England should be good enough for a small, clod like Denmark. As for prose-based century articles, I am all for that but it just seems an entirely different project. Adding Dates of births, deaths, establishments and other key events is a quite different project from writing a history of the world in ten and a half chapters. I therefore don't think years and centuries should be an either-or and if years/decades is a long-time objective, there is a huge adventage in having them in place since it is then possible to add key events and links when new articles are written and reuse references. All in all, I still don't see the problem (should there be one).Ramblersen (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see all these articles have survived and that they now have a fair amount of content. I'll have to try to remember to add content myself when I am writing articles about Danes and Denmark. I often forget. --Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't feel obliged to do so - I completely understand that you see them quite a waste of time. I first started to work on them because I encountered some of the already existing ones which had rather arbitrary and unsourced information to say the least and I therefore thought I would try toclean them up. And I actually think they are of much more use the further back they get where information and articles get more sparse. But I mainly use them at times when I get stuck with another article since they are very easy to go to plus I like to have a place to "park" interesting old images relating to specific events and thought it would be fun to see how many years I could dig up up images for. But I completely understand if you don't see any point in having them and will rather just ignore them.Ramblersen (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a waste of time at all, but you're approaching it wrong in a way which makes it scattered. Start with centuries and build them like 10th century in Denmark which is exactly how it should be done..You're trying to complete the house before building it..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time understanding that view considering your fondness - and output - of stubs. I have already explained why I think it useful to have the articles in place, making it possible to add links and entries as new articles are written. And while I agree that 10th century in Denmark may be the way to go for that particular century (cf. my comment on the discussion page), there is way too much information to only have lists for centuries. It will just lead to a lot of rearranging and time waste after a short while. This is imo what makes these articles more relevant than stubs. But maybe you should rather continue this discussion with those that have created this sort of articles a long time before I did and show far less willingness to actually add information on them? Or at least to continue it in a general discussion where it belongs. If it was not for all these disvussions, there would atleast have been a lot more information on the articles than there is now.Ramblersen (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub articles which can be expanded easily, yes, but I've never been fond of stubs, I see them as necessary in promoting growth and improving coverage, the goal is for them to be expanded and become at least GA class eventually but I can't be expected to write every article. I also think your work towards this is also going towards promoting growth and improving coverage, but I think trying to do it by year with no content is making yourself a mountain to climb and that such list formats are better done in stages.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we disagree both on this and the value of stubs in general. I have done what I can to explain why I want them there and since you fail to respond to all my points (including the one about picking up this disvission with someone else or at least in a general forum) see no point in continuing this discussion. I think we are moving in circles here. But talking about building oneself mountains, shouldn't you move your List of Danish architects make-over to a sandbox until you decide to complete it? Right now it is a complete mess of unfinished work and wrong information and there hasn't been a single edit for 10 days?Ramblersen (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit childish your response don't you think? No need to be so defensive. I think its great that you are trying to document Danish history better, but myself, Ipigott, DGG and Aymatth have all agreed that it would probably be better to compile the info on one page first and then split by decade as they are built up. I understand what you are trying to achieve but I doubt the years especially pre 1700 will ever be anywhere near full and that you'd be better off going by decade. like List of Danish films, it would have been unreasonable to start with a Danish films of 1915 and add just one film. List of Danish architects needs a lot of work yes and I will get around to completing the formatting but probably better than creating hundreds of short stubs on the missing architects.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, I think you are the one who is being childish. And since you ignore all arguments, I'd really rather not spend any more time trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. And I still don't get why stubs like this one are valuable contributions and I see them as *necessary in promoting growth and improving coverage, the goal is for them to be expanded " while the decade-articles is such a major concern to you that you are willing to waste your own and other people's time by insisting on this discussion while in the same time ignoring all arguments. I don't know how many more times I shall tell you that I don't want to have this discussion with you and that it belongs somewhere else before you understand it.Ramblersen (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you're right, mass stubbing of empty articles is better! Don't forget about what you said here. "IMO to mass-stub all these biographies only serve to make it harder for readers to identify the articles of any length that are actually there and therefore. All experience also shows that once a red link is stubbed, chances are very small that the article will actually grow to any length compared to what is the case if it remains a red link. And I really don't see what good it does." Sure. Not at all hypocritical.. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely aware that this is what this is all about. That it is some childish, personal vandetta of yours because I dared to disagree with you. And that is why you insist on continuing this on my talk page instead of in the proper place where others could point this out to you. However, compating these two situations are far out. These years/decade can only work as works in progress, adding information little by little as relevant information and new articles show up. Furthermore, I am the only one who have shown any interest in these years-based articles - so if anything I am creating stubs for myself to expand and that is exactly what I have been doing. It is the exact opposite way with other stubs which are far less likely to get expanded when it comes to Danish architects where there has been a steady progress in the number of articles (especially compared to the country's size as Elekhh has pointed out which makes your eagerness to create a lot of stubs here of all places very hard to understand). But stub away - I am in no position to tell you what to stub or not to stub. I can only say that I think it is a very bad ideabased on the fact that both Ipigott and myself who by far are the ones who have shown most interest in adding articles about Danish architects and Danish architecture prefer red links to stubs. And that puts you alleged motivation for creating syubs in a very odd light. My main concern was that I know frpm pretty solid experience within various areas of Danish culture that Ipigott is a lot less likely to add full-length articles once everything is stubbed which I find a shame since he is the main contributor of quality articles about Danish culture-related topics. Vut stub away, it is your own business and I have no more time for your childish games.Ramblersen (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have any vendetta against you? I just think its odd given what you said previously which when people say it to you you get all aggressive and nasty. If it is your intention to create the year lists and return to them and expand them then perhaps add an "under construction" tag to them so people don't think you just intend neglecting them. I'm also not going to stand in your way, its up to you what you do.; But it concerns me when I see mass AFDs on clearly notable topics which could be avoided if you broadened the chronology of the articles you edit and do it gradually with content and sources. I am glad you are venturing into this area, if you actually look at some of the year templates I actually created them for a lot countries, still a lot missing. But I've seen an awful lot of Ireland and poetry year lists created with practically nothing and left that way, I don't want to see Denmark year lists stay like that.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered your opening question so that is one down. No need to think it is odd since I have already very clearly pointed out very explicitly and several times how the two situations are different, feel free to disagree but Istill don't see how it would qualify as odd. At least others have agreed with my views on this matter. Dont say "when people say it"when it is something only you have said. nd to me you are the one who seems to have an aggressice and nasty tone. All I have is an increasing frustration over this discussion which seems to be moving in circles and that you seem completely unwilling to listen to my answers or explainations which tells me that now would be the right time to end it. If that frustration comes out as aggressiveness, I apologize, although I only think I have replied in the same tone that you have adressed me. I am also frustrated that you are insisting on having this discussion on my talk page when it should really be a community discussion relating not just to the articles I created but to all these articles in general. I'd by happy to leave an ""under construction"" if this is what I am supposed to do but I must admit that I have never noticed that particular tagging anywhere and certainly not on these sort of articles from other countries so how on earth should I know? And to me such a tag would seem like a request not to contribute - that it was someone's personal project - and I am therefore not sure that it is constructive in this case. Basically I guess that everything on wikiepdia is under construction. As for the "mass AFDs " 's, I suppose you refer to the handful of articles from the 10th century which someone tagged. I still don't understand why you did not simply participate in the discussion there - is that not where it belongs? And everone seemed to vote "keep all" and not see the problem (including DGG which you have previously claimed agreed with you, you have a very selective way of reading his comment above pn this page) except for one who proposed a merge and initiated a new discussion. That is a far cry from the image that you are trying to present and the discussion that you have insisted on having on my talk page with me personally and not in a general context where it belongs. Sorry but leaves me confused and wondering. Very nice work on the year templates (as always) but why didn't you tag the pages for a merge into centuries now that you were at it? Is that not how this project should be approached? Again I am confused. If you chek, you will se that I actually started with selected years of the 17th century to follow a procedure like the one you endorse. What I discovered was that it wasted an enormous amount of time: When searching for events in one year, I encountered lots of relevant entries for one, two og six years later. I know that you would prefer to start with centuries, then to break it up into decades and then even later to go with years if relevant. I must admit that I did not really think of that possibility when started them but only what the relevant subdivision at any given time would be. But isn't that pretty natural considering all the other articles that exist of this breed? At least what I tend to do here on wikiepdia is to see what others do and then to try to follow the same principles to get consistancy and a uniform look (for example when it comes to scope of nav bars). And I do think that going stright for the long-term solution (wheather decade or year) holds some adventages: 1) I try to link key dates in articles to the pages ("was established in 24 December 1624") and those links would all have to be fixed if the pages first started as centuries, then became decades and ultimately years 2) I think it is very different what events and persons I would add to a century list and a year list, only adding the most important ones to the former. Therefore a decision has to be taken from the beginning and third parties cannot be expected to be familiar with that decision 3 In general less rearranging and time spending to do so if the intention is for them - on average - to evolve fairly quickly, it seems easier to go directly for the long-term solution4) At least for me personally, having decades/years is much more of a motivatio than only to have a century list and a vague idea of maybe one day splitting it. Every now or then, when I have a bit of time left over, or add an entry on a page with very little on it, I search specifically for that year, although I quite often end up encountering something more relevant for another year. In your first response on my talk page on this matter, you said that I was building a mountain to climb. Creating a stub is building a mountain for someone else to climb - which in this case is a great approach if it actually makes someone show up and climb it. We can all have our own view on that but I wish you could se that the situation is in no way similar to the one with the "year in"-articles which I am regularly returning to and which you have pointed out yourself that noone else are likely to show up and expand. Well I hope this discussion will soon end since I really don't see what good it does. And that we seem to have ended up with a feeling of an aggressive and negative tone is really a shame since I would really like to believe that it is all a misunderstanding and the last think which wikipedia should be .Ramblersen (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as DLG Group, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://dlg.dk/en/frontpage/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:DLG Group and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, DLG Group, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:DLG Group with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:DLG Group. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:DLG Group saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — madman 15:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oluf Høst Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Oluf Høst Museum dedicated to the Bornholm painter Oluf Høst, is located in his large house known as Norresân? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oluf Høst Museum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article which I have in no way contributed with.:)Ramblersen (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egedal Municipality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stenløse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Classen Library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rustication (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grønningen, Copenhagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functionalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramblersen, just letting you know that I found this article quite interesting, so I nominated it for DYK. It is also -unfortunately- really rare to have articles illustrated with floor plans. If you would like to amend the nomination or suggest a different blurb you are of course welcome. Happy editing! --ELEKHH^T 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating the article. I completely trust your expertise as to the question of which hook will work best. Or actually, the building's entrance used to be colloquially known as the "Elephant's Butt" (Danish: Elefantrøven) due to its shape - I suppose that is sort of the stuff that hooks are made ofm although I chose to omit that piece of crucial information since I wasn't sure it was appropriate for an international audiance.:)Ramblersen (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK is already in the queue so the blurb is now fixed, but thanks for teaching me a cool word in Danish :) --ELEKHH^T 03:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that and fadøl is really all you have to know to get around here. You should stop by some day.:)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on Palace Hotel (Copenhagen)! Excellent job! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.:)Ramblersen (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thott Mansion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Envoy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palace Hotel (Copenhagen), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the tower of the Palace Hotel in Copenhagen is decorated with mosaics symbolizing morning, day, evening and night? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palace Hotel (Copenhagen). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a picture of a building on Esplanaden doing in an article of a building on Vesterbrogade? --Klausok (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I used an image from another page to insert the new illustration and forgot to change the caption. Thanks for bringing by attnetion to it.:ORamblersen (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The logo of Carl Hansen & Søn.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danske Færger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hou (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. How far did you get with the category creation? What needs the most work?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just over two thirds of the "buildings and structures by municipality" exist by now and about half of the "Listed buildings and structures by municipality". The content varies a lot, though. What needs most work is rather subjective, I suppose. I tend to think that it would be most useful to improve the articles about some of the more notable buildings. The approach of picking out an island or other area and then giving it a detailed coverage as Ipigott, Rosiestep and yourself has been doing with Bornholm, Falster etc. I see that Rosiestep has moved across Storstrømmmen (not quite Rubicon) from Falster now which in my opinion is an excellent choise. But so would any other region by - it is nice to see so many new articles.Ramblersen (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create a list of municipal categories which are still needed? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated your list so now I think it contains all the missing links.Ramblersen (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Johan Ankerstjerne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Johan Ankerstjerne, a Danish cinematographer, founded a firm which became the leading film laboratory in Denmark for 16 mm and 35 mm films? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Johan Ankerstjerne. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In [2] you created 1383-1389 redirects instead of 1483-1489. Do you as author approve that I delete the redirects per WP:CSD#G7 without a deletion nomination? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Sorru about the inconvenience.Ramblersen (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I have deleted them. By the way, I have expanded {{Denmark year nav}} to start in 1501. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the Denmark year nav bar. For years before 1600, I do think it is better to go by decade rather than year, though. There is (and will continue to be) rather few relevant articles to link to and a lot of uncertain years (of births, deaths etc). Do you think maybe the nav bar should be split up in smaller ones as has been done for some other countries? It does seem more practical to have all years in one nav bar but it may on the other hand be a bit overwhealming.Ramblersen (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{England year nav}} is much larger. I haven't found a country with split years in Category:Country year navigational boxes. I chose 1501 after seeing in List of years in Denmark that the 16th century was the first with some year articles, although most blue links are redirects to decades. The only articles are 1543 in Denmark, 1572 in Denmark, 1577 in Denmark. We could do without those in the nav bar. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it is a long time since I have been looking at these 'Years in"-articles – Years in Norway nav bars (although history is different of course) were the ones I was thinking of but you are probably right that keeping it all in one is better.20:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Ramblersen (talk)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nivaagaard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The estate was founded in 1767 by Adam von Lüttichau when he purchased Nivaa Havnegård ("Nivaa Harbour House" from the Crown. The property was from the beginning associated with the
• Image:En siddende nubier (Rørbye.jpg

