User talk:Ipigott/Archive 9

Archive 9: November 2013 - August 2014

I have introduced some subsections in the Geography section similarly to what is seen in the London articvle. Feel free to revert if you think it is a bad idea, I am still not quite sure what changes can just be made made and what ought to be discussed fist when so many editors are active at the same time. However, "Cityscape" and "Geography" seems to overlap quite a bit. I think "Architecture" and "Parks" should be subsections in the Geography section too (similarly to the London article) while the current separate section on "Cityscape" (with subsectionsd on architecture, parks and beaches). Alternatively, I think t6hat "Cityscape" should be kept as a separate section (with the current subsections) but that the current subsection in the Geography section should then be moved. What do you tink, has this discussion already been had and/or where should it be taken?Ramblersen (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule about all this. Personally I think Architecture falls more naturally in the Cityscape section (as in the Paris article) but others may think differently. I don't like the term "cityscape" in this context anyway. I the heading were to be Landmarks then it would perhaps be easier to see what should be included. Maybe your "Cityscape" heading under Geography could be replaced by Districts or Neighbourhoods?--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have changed it to "Districts". Is "Topography" okay – I suppose it covers both topography and geology? Do remove the subsections altogether if you think they are a bad idea. I have left a few more links about the economy and a comment to

Administration in the sandbox.Ramblersen (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for these figures. I've also included some of the official statistics. Have a look at the Economy section and let me know whether you think it's OK now. In regard to the various areas related to Copenhagen, I see this is discussed under Demographics. I am not sure though whether the somewhat confusing level of detail is really needed in the main article on Copenhagen. The box contains population figures for various areas. Maybe that is sufficient?--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what district Radisson Blu Royal Hotel is in but can you mention it? Added it to Vesterbro but can you find a decent source for it, it's supposed to be the tallest building in Copenhagen?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also check my additions to the admin and health sections translated from Danish. I've made a start on a law and order section. Can you find more on the courts/law and also mention the Danish parliament function and source the supreme court part? Probably once done it'll be too long and we can split into its own article and condense, the police and fire info is probably little too detailed otherwise. Also have you used this as a source? If so can you let me know what citation it is so I can source the Nordsk Film thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is used in the section on Nightlife, para. beginning "Copenhagen has several recurring community festivals". It's not one of mine. I'll now have a look at your additions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the part on the law courts but I really think the pieces on the police and fire departments are far too detailed for the Copenhagen article. There is, for example, already considerable background at Police of Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said. I've trimmed it. Would be good if we could have a literature section on notable writers based in the city or notable books with Copenhagen as a backdrop and libraries/literary organizations based in the city. Also I think the economy needs to mention something about exports, what are the main products etc and also mention banking and investment in the city. Also I think the use of solar panels in buildings etc like the recent projects of Bjarke Ingels should have a good summary in thr article, perhaps a section on Technology and innovation? I think we also need a section on International politics and organizations which meet in Copenhagen or its role in international politics/business/law/energy. Sourcing in the sports and eduction section needs improving and some of the 2009 sources don't look the best and should probably be replaced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a makeshift Literature section above education. It's not great but it's a start. I got the society info from the PD 1911 Britannica I'll ask Charles for the citation shortly but I have a feeling some of names may be deprecated or have changed. I might also be wrong about the authors living in Copenhagen. Can you look into this and try to find what notable literary organizations and publishing houses are based in Copenhagen. You would also be likely to known more about notable works and authors based in Copenhagen and libraries. I mentioned all of the novels I could find but you might not think they're all notable. I'd imagine that some of the Danish classics were set in Copenhagen and are more worthy of mentioning but they weren't placed in Category:Novels set in Copenhagen! Feel free to add and revise as you wish!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming more and more ambitious - but that's good. I think you'll find many of your answers on authors and other cultural figures in the section on Notable People and also in Culture of Denmark & Danish literature. In addition to the most influential Copenhagen-born poets and philosophers (unknown outside Scandinavia), there's Kaj Munk (who lived in CPH), Martin Andersen Nexø, Tove Ditlevsen (some of whose novels have been used for films), Klaus Rifbjerg, Dan Turèll, Bjarne Reuter, Jens Christian Grøndahl and Jens Christian Grøndahl. In any case, you've made a pretty good start, especially on mentioning some of the novels. It would be interesting to see if today's (or a more recent) Britannica still mentions the red-linked literary societies. It's the first time I have come across them but I can look into them. I can easily expand on the Libraries. All the main Danish publishers are based in CPH: Gyldendal, Politiken, Akademisk, Libris, etc. Maybe we should also include painters, composers and musicians? Reams and reams could be written on the environment. I'm not sure how far Copenhagen stands out in relation to the rest of Denmark but most of its planning priorities are mentioned here. Maybe the new municipal authorities have priorities of their own? I'm not sure whether the Bjarke Ingels innovations should come under Environment or Architecture. I'll look at all this later (perhaps tomorrow) when I've seen what I can do on Rosiestep's monasteries.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is starting to look amazing now! What a turn around in just over 2 weeks! Your work on it has been invaluable!! Ambitious maybe, but I just feel like that sort of thing is relevant for such a city even if brief. We don't need to go into detail of course, but Copenhagen as the backdrop to notable Danish novels and notable institutions/groups/publishing houses might be worth mentioning. Yes we could elaborate a bit on the others, Copenhagen in art especially. I think I'd rather the performing arts split into different sections like Theatre, Music, Art. If the article starts to get too long we can always condense later, I just think it's important to make it comprehensive from an early stage and then cut down if necessary. I think we could get away with 160kb range but I think over that would be too long. I've mentioned the solar panelled buildings in the Enviro planning section, maybe you could elaborate on some notable recent "green building" projects? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouraging comments. I'll try to compromise on this, adding just the most important items. We're already at over 140 kB without any expansion to the lead, although I must say a substantial proportion of the expansion is in the form of references. Maybe we should also concentrate on items of interest to non-Danish speakers.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a break from Copenhagen can you find more for this? It also needs checking for accuracy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked this through and added a few more details. If you want to go further, there's more detail in the EL site. Don't know how important