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Falkoner Allé may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Falkoner Allé''' (literal translation|lit.]] [[English language|English]]: Falconeer Avenue)is one of the main streets of the [[Frederiksberg]]
• [[Falkoner Centre[[, a hotel and conference venue, has replaced Frederiksberg's old town hall on the corner with

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for adding a Lolland template. With such hot weather, Wikipedia development is pretty slow at the moment but I do still intend to add quite a bit on Lolland. Hope everything is fine with you. I'll have to take a look at your more recent work.--Ipigott (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having already had that look on those recent articles. Should I remove the "black links" from the Lolland nav bar? Just tell me if and when you want a list of churches on Lolland but since there are so many of them I figured that you would rather wait with that. The weather is indeed lovely these days, I hope everything is fine down south too. Ramblersen (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should leave the nav bar as it is. I do intend to cover a few of more of the Lolland churches in some detail, others can probably be covered with just a few lines. If you want to create a list, please go ahead. We are on Møn at the moment where the weather has indeed been beautiful.--Ipigott (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should move the List of Lolland Churches into the mainspace. I could add it under "See also" as I continue to cover the various churches. Thanks for your help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I won't have much time for wikipeida until next week so I hope it is not too incomplete.Ramblersen (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - looks good. I've tried to tidy it up a bit and added missing info.--Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm GhunwI'. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, St. Ann's Church, Copenhagen, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. reH ghun ghunwI' 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Møinichen Mansion may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• from the 1780s. A yellow, egg-shaped mail coach coach operated between the Royal Mail Building and [[Hamburg from 1815. until 1865.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rundetaarn.dk/gang-i-gaden-en-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blegdamsvej may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• jpg|thumb|200px|Christen Købke's painting of the garden stairs of the house at Blegedammen )]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nørregade may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In the Middle Ages, Nørregade was the broadest street in Cpåenha<gen.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indenforvoldene.dk/noerregade.htmlteater/gasvaerket|title=
• former department store Daells Varehus at No. 12;ndash&20 was one of the earliest [[Functionalism (architecture|Functionalist]] buildings in Copenhagen. It has now been converted into five-star

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Østbanegade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bremen Teater (Copenhagen), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christensen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your new article on DaneAge Association promotes culture. Thanks!

Olowe2011 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.:)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Copenhagen Fire of 1728 may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• typically painted in bright colours. Well-preserved examples are today found in locations such as ]]Gråbrødretorv]] and [[Gammel Mønt]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lauritz Peter Holmblad may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• L. P. Holmblad was born into a family of industrialists on 8 July 1715,. His great grandfather, a [[Swedish [[dyeing|dyer]] who immigrated to Denmark in about 1766, introduced new production methods

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to St. Paul's Church, Copenhagen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The space surrounding the church is called Sankt Pauls Plads (St. Paul's Square. On the southeast side of the church (even numbers) are some of the so'called

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, we've been trying to improve the Copenhagen article with a view to bringing it up to GA standard. You must have added more content on Copenhagen than anyone else with all your articles on its architecture, streets, and other features. You may therefore want to help in further improvements or just let us know what is still missing or what needs to be worked on. As always, one of the most important tasks will be to ensure everything is properly sourced. There is also a dispute at the moment about the montage in the box at the top of the article. We have been trying to put together something brighter than the old one but there is an unidentified ip editor who keeps reintroducing it. We have a discussion on Talk:Copenhagen where you might like to express an opinion. I see you have been developing navboxes for the streets and districts. Maybe you would like to put one (or even more than one) together for Copenhagen? Thanks for all your recent work on Copenhagen's streets and in particular on your list of Krøyer's paintings.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do anything about this, look at user talk:Rosiestep as there is a discussion on navboxes there.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I have been away for a few days so I have not had that opportunity to follow your progress but I will look on it as soon as possible and then see if I have something to add. Do tell me if there are any specific tasks I can be of service with. Good to hear that you are working on a new montage since the old one always stroke me as notoriously eerie.Ramblersen (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you are back. You may have some general suggestions about the Copenhagen article but from my own point of view I would very much appreciate any feedback or edits you would like to make on the sections I have already tried to improve, i.e. History, Geography, Economy and Cityscape. I am currently working on Culture and contemporary life. The main problem has been to add references and to update some of the older material. You are of course welcome to work on any of the other sections of the article too. Let me know if any important items are missing and I will help to cover them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it generally looks very good. I have put some comments on some of the sections in this sandbox but most of them are related to so small details that they can also just be ignored. I haven't looked on the other sections yet but will add comments on them - should I have any - in the same sandbox. I would suggest that you create #main articles# for most of the sections (that hasn't one already) by copy-pasting the existing sections from the Copenhagen article. Then they can be expanded along the way and I would feel more comfortable working there than in the Copenhagen article where I am more afraid of messing things up. Unfortunately I will be pretty tied up over the weekend but I will look at it as soon as I get the chance.Ramblersen (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very detailed analysis in the sandbox. In many cases you have provided pertinent sources but in others your conclusions are certainly correct but it is going to require quite a bit of additional research to find references justifying changes or additions. It would be extremely useful if you could provide sources along the lines of my comments on the History section. Pity you don't feel like making some of the changes yourself. But this approach is OK. I think I'll try to continue sourcing other sections of the document and return to these early next week when you've had a chance to look at my queries. Thanks once again for taking such an active interest.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes sorry for forgetting to address the source issue. I believe I can provide sources for everything I wrote but just made a priority for getting as far as I could with the comments for the moment and can probably look at the sources tonight. I will also try to implement as many of the changes as possible if you prefer it. I only hesitated to do so from fear that I might make some changes that you disagreed with and/or that I made life difficult for you by adding too much bad prose. So I think it is a good idea that you look at some of the other sections a day or two to look at my own comments an extra time and your comments to them (haven't looked at them yet). Thank you for having embarked on the Copenhagen article - after what seemed to be a long and somewhat tedious review process with the Aalborg article I feared that you had lost the appetite for another one any time soon.Ramblersen (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush with any of this. As you will see I've already made a number of the changes you recommend and have added comments where there are difficulties. I'll continue working on the same basis with your other comments. I have been hoping to bring Copenhagen up to GA for some time but Dr. B seemed to think it would require too much effort. But now we're on it together and if you can help too, so much the better. Aalborg was indeed a bit of a problem but Skagen went more smoothly. You might be interested to know that I have received very positive comments from Skagens Museum on all the Skagen stuff. They are currently having discussions with Wikipedia DK on how they can best improve the Danish-language articles on Skagen and the Skagen Painters, perhaps with the help of local historians. Maybe you could offer your services if you feel like working in Danish for a change.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to add some of the references you asked for and the edits and the rest of the references will follow later. I have also added a few links which may be useful for the section on cityscape, mainly for for the strategy on urban spaces. Just a quick start though since I haven't looked on the section yet. Otherwise they might be useful somewhere else. Good to hear that Skagens Museum has noticed and is appreciating your great work on Skagen and that they are interested in contributing to Wikipedia themselves. I regularly consider to start working on Danish Wikipedia articles insteaqd but it would probably be with a focus on Copenhagen-related articles. If they have local historians involved, I doubt I would have anything to add on Skagen.Ramblersen (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have just about finished editing the article for the time being. I have tried to update all the sections and add references where necessary. I have also put together a Copenhagen template on the landmarks, districts and attractions. I was wondering if you have any suggestions on more recent contributions to the city's architecture, including any which coincide with its "green" policies? I would also welcome any comments you might have on the article and the template. As always, you are of course welcome to edit things yourself. And thanks for all your help until now.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new UN Building (UN in Copenhagen, whould fit into the UN template) on Marmormolen is both recent and is an example of "green" architecture ( Source, source, source, source, source). Another possibility is BIG's new combined waste-to-energy plant and ski slope although it has only just gone under construction (Source and many others). Krystallen also claims to be "green" but I never got very far with the article, its a relatively small building and I am not really sure if it is any more green than so many others. Some details in English can be found in the reference that the article links to.

As for the Copenhagen template, I am still of the general opinion that there are too many articles to fit into one big template. To me both the "groups" and included articles in the current template seem a rather random selection. I don't really see the logics behind having a specific group for churches but not one for important general topics such as culture, education or transport. I also find it a bit confusing to find articles on Halmtorvet, Copenhagen Business School, Jens Olden's World Clock and Medicon Valley side by side. To me it also seems problematic that the template lists tiny museums such as the Amber Museum and the Danish Revue Museum which only see very few visitors while other ones such is Frilandsmuseet or Louisiana are left out, I assume since they are not seen as situated in Copenhagen. However, they are much more relevant to the average reader (or visitor to Copenhagen) who wants a quick overview. Still other museums such as the Amalienborg Museum has to be found under landmarks to avoid double entries. I do understand the wish to keep things simple and not too comprehensive, though, but my own preferred solution to this problem would still be to split the template up in more specific ones. And at the end of the day, it is hard to say wheather the Caritas Well or Copenhagen Jazz Festival is more relevant to include. In many cases the answer is of couse given but in others it will completely depend on what subject, building or article a given person ha an interest in. This problem is eliminated by operating with specific template for public art in Copenhagen and one for Events (or festivals) in Copenhagen.

I will try to take another look on the Copenhagen article although I doubt I will have anything to add. Ramblersen (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the section on Culture should have a subsection on Cinema? It could mention The Danish Film Institute, Danish Fuilm School, some of the production companies and more notable cinemas (like the subsection on Literature mentions libraries), possibly also this collaboration and the alternative film school Super16 (source, source, source). A couple of interesting English-speaking filmmakers are also based in Copenhagen, such as Anthony Dod Mantle, James Marsh and Joshua Oppenheimer (not sure how relevant this is though). But I do know that you have top stop somewhere. However, Danish film seems to do better than Danish literature internationally plus a city's film environment seems more closely connected to the city than for instance its literary scene. Anyway, it is just a thought and I completely understand if you don't want to include it.
• Dansehallerne (source) could perhaps be mentioned under 'Entertainment and performing arts' as Copenhagen's premier venue for contemporary dance.

Ramblersen (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these useful comments, especially your suggestions on the template. I simply thought it would be helpful for visitors (both real and virtual) to Copenhagen to have an overview of districts, landmarks, etc., in the first instance. The certainly does not preclude more specific navboxes on other items -- which you might like to contribute. As to the inclusion of Louisiana, etc., I have been wondering whether they should be included in the general template or perhaps a separate one on Greater Copenhagen or something. Anyway, when I have time I'll review it in the light of your suggestions. Ditto your suggestions for architecture in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to make an alternative proposal in a sadbox and then you could see if some of it could be used for adapting the template. I have made a Template:Copenhagen museums template inspired by Template:Glasgow museums, any modification or suggestion for changes will be welcome. Do you have any proposals that would be useful?Ramblersen (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you on this. I've been tied up will all kinds of other things. Your template on the museums seems excellent. I would also welcome your "alternative proposal" for Copenhagen. Before I make any alterations to the present template, I'll wait for your sandbox version. All the best for Christmas and the New Year.--Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say to a solution for the Copenhagen nav bar similar to Template:New York City? I think it would hold several adventages: 1) Nice and simple, good overview 2) Not too similar to the district-based nav bars 3) Not difficult/arbitrary choises of what articles to include or omit (and the discussions that may derive from these choises) 4) No problems with deciding where in the nav bar a given article fits in most naturally. It will of course require quite a few additional 'in depth' articles but most of them can be created quite easily from the existing articles with just a few changes and then be expanded along the way. And they will be very useful anyway ssince they will make it easier to expand and add cover new developments without messing up the GA main article. A very merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you to and thank you for all the assistance with and copy adeting of articles in the year that have passed.Ramblersen (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bech-Bruun 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/Bech-Bruun until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Msnicki (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

For your efforts to improve Denmark's coverage and attempting to counteract systematic bias by starting articles on poorly covered areas of the project such as Danish law firms like Bech-Bruun. I can understand how frustrating it can be to have ungrateful people try to delete your work but please keep up the good work and keep in mind we won't let people delete notable content! Merry Christmas and all the best for 2014! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the moral support and thanks for all your recent contributions and initiatives on Denmark. Tour ability to be everywhere and cover everything at once is remarkable. A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too.Ramblersen (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand Akademisk Forlag?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a subsidiary of Lindhardt og Ringhof (part of Egmont Group) so I think it is best covered there since very little information seems to be available. I therefore propose that you create that article instead and I will try to expand it.Ramblersen (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move to Lindhardt og Ringhof. Sandbox looks fine to me, and a very good idea to transfer the lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have developed an excellent Copenhagen template in your sandbox. I suggest you substitute it for the current template. It's being hanging around for quite some time now.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed this reply/question from above regarding the Copenhagen template (I should probably have put it on your talk page instead"):

"What would you say to a solution for the Copenhagen nav bar similar to Template:New York City? I think it would hold several adventages: 1) Nice and simple, good overview 2) Not too similar to the district-based nav bars 3) Not difficult/arbitrary choises of what articles to include or omit (and the discussions that may derive from these choises) 4) No problems with deciding where in the nav bar a given article fits in most naturally. It will of course require quite a few additional 'in depth' articles but most of them can be created quite easily from the existing articles with just a few changes and then be expanded along the way. And they will be very useful anyway ssince they will make it easier to expand and add cover new developments without messing up the GA main article. A very merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you to and thank you for all the assistance with and copy adeting of articles in the year that have passed.Ramblersen (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)"Ramblersen (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not get around to commenting on this earlier. I think the main reason for the simplified template on New York City is that there are thousands of articles related to it. There must be at least 600 landmarks for a start and there are at least a hundred templates (Category:New York City templates). As I said before, I rather like the template you are developing in your sandbox. You could take this a step further, if you like, by linking the various headings in the template to lists (or in their absence to other templates) as these are developed. For example, in the case of churches, there is already another template but there is not yet a list. You have, however, already developed lists on museums and on parks (in addition to templates on several of the districts, not to mention museums, palaces, parks, etc). The reason I prefer that kind of template for a city the size of Copenhagen is that people can immediately get an overview of Wikipedia's coverage. If they are interested in a given aspect, they can then either look directly at the various articles or turn up a list with photos and short descriptions. But this is my own opinion and others might not agree. What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was certainly not to compare Copenhagen with New York City. The reasons I tend to prefer the model I proposed are:

1) I think there are already too many articles to fit into one nav bar. If all churches, all parks etc are included it will become to big (even if the least important ones are left out). If only the most important ones are included it would maybe lead to misunderstandings and have little to offer when/if there is already a nav bar which lists all the churches (or parks etc). It would sort of work as the Template:London landmarks template but I don't really find that one particularly appealing (too complex, too random for my liking). A solution could perhaps be to have a little less categories in the Copenhagen nav bar so it for instance did not have a specific group for churches but only listed the most important ones under 'landmarks', That would give less of an overlap which I think is important. I should probably also delete the 'city centre' nav bar then since so many of the most important buildings/articles are concentrated there. That would be finde, though, since the district-based templates seem more relevant for the other districts/suburbs.

2) A Copenhagen nav bar with an overview of the districts + links to all the top down articles could be embedded in the bottom (or top) of the other nav bars (the district ones for instance). That in combination with a subject- based and a district-based template o each article would in my opinion be very navigable, give a pretty good overview even for people with no knowledge of Copenhagen and minimize overlap between templates. I don't like articles to have too many competing nav bars (then I tend just to ignore them) and especially if they provide more or less the same information.

Anwway, I trist your discretion so if you think it is better to go with the other solution, let's do that. Alternatively you could ask Dr. Blofeld or some of your other very experienced collaborators which solution they think is best for Copenhagen.Ramblersen (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've already drawn Dr B.'s attention to this discussion. Maybe your proposal would be clearer if you actually developed a preliminary template? I suppose individual templates for the various categories would then need to be added to the relevant articles. Don't take my reactions too seriously. I'm certainly not such an expert on templates as you are and bow to all your experience and development work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a shrunken down one like the Serbian Orthodox churches box, or split into topics. I don't mind, but I thought it was convenient to have one template. You could of course create building templates by district of Copenhagen... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been looking at the Serbian Orthodox Church template and agree with Dr. B. that it provides the best of both worlds. You only need to open up the parts you are interested in but they are all there from the start. How about it?--Ipigott (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian Orthodox Church solution is probably good. For a start, I have uploaded the sandbox version as you initially proposed. It can be adapted later. I added 'topics' at the bottom since I think many will not realize what the integrated links to the left links to. But to understand you right, should the Copenhagen nav bar contain all the churches (etc) or just the most notable ones? And feel of course free to make any changes to the template you like. It is a long time since I have looked at the sandbox version so it may be full of mistakes, I will look at it later when I have the time.Ramblersen (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we adopt the Serbian approach, the number of churches in the main template could easily be reduced to the most important as there would no doubt be a separate template including all the churches.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is already a template with all the churches so I am not really sure I have understood what the "Serbian approach" is (compared to the current situation). I thought it was basically a question of making churches as sub-group of 'landmarks'.Ramblersen (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your articles about Copenhagen / Denmark. I thought I would let you know that we are missing Nørrebrogade (its a redirect to Nørrebro). Just for your information :-) Christian75 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramblersen. I'm glad to see you back in full swing after a few weeks off. You might be interested to see that WP:Architecture now has a task force on Historic houses. I have offered a preliminary list of red links for Denmark at Todo items for anyone which you might like to edit or expand (once it becomes editable!). Maybe we should also develop priorities based on the regions or even municipalities drawing on da:Kategori:Fredede slotte og herregårde i Danmark or da:Kategori:Fredede bygninger, konstruktioner og anlæg i Danmark efter kommune and da:Kategori:Herregårde i Danmark. Any assistance you can give with picking out those deserving priority treatment would be appreciated. Personally, I would tend to go first for those which are already at least start class in Danish, preferably with illustrations and possibly with links to articles in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've very much enjoyed seeing following your resent work on historic houses. I have thought about starting such lists for quite some time but wondered if there would be too much overlap with the list List of castles in Denmark (which I find way too inclusice) which seems to be more well-established on wikiepdia (cf the nav bar with lists of castles by country). But I much prefer to go with the broader term of historic houses. I will start working on some lists. I think it will be better to make thm for diferent islands and then we can always redirect, rearrange them or modify them if needed.Ramblersen (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the historic houses approach, we can of course also include residences in towns and cities too. I agree it would be useful to handle them under the various islands.--Ipigott (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent work on starting the historic houses in Denmark and Copenhagen lists!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir Doctor.:)

Can you find more entries for Category:Ice hockey venues in Denmark and find the Danish wiki cat link?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Ice hockey is not very popular in Denmark so I doubt you will find it worthwhile to cover most of the venues, many of which haven't even got articles in Danish. But here are the ones that were used by the teams in 2013–14 Metal Ligaen season:

• Herning: Kvik Hockey Arena (no Danish article, Herning Blue Fox)
• Vojens: SE Arena SønderjyskE Ishockey
• Aalborg: Gigantium
• Frederikshavn: da:Iscenter Nord (Frederikshavn White Hawks)
• Odense: da:Odense Isstadion (Odense Bulldogs)
• Rødovre: da:Rødovre Skøjte Arena (Rødovre Mighty Bulls)
• Herlev: Herlev skøjtehal (Herlev Eagles)
• Ringsted: Hørsholm Skøjtehal. (da:Herlev Eagles)

For larger tournaments, such as 2018 IIHF World Championship, Jyske Bank Boxen amd the under construction Royal Arena will be used as venues.

BTW, regarding List of historic houses in Denmark, do you think it should contain coordinates? It is not that I mind adding them if they are really needed but it will take quite some time to add them so I'm wondering if it will really be worth the effort. And most of the lists fr other countries don't seem to include coordinates.Ramblersen (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should have coordinates I think. Sorry for not seeing this until now, ping me in future!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you rename your lists "List of monuments and memorials", categories too should e e.g Category:Monuments and memorials as publc art is misleading and could refer to graffiti or paintings on buildings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dr. Blofeld: Well public art is the term that is being used for the similar lists in London (son some other cities): List of public art in London and Category:Public art by city. To me "monuments and memorials" seem to restrictive since I think it would excluse for instance sculptural decorations on buildings. My intension was actually also to include murals where they have been created by notable artists but I have just not got around to adding them yet since I have for now mainly used Copenhagen Municipality's website (makes references easy) and some of the most well-known other works where good images are available. The problem with murals is that they have usually been created by artists that didn't die 70 years ago. The same goes for plenty of sculptures, though, especially in the younger districts, and they still can and should be added to the list of course. They can and should still be added of course, but it i's just so much more satisfying to add a work where you can also use an image. This list will of course never be exhaustive but I don't think that is a problem. I would really like to stick with "public art", are you sure you think it should be moved? If so, I suggest we move this discussion to the talk page to engage more people in it.

But I have actually been meaning to ask you if you think any of the other columns from the similar London lists should be added (my plan was to add coordinates at a later stage but it is such a painstaking process so I decided to prioritize scope for a start).Ramblersen (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)?[reply]

OK, it's just it seemed that every one in the list was a monument or memorial and we usually categorize those with the monuments and memorials categories.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are indeed dominating the list (as of now) so I do understand why you got that impression but statues of nameless persons ("studying girl"), animal figures or abstract sculptures will most often not really be monuments as defined by Wikipedia: "a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or important event, or which has become important to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, or as an example of historic architecture.". Plenty of other structures that I am not really interested in adding to the list, such as the Grundtvig's Church, would on the other hand satisfy those criteria.Ramblersen (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made a small edit; see Talk:Grand Theatre (Copenhagen)#"mondain"?. You can probably fix the problem. Thnidu (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thnidu:Oh sorry about that. Or I guess "pardon my French" would be the appropriate term here.:) Should be fixed now. Thank you for bringing my attention to it.Ramblersen (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your constructive suggestions, I've made a start on this and also on Kongernes Nordsjælland. I'm not too sure how far to go. The North Zealand article should perhaps also have a section on transport and communications and maybe more on the geography and terrain. You might also like to make some additions yourself. I see also you have recently made lists of churches and heritage buildings in the area but I don't know whether links or specific buildings should be included.--Ipigott (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have enjoyed following your fast progress, very nice work! I agree that a section on transport and some details on the geography would be good. I think the article would also benefit from a more substantial section of the history but the question is of course wheather it will result in too many repetitions, both with other sections and other articles. Will something like the king's use of the area for hunting (source) or the burning of charcoal (source) for instance belong in history section of North Zealand, Kongernes Nordsjælland or Gribskov? Parhaps the Danish Maritime Museum, the Danish Technical museum and Frilandsmuseet (or the Museum of National History at Frederiksborg Castle) should be mentioned in the section on museums?Frilandsmuseet is at least pretty interesting to international tourists while I suppose the relevance of the others can be questioned although I do think they have more to offer than Esrum Abbey which should perhaps rather be mentioned in connection with the national park (and the history section if expanded).I think I will start by expanding some stubs on some of the localities in the area and then maybe later give the history a shot in a sandbox if you are not interested in doing more work on it for now. Uou have certainly made a very good start.Ramblersen (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I'll try to follow them up. I also thought the history could be expanded in conjunction with the major towns in the area. Maybe I should also include something on Frederiksværk, Frederikssund and even Roskilde which many English-language guides include in North Zealand.--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes something on the major towns would be good, perhaps in an "Overview" section or somply on the lead (the focus seems very much on tourism right now). I think Roskilde is better covered in the Roskilde article, otherwise it becomes more and more of an "outskirts of Copenhagen" article. VisitNordsjælland actually only coveres the municipalities Hillerød, Fredensborg, Helsingør, Gribskov and Halsnæs. Danmarks Statistik includes Lyngby-Taarbæk under the Greater Copenhagen area (Københavns Omegn) and not Nordsjælland in their statiastics. Either way, Historically, administratively, infrastructuewise and culturally, Roskilde has not that much in common with the North Zealand area. As for Frederiksbærk, mentioning Frederiksværk (which fits in nicely with your excellent coverage of Johan Frederik Classen), it could perhaps also be mentioned in the history section together with Hellebæk and Mølleåen (Like Frederiksværk, one of the 20 Industrial Heritage Sites) as early industrial centres.Ramblersen (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am intending to make major improvements to the Roskilde and Roskilde Cathedral articles shortly but have included a brief mention of them in North Zealand. I've looked at coverage of the other areas of Zealand and it is not at all clear to me where Roskilde really belongs. Visit North Sealand also covers it here for example. Lyngby-Taarbæk is included under North Zealand here. It's all a bit confusing but perhaps it's better to be inclusive for the English-speaking reader.--Ipigott (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well basically all these subdivisions of Zealand are completely random and inconsistent and completely trelies on who happens to collaborate etc. When it comes to tourism, Roskilde collaborates with Lejre. Danmarks Statistik groups Roskilde with Køge, Lejre, Greve and Solrød municipalities as Østsjælland, which is basically the part of metropolitan Copenhagen which is administratively placed in Region Zealand, similarly to Nordsjælland in the Capital Region. But yes this splitting-up is random and the regions have little power and will probably be abolished after the next election. In business contexts, it was recently decided to sell all of Zealand as Copenhagen (source. This can seem a bit silly from a Danish perspective but with the new fast Copenhagen-Rinsted Railway travel times to both Ringsted and Næstved will be decreased quite a bit so I guess it becomes more and more relevant. If you compare Zealand to Stockholm County in terms of area and population, it also seems to make some sense. Actially even Idense/Fyn wants to be considered part of the Greater Copenhagen-Malmö Area as can be read in their new Strategiplan Fyn 2014-17. O will look forward to follow your work on Roskilde and its cathedral, tell me if I can be of assistance in any way.Ramblersen (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On this regional business, I remember in the summer there was considerable discussion on the meaning of "Copenhagen" both in English and Danish. There was even a proposal that it should stretch from Helsingør to Lolland: "Et samarbejde, hvor hele området fra Helsingør Kommune i nord til Lollands Kommune i syd markedsføres under den fælles betegnelse Copenhagen" (see here). Anyway, I'm still trying to progress on North Zealand but it seems to be going rather slowly.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess everything is relative, I think you have made very fast progress on the article, especially considering the fact that we are entering this busy time of year. And I really enjoy your work on Mølleåen!Ramblersen (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but your source seems to have it mixed up with the Chinese summer house in nearby Frederiksberg Park or something. Møstings Hus was not built for the royal family and is not from the 18th century but from 1800/1801. The part about the pond is correct, though.Ramblersen (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hedehusene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rigsdaler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding surrounding villages to the template. As we are now being assessed for GA, could you either provide the necessary links or perhaps remove unlinked items until the assessment is completed. Your navboxes are a great help to development but are in fact intended to help end users rather than editors. I would personally be glad to return to unlinked items later but we seem to be progressing rather quickly. Thanks for all your help with the main article, the template and all the linked articles you have created.--Ipigott (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the "black links" (a contradiction in terms, I know), I will put the expanded nav bar in a sandbox and then clean up thje one in the main space.Ramblersen (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eric Kress has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kemp & Lauritzen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JBH (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Julie Fagerholt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JBH (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for your moving of the article Bodil Honorary Award to be undone. If you contest the restoration of the article to its original place, please say so, so that the request can get moved to the "Contested technical requests" section. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hej - jeg er Fred at Novozymes, hvor jeg til daglig arbejder og bl.a. har et ansvar for at sikre, at vi fra virksomhedens side har gjort vores for, at Novozymes-artiklerne altid er i overensstemmelse med Wikipedias retningslinjer. Jeg er faldet over, at den danske Novozymes-artikel ikke er opdateret i flere år, hvilket for alle brugere er ærgerligt, herunder faktuelle forhold såsom regnskabstal. I mine øjne er sidstnævnte ikke-kontroversielle redigeringer, men jeg vil ikke give mig i kast med sådanne uden en forhåndsmelding fra en dansk Wikipedia-redaktør. Du er selvfølgelig også meget velkommen til selv at opdatere forholdene.Fred at Novozymes (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fred at Novozymes; Du har naturligvis helt ret i at artiklen trænger til at blive opdateret. Du kan se detaljer om din adgang til direkte at redigere i artiklen i afsnittet Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization?. I det omfang du har forslag til ændringer som rækker ud over, hvad du selv - som ansat - må forestage, vil jeg foreslå, at du eventuelt udfærdiger det i en "sandbox" (som jeg kan se du er i gang med her) og så lader mig eller en anden redigere selve artiklen (hvis dit forslag er neutral og i øvrigt overholder Wikipedia's guidelines vil der jo være ringe eller intet behov for at modificere det). Ramblersen (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen: Tak for hurtigt svar! Det jeg gør, det er, at jeg opdaterer tallene fra 2009 til 2014; det er ikke-kontroversielt jf. Wikipedias retningslinjer herfor - sig endelig til, hvis du er uenig heri. Med hensyn til mere grundlæggende opdateringer kommer jeg gerne med forslag, men det bedste for alle vil vel egentlig være, hvis der var en redaktør, der kunne hoppe om bord i det? Så er vi på afstand af alt, hvad der kan have karakter af CoI osv. Fred at Novozymes (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fred at Novozymes: Det ville bestemt være bedst, men jeg véd ikke hvor sandsynligt det er, at en redaktør med den fornødne indsigt i og interesse for artiklen dukker op.Det er desværre et generelt problem, at artikler om dansk-baserede virksomheder er rudimentære, rodede og dårlige opdaterede.Ramblersen (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen: Og det kunne ikke tænkes, at du kunne springe om bord hermed? Du har vist tidl. kigget på den danske artikel? Jeg støtter jo selvfølgelig gerne i et omfang, der sker indenfor de gældende regler og retningslinjer. Fred at Novozymes (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heg har vist ikke den fornødne viden om Novozymes til at have meget at byde ind med. Jeg foretager godt nok nogle gange lidt smirettelser I artikler om danske virksomheder (såsom kategorisering, opdatering af nøgletal, lidt reference etc), men ellers ligger emnet uden for mit normale interesseområde. De insiggribende betalingsmure hos Børsen, Berlingske, JP Finans, Medico Watch etc gør det også mere og mere besværligt at finde egnede reference. Men hvis du har nogle konkrete forslag til forbedringer af artiklen, kan jeg godt prøve at være behjælpelig.Ramblersen (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I know you regularly translate articles from Danish wiki, I wondered if I could interest you in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. You can use the Danish workspace pages to organize missing Danish articles and work towards them etc. If interested, please add your name to the list on the wikiproject talk page with a tick as instructed and add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish with Ipigott and a few others, and when I update I'll add you to the main page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of churches in Egedal Municipality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stenløse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ramblersen. I can see you put an image at the article about Falck Denmark, the Falck logo. I created the page https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falck_Portugal but I can´t put the logo at the resume of the company information, the truth is i'm new at this. Can you please help me and put the Falck logo at "my page"? Thank you. FalckSCI (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that logos aren't free images and therefore can't be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. The logo is therefore located at English wikiepdia and used under the special rules that aplly to logos. I am not too familiar with these things either but I assume that you have to upload the logo to your local Wikipedia where similar rules probably apply. You have to click 'Criador de livros' to the left on the page and then follow instructions. If you have problems, you can probably find someone who has uploaded logos used on your own Wikipedia who can help you.Good luck!Ramblersen (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a date is confused in this article. It says:

"In 1766 he obtained a royal privilege to open the inn. It was sold at auction when he went bankrupt in 1677."

And as he was not yet born in 1677, huh? Could this be a typo for '1767'? Shenme (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should say 1777 - thank you for drawing my attention to it.:=Ramblersen (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hej. Grønnegade has a broken template link to "template:Grønnegade" - do you have any idea which template it should have been? I didnt remove it, because I want to say I enjoy reading your articles about Denmark. Christian75 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a screw-up when I wanted to add a Commons link. I have thought about making some sort of "Public realm in Copenhagen" or "Public spaces in Copenhagen" template which could cover squares, (major) streets, waterfronts etc, complementing the one with parks and other greenspaces, but not done so yet.Ramblersen (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Stockholmsgade page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DADES, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stenløse and Spinderiet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in association with Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation, Women in Design, and Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in architecture and design to participate. The campaign aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that by its nature combines both. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in this field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Højesteret logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Danes Worldwide logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Nørre Allé page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Ramblersen

Jeg har lige været i gang med at oversætte din nye artikel Guldbergsgade til dansk, idet jeg dog af praktiske årsager har delt den i da:Guldbergsgade og da:Guldbergs Plads. Undervejs stødte jeg imidlertid på en fejl omkring navnet. Gaden er nemlig ikke som angivet opkaldt efter Ove Høegh-Guldberg men hans søn da:Frederik Høegh-Guldberg, hvilket fremgår af bøgerne Storbyens Stednavne og Københavnske gadenavnes historie. Din kilde, Dengang.dk, har rodet de to personer sammen, vel sagtens fordi faderen huskes en del bedre end sønnen. Men det var altså sidstnævnte, der byggede en villa ved gaden, hvilket jeg da også har angivet i de danske artikler. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tak for korrektionen. Jeg vil straks forestage de nødvendige rettelser.:)Ramblersen (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when creating categories. GiantSnowman 21:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the second reference note in the article you recently created about Rahbeks Allé? The input parameters are broken. I noticed it in one of the maintenance categories. I would fix it myself, but the source is in Danish, so I'm not sure what the correct details are. --RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC) _Thanks for the tip. I'll fix it right away.Ramblersen (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toftegårds Plads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Copenhagen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hempel Group logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding the article on the French school of Copenhagen.

One note: Because Frederiksberg is a separate municipality surrounded by Copenhagen, it should be stated as "Frederiksberg, Denmark, surrounded by Copenhagen." It is the same way insular cities such as "Bellaire" are treated in Texas. Bellaire is almost completely surrounded by Houston, and yet it is stated as "Bellaire, Texas" because Bellaire is a separate municipality with its own fire department, police, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:WhisperToMe: I strongly disagree. I am well aware that Frederiksberg is an ondependent municipality but Copenhagen refers to the entire urban area. I can assure you that noone in Frederiksberg would say that they do not live in Copenhagen (as opposed to Copenhagen Municipality. See also Statistics Denmark which routinely uses the yrtm 'Byen København' ("City of Copenhagen") which both includes the municipalities of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Tårnby and Dragør. See also Copenhagen Zoo and Copenhagen Business School which are both located in Frederiksberg Municipality. It is without any practical importance to the French School that it happens to be located in a part of Copenhagen that happens to be an independent municipality. I think it will course way more confusion than it will be informative and that it will lead to an unbearable number of repetitions if each and every article about a building, institution or whatever in Frederiksberg should explain Frederiksberg's umusual combination of a very central location in the middle of Copenhagen and a status as an independent municipality. I don't think Bellaire is a fitting comparison. The situation is more comparable to City of London and City of Westminster )not that the situation is in any way identical) which are obviously both part of London in spite of their special status. Noone would say "in City of Westminster, surrounded by London".Ramblersen (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the example of London that's because "London" actually means Greater London the entity (not the London metropolitan area which extends into Essex, Surrey, etc. nor the small City of London at the core, which is inside Greater London)

I am aware that with Australian and New Zealand cities the use of "Sydney"/"Melbourne"/etc refers to the metropolitan areas and not to any one LGA/municipality.

However in the United States strictly speaking "Houston" is what's in the city limits. People living in Bellaire, Texas and West University Place, Texas are centrally located (like Fredericksberg) and usually they would say "I'm from Houston" to an outsider (and this article calls Bellaire and West U "glorified neighborhoods") - Despite that they are properly municipalities and things within them should not be stated as being in Houston.

I assumed that Copenhagen is defined the same way as an American city, that is, as a municipality rather than as a metropolitan area. Is there a reference which says that when most people say "Copenhagen" they refer to the metropolitan area in the Australian way? If so, then I would be okay changing things. If not, then I would ask that both Bellaire, Texas (and similar exclaves within American cities) and Fredericksberg be treated in the same way.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I found a far more famous American example of "municipality surrounded by much bigger one" that is culturally a part of the city around it: Beverly Hills, California! (there's also West Hollywood, California and Santa Monica, California) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have already mentioned that Statistics Denmark includes Frederiksberg under "Byen København" in their official statistics. If that is not a good enough source for you, I doubt that anything will be. Having lived in Frederiksberg, having family there and living a few hundred metres away, I really don't get why this discussion ends up being about Houston and other American cities. If you read the article about Copenhagen, you will notice that it handles the issue with Copenhagen's confusing, administrative structurein the same pragmatic way that I proposes by covering a larger area than just Copenhagen Municipality where it is relevant and I therefore really don't get why it is important to you that an article about a French school in Copenhagen (the principle one) mentions something which is of no practical importance to it and which would potentiall have to be repeated in some 100 articles. As I see it, it is plenty that the article about Frederiksberg mentions that it is an independent municipality completely surrounded by Copenhagen Municipality and that municipally operated public schools, cultural venues etc explicitly mentions Frederiksberg Municipality. Perhaps User:Ipigott who is a native English-speaker but is very familiar with Denmark and has upgrated a number of articles about Danish cities including the one about Copenhagen to GA status has an opinion about this matter?Ramblersen (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is geographically and culturally the same situation: The bigger cities annexed around the smaller cities leaving them islands ("By 1948 West University Place was completely surrounded by Houston."). I suppose the only difference is that Frederiksberg is larger population-wise than those American "island cities" (Fredericksberg has 104,481 while the American cities are in the tens of thousands or just the thousands).

"Well I have already mentioned that Statistics Denmark includes Frederiksberg under "Byen København" in their official statistics. " - Do they do this for all statistics related to Copenhagen? May I see the webpages and/or documents such as maps where this is explained? A look at the Danish stats index for "BY1: Population 1. January by urban areas, age and sex" says that it lists "Kobenhavn Municipality" and "Kobenhavn (part of Greater Copenhagen region)" - What I'm looking for is the agency providing a map or text definition of "Kobenhavn (part of Greater Copenhagen region)" defining it as including "Kobenhavn Municipality" and "Frederiksberg Municipality"

When I do "show table" for these options for the year 2016:

• "101-00101 Københavns Municipality 591 481"
• "101-01100 København (part of Greater Copenhagen Region) 591 481" (the population figures are identical)
• "147-00147 Frederiksberg Municipality 104 481"
• "147-01100 Frederiksberg (part of Greater Copenhagen Region) 104 481" (the population figures are identical)

If they were counting "København" as being distinct from "Københavns Municipality" by including Frederiksberg then wouldn't its population count be higher than "København Municipality"? The "Greater Copenhagen Region" includes multiple cities in the Copenhagen area, not only Copenhagen and Frederiksberg. I don't see another entry named "Byen København" or such that would seem to be Copenhagen and Frederiksberg combined. Also when I checked ARE207: Area by region Copenhagen (86.40 square km) and Frederiksberg (8.71 square km) are listed separately.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen and WhisperToMe: I fully sympathize with you, WhisperToMe, in your efforts to establish the correct location of the French school, given the separate administrative status of Frederiksberg. I would nevertheless suggest that there is a danger in being "more Catholic than the Pope" in this context as Copenhageners and Danes in general refer to it as the French school in Copenhagen. (Google gives over a thousand hits for "den franske skole i københavn" but only nine for "den franske skole i frederiksberg".) I have never heard anyone call it the French school of Frederiksberg. The school is well known throughout Denmark as it was accidentally bombed by the RAF during the Second World War. The French call it simply "Lycée français de Copenhague". Rather than pursuing the discussion of how Frederiksberg and Copenhagen are covered in the statistics, I suggest a more pragmatic solution. I have rewritten the introduction to the article as "Lycée Français Prins Henrik (Danish: Prins Henriks Skole) is a French international school in central Copenhagen, Denmark. Located in Frederiksberg Allé in the municipality of Frederiksberg, it serves levels primaire (primary school) through lycée (senior high school)." I also agree to maintaining "Frederiksberg" as the official location in the box. I will copy this discussion to the article's talk page as a basis for any further comment on the subject. And while I'm here, I would also like to thank WhisperToMe for all the excellent work he has been doing to improve the presentation of articles about schools.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: You're welcome. I would suggest tweaking it to say "central Copenhagen area" to show its location but other than that it's great! By all means the article should refer it to as "the French school of Copenhagen" and it does serve people in the Copenhagen city limits. That's why it should be a part of the Category:Education in Copenhagen article tree. Anyway oftentimes these international schools may not be within the city limits of the cities they serve. The Japanese School of Paris is far away from the Paris city limits (it's closer to Versailles!). The German School of Kuala Lumpur is in Selangor State, away from the KL city limits. The Japanese School of New York is actually in Connecticut! WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Glad to hear you are happy with my proposal. For me, the "central Copenhagen area" covers far more than "central Copenhagen". So let's just keep it as it is. If you ever get around to European School, Luxembourg II (which certainly needs a helping hand), you will see that not only is it outside the city of Luxembourg, it is split between two municipalities! Fortunately, as Luxembourg is also the name of the country, including Luxembourg in its designation is fully acceptable.--Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen: Do you think it would be useful to have a separate article on the French School which was located on Frederiksberg Allé 74 until it was bombed? There is a short article in the Danish wiki and a pretty good write-up in Den Store Danske.--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Thank you for your comments and I fully agree with everything you write but the school that was bombed was actually the (French-language) Catholic Institut Sankt Joseph Copenhagen. It was located a bit further down Frederiksberg Allé when it was bombed but is now located in Østerbro. It is very common to mix them up.

@Ramblersen: Now I think you might be mixing things up a bit. The school in Frederiksberg which was bombed was in fact the Institut Jeanne d'Arc or simply Den Franske Skole founded in 1924. After the bombing, the remaining pupils were indeed transferred to the Institut Saint-Joseph in Østerbro but this had existed since 1858 and had been separate from the Frederiksberg School. There is in fact an article on Institut Sankt Joseph Copenhagen (which could be improved and better referenced) but I don't think we yet have an article on the Institut Jeanne d'Arc or what is generally known as Den Franske Skole although it is mentioned in Operation Carthage. Do you think it would be useful to start an article about it? I could certainly help if you wish.--Ipigott (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right that Institute Sankt Joseph in Østerbro is not identical to the Institut Jeanne d'Arc either just because the surviving students were transferred there, so yes I do think the ideal solution would be to cover the latter in a separate article. My main focus for now is existing buildings and institutions, though. But if you would start an article on the Institut Jeanne d'Arc, it will be great and I will try to add something if I can.[User:Ramblersen|Ramblersen]] (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Statistics are of course also available for individual municipalities but if you select 'Statistikbanken" on the left hand side of DS' website and then find the population statistics, you can select 'landsdele' instead of the default option with municipalities/administrative regions. You will then get numbers for 'Byen København', 'Københavns Omegn' etc and you will see that the numbers for Byen København equals the number for the municipalities Copenhagen + Frederiksberg + Tårnby + Dragør. The term is used on a more or less daily basis in their newsletters and surveys, for instance in their monthly unemployment statistivs, see this one. When DS publishes its annual numbers for the largest cities in Denmark, Copenhagen is listed with the number for its urban area (not the metropolitan area that you have referred to, that is a much larger area) Frederiksberg never appears in lists of the largest cities in Denmark individually but is included in the number for Copenhagen, see for instance here. IMO this shows that it is normal and official usage to refer to the totality of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg as Copenhagen (but of course not Copenhagen Municipality). I have not read up on your examples from America but don't agree that the situation is culturally and historically the same just because they are also "surrounded" cities. Frederiksberg was never a town proper but always closely linked with Copenhagen. I think there is plenty of evidence that it is completely correct to refer to Frederiksberg as "Copenahgen" and whether it should be mentioned that it is an independent municipality should imo then depend on whether it is relevant/important to the specific article. Otherwise we will just get endless repetitions of the same tough-on-the-tongue phrasing that won't contribute anything. To make a comparison, lots and lots of articles about Copenhagen used to say "in Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark". I have tried to clean up this sort of repetitions since I don't see why all articles about Copenhagen should mention that it is the capital of Denmark. The vast majority of readers will know this already and others can easily establish it by clicking the article about Copenhagen. Likewise with Frederiksberg's status as an independent municipality. Most readers interested in the French School won't care since it is without practical importance, others will know already and the rest can easily establish it by clicking the article about Frederiksberg. There is no point in repeating it in some one hundred articles. But yes it will make sense to write that Lindevang School (haven't covered it yet) " is a public school operated by Frederiksberg Municipality" because it caters to people who live in Frederiksberg Municipality - unlike the French School which caters to people who live in the entire Copenhagen area.Ramblersen (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words Fredericksberg other places are grouped in the "urban area" (the inner core of the metropolitan area), correct? It could be helpful to say it's in the "Copenhagen urban area" to make it clear it's an inner core place and not a distant outerlying area.

To have a consistent standard articles about places are often based on strictly the municipal definitions stemming from their country's statistical agencies; of course local definitions may differ and that can be noted.

Even though it's common for non-locals of a place to not be particularly picky with where a place is described, the practice on Wikipedia is to be precise and accurate in regards to location information. I say this based on some discussions I have participated in: At Talk:Emory University it was decided that the article should not say that the university is in the City of Atlanta even though it is commonly thought to be so; the university is in an unincorporated area just east of the city even though the U.S. Postal Service gives it an "Atlanta, GA" street address. At Talk:ENSCO, Inc. it was decided that the article should say the company headquarters are physically located in Annandale, Virginia even though its postal address is "Falls Church, Virginia." - This is considered practically important for any and all articles. Remember the audience includes locals, not only people far away, and locals themselves may not know everything about their hometowns/home regions.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I really don't see anything unprecise simply writing that the school is located in Frederiksberg and in Copenhagen. The question here is wether it is necessary/helpful/important to mention that Frederiksberg is an independent municipality. If an article mentions that something is located in "the urban area of XXX" my fist thought if I didn't know the place would be that it is located somewhere in the periphery. IMO it is therefore more informative or precise /or less confusing) simply to write "in Copenhagen" or "in central Copenhagen" here. I am not sure what you mean when you write "Remember the audience includes locals" since I am pretty sure than no locals would have the same objections that you do.Ramblersen (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when the distinction is important: When Episcopal High School (Bellaire, Texas), a private Christian school, wanted to expand its campus it needed approval from the Bellaire, Texas city government. Even though the Bellaire municipality does not control the school, and even though the school obviously enrolls students from the city limits of Houston, the fact that the school is in the City of Bellaire means it operates under the laws of that city and uses the infrastructure of that city, not Houston's. Likewise, wouldn't the French School of Copenhagen need to seek approval from the Frederiksberg municipal government if it wanted to make modifications to/expand its campus?

By "precise" I mean that the determination of whether a place is in one city or another is whether it's within the city's municipal limits. In U.S. articles, for example, if a place is within Meyerland, Houston (a Houston neighborhood just south of Bellaire) it's stated as "Meyerland, Houston, Texas" but if it's in the independent municipality of Bellaire it's stated as Bellaire, Texas and not "Bellaire, Houston, Texas".

A statement such as "Frederiksberg is an independent municipality surrounded by Copenhagen" does not need to be in the lead. In a bigger article it can go in a sub-section describing the campus and its surroundings. I wrote something similar about Bellaire High School (Texas) in its "location and campus" section which is based on this Texas Monthly article which discusses the school's location and campus - It's common for articles to include "background information" on a subject, and that background info does not heed to be in the lead.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the determination of whether a place is in one city or another is whether it's within the city's municipal limits": That may be true in the US but I don't think it is the normal criteria in Denmark where city/town normally refers to the urban area. I have already done what I could to show you this, for instance with a list of the largest Danish cities which doesn't not include Frederiksberg for the simple reason that it is not considered a city but a municipality and neighbourhood within Copenhagen and with my references to Statistics Denmark. You seem to completely ignore all evidence that I produce and instead continue to refer to to "In America..." instead of accepting that usage may be different elsewhere. It would simply not be correct to write that "Frederiksberg is a municipality surrounded by Copenhagen" as you propose since Frederiksberg is part of Copenhagen and it would therefore be Frederiksberg (Municipality) is a municipality surrounded by Copenhagen Municipality. This discussion doesn't go anywahere, we are just repeating what we have already said. It all comes down to the question of wether "Copenhagen" refers to the municipality or the urban area and you insist on an understanding of the word that you think makes sense and/or which would be in accordance with US practice instead of considering what is local and common usage.Ramblersen (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to these points:

• Bolius.dk (operated by Realdania) stats on largest cities:
  • "København: 1.280.371 (1,3 %)*" and "* København er her talt med som hovedstadsområdet. I selve Københavns Kommune er der 591.481 indbyggere i 2016, en fremgang på 1,9 % siden 2015. Flere områder i hovedstadsområdet ville være på top 10-listen, hvis de talte med hver for sig. Det er Frederiksberg (104.481 indbyggere), Gentofte (75.350 indbyggere) og Gladsaxe (67.914 indbyggere). " - So not only Frederiksberg but Gladsaxe and Gentofte are included too (and presumably many other municipalities because the total is 1,280,371)

It is true that unlike Denmark, U.S. population stats do not include island cities in listings of "largest cities in the United States" - It may be a good idea to see if everyone else has the same methodology Bolius is having, or if just Bolius does it that way. In other words do Danish media organizations usually use this definition when ranking the largest city in Denmark? And if so it's good to build a library of multiple media sources (especially newspapers) doing this.

• Monthly unemployment statistics: The document does not mention "Frederiksberg". Nonetheless it makes sense that unemployment statistics are tabulated metro-wide, rather than municipality-wide, and it doesn't impact this discussion on whether "Frederiksberg should be stated to be in Copenhagen".

"The problem with "local and common" usage is that oftentimes it's not concrete and doesn't match political realities; also it's not often "written down in a source" and therefore can't be used (if you read Talk:ENSCO,_Inc. you'll see the limits of "local understanding" when faced with concrete data from statistical agencies). However I did find some definitions of Copenhagen courtesy of the OECD:

• Entrepreneurship Review of Denmark. OECD Publishing, December 24, 2008. p. 92. "Copenhagen is the largest city in Denmark, by any possible definition of a city. When the administrative boundaries are taken as a definition, the city of Copenhagen currently has around 510,000 inhabitants. With the municipality of Frederiksberg, which is located within the city of Copenhagen, this would add up to 594,000 inhabitants, roughly twice as much as in Aarhus, the second Danish city. This definition however understates the importance of Copenhagen, since the functional metropolitan area of Copenhagen is considerably larger." - It sounds like Copenhagen could be defined multiple ways,

Has somebody definitively written down a statement of "how 'Copenhagen' is defined by area residents?" (like what has been done here in regards to the expansion of the definition of "London" since the 1880s) - I am also thinking it may be a good idea to start something on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard so that people from elsewhere can take a look at the situation. That way this discussion can move forward.

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no official definition and I don't know who would have the authority to make it it Statistics Denmark]] is not good enough. The Dispute resolution noticeboard] sounds like a good idea - I never understood why this discussion endded up on my talk page instead of on the talk page of the article - but I am not going to spend more time on this discussion since I have already said what I have to say.Ramblersen (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright: I opened Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:Ramblersen.23Frederiksberg - It is asking for a statement of about 2,000 characters each from the other parties. As this may affect multiple articles I'm eager to see what others think about the issue. Pinging @Ipigott: WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you or Ipigott blue link the red ones in these categories, are they missing or under different titles?

• Category:Buildings and structures in Aabenraa Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Albertslund Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Allerød Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Ballerup Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Bornholm
• Category:Buildings and structures in Brøndby Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Copenhagen
• Category:Buildings and structures in Dragør Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Egedal Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Fanø Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Faverskov Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Fredensborg Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Frederiksberg Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Frederikssund Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Furesø Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Gentofte Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Gladsaxe Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Glostrup Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Gribskov Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Haderslev Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Hedensted Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Helsingør Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Herlev Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Hvidovre Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Høje-Taastrup Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Hørsholm Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Ikast-Brande Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Ishøj Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Jammerbugt Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Kalundborg Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Kerteminde Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Kolding Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Langeland Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Lemvig Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Lyngby-Taarbæk Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Mariagerfjord Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Odder Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Rebild Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Ringkøbing-Skjern Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Rudersdal Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Rødovre Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Struer Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Thistad Municipality

Category:Buildings and structures in Tønder Municipality

• Category:Buildings and structures in Tårnby Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Vallensbæk Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Vejen Municipality
• Category:Buildings and structures in Vesthimmerland Municipality

♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sort it out as soon as possible, Upugott can use his time much better with other contributions.Ramblersen (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few were misspelled or incorrectly named and I have now created the rest of themRamblersen (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solbjerg Park Cemetery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albrecht Schmidt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parks and open spaces in Albertslund Municipality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parks and open spaces in Copenhagen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parks and open spaces in Copenhagen by municipality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Egmont Group logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Carniolus (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've set up a page, feel free to begin listing your entries on the 1000 list. Hopefully this will encourage more people to produce and imporve more articles for Denmark and the other nations. Can you spread the word and alert the others? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know if you're interested or not? If you put up some missing Danish building articles on the challenge page for instance I'd try to help you out a bit. I know you've been plugging away on that for years!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dr. Blofeld Oh I'm interested allright. I've just had very little time for Wikipedia these last couple of days but will soon begin to add articles. I will also add some red links.Ramblersen (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerhard Ludvig Lahde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jens Juel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Lynge, Allerod a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the 'move' mottom but wrote the article by following a red link and only discovered afterwards that a stub already existed under another name (yes I should have checked more carefully). I then tried to fix it.Ramblersen (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your output is amazing Ramblersen!! Very impressed! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor.:)Ramblersen (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic schools in Copenhagen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sticks'n'Sushi page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Hareskoven page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Schæfergården requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Welltec logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Listed storage buildings in Copenhagen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alle gaar rundt og forelsker sig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Nielsen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Netcompany has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This barnstar, awarded instead of the various barnstars belonging to the Nordic national barnstars, is awarded to Ramblersen for his monumental dedication to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Nordic countries' culture, history, and landmarks. Gott mit Uns! Vami_IV✠ 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.:)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words.:)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1624 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 80 in Denmark. Since you had some involvement with the 80 in Denmark redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 15:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davs, Ramblersen ! I really like the articles Helsingør City Museum and Skibsklarerergaarden. However they have very few inline references, which really is called fore at this Wikipedia. I will not put a

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Ramblersen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

-template at the articles, but someone else might. So if you have sources , then please add some more inline references. This is not about "trust" (I personally trust all what you have written in these articles, but that's not the issue). All the best & skål ! Boeing720 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder and you are quite right that the articles really need more references. I will try to dig something up.Ramblersen (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also - if you have knowledge and sources about other Helsingør / North Zealand buildings , please make more articles. I'm from Landskrona (and naturally visit Helsingør several times every year, and have done so ever since I was very little) But the articles you have written are still news to me. And very interesting news they are. Keep up the good work ! Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and I will indeed continue to work on the coverage of Helsingør and the rest of North Zealand also in the (near) future.Ramblersen (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nets Group logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, five years ago you created an article 1450s in Denmark but it doesn't really have anything in it. While I think an article on this topic would be very useful, nothing much seems to be happening with this one, so I've proposed it for deletion. All the best Mccapra (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesus Church, Copenhagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borgen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Dagmar Olrik and her assistants spent 18 years decorating a room in Copenhagen's City Hall with tapestries based on cartoons of Nordic mythology by Frølich]]" in Dagmar's article but you seem determined to prefer "cartons". Can you please explain this?, thanks Victuallers (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Victuallers: I did leave a edit summary but I guess it wasn't detailed enough - sorry about that. Carton refers to the material and is a translation of the Danish word "karton". The source doesn't say anything about any "cartoons". If you don't believe me, I suggest you continue the discussion with User:Ipigott who created the article.Ramblersen (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll rely on your translation although "cartons of Nordic mythology" sounds to me like a "bucket of stories" which seems odd but I dont have the knowledge to make it more clear. However thx for the prompt reply. Victuallers (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victuallers: I apologize for this translation error. I was confused by the use of carton in French as a sketch or preliminary work as a basis for a final painting. On researching this further, I see that you were quite right in changing it to "cartoon", the usual term in English. I have made the necessary corrections.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'm pleased I guessed right! Victuallers (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Københavns Badminton Klub 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/Københavns Badminton Klub until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Telavox 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/Telavox until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Netcompany 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/Netcompany until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I, Vami_IV, award the Barnstar of European Merit to Ramblersen for their participation in the European 10,000 Challenge, no matter how minor. Ramblersen, I couldn't thank you enough for your work for the Challenge. You are truly a sight for sore eyes, especially if they belong to another editor. –Vami_IV✠ 02:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Ramblersen by Vami_IV✠ on 02:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rockwool logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1400s in Denmark has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is technically empty. The only content of the article is an event that did not happen in the 1400s but instead in the 1450s.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1420s in Denmark has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Empty.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1430s in Denmark has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Empty.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DT Group logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thorvald Bindesbøll Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Jensen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Scion DTI logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead sentence of Chr. Olesen & Co., what does "gloval" mean? At first, I thought it was a typo for "global", but since the preceding word is "worldwide" that would be redundant. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that it it should have been global and was then meant to be replaced by worldwide but didn't get deleted. Either way, I replaced both words by "multinational". Thank you for bringing my attention to it.Ramblersen (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tryg a-s logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.55% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for April: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you clarify the phrase "sold by the grown" in Engelholm, Næstved Municipality? Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC):;[reply]

User:Jessicapierce: Yes it was a typo and should have been "the crown". Thank you for drawing my attention to it.Ramblersen (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Højesteret logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ramblersen: I have redirected Tivoli Concert Hall to Tivolis Koncertsal as this is obviously the same venue. Fort esc (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weekendavisen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hans Peder Pedersen-Dan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skjern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:COWI a-s logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In article Niels Aagesen House there is a strange bit of text:

General Christian de Meza (1792-1865) lived in the building in 1858 and again in The priest 1864-1865.

Was "The priest" accidentally pasted in from somewhere else? Shenme (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC):_:[reply]

Yes it was. Thank you for bringing my attention to it.Ramblersen (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Listed buildings in Vordingborg Municipality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Dr. Blofeld has returned, the Nordic Challenge has been revived. We're now aiming for 2,500 articles. I see there are lots more you could contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did some minor copy editing at Bækkeskov and ran into the a problem that I can't figure out: "court taylor Brummondt" - I can't tell whether this means "court tailor" or "Taylor Brummondt". Can you clarify? Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jessicapierce; Thabk you for your cioy editing! It should have been "court tailor" (Danish: Hofskrædder), the source doesn't give a first name.Ramblersen (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sticks'n'Sushi logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramblersen

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NIRAS logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramblersen,

Thanks for creating Anker Heegaard! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ALK-Abelló logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lit of historic houses on Funen. Since you had some involvement with the Lit of historic houses on Funen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nyborg Municipality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish Sports Hall of Fame inductees, which you created, has been nominated for conversion into a list. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, While I have concerns about this as a category, I think it would make a good list article and I don't want you to lose any work so here are the current contents:

Thanks! - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rockwool logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Danish businesspeople, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coop Denmark, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arne Kvorning 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/Arne Kvorning 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. Bledwith (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lolland Kommune shield.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Guldborgsund Kommune coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article 10th International Architecture Exhibition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Undersourced without WP:INDY sources since creation in 2009. No indication fulfills WP:GNG.

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. Loksmythe (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article 11th International Architecture Exhibition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Undersourced without WP:INDY sources since creation in 2009. No indication fulfills WP:GNG.

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. Loksmythe (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rosenborg Castle Gardens has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Slagelse Kommune shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article State Drinks 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/State Drinks 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. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nordisk Film logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Buildings and structures in Varde Museum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Roskilde Kommune shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Frederikssund Kommune shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Falck logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Designit logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Pbrks (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Falck logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hotel Astoria logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Louise Bjørnsen (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Christian75 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Næstved Kommune shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Welltec logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Københavns VUC logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Danish companies established in 1893 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stevns Kommune shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lemvigh-Müller logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Companies based in Hvidovre Hvidovre Municipality indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water companies of Denmark has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Julemærkefonden logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ritzau (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish sugar plantation owners has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DLF (seed company= 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 {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Det Danske Filminstitut logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish migration to North America has been nominated for merging to Category:Danish diaspora in North America. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish coppersmiths has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics employed by Politiken has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Danish businesspeople in the tobacco industry indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sports teams in Copenhagen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sports clubs in Copenhagen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Netto-Bådene has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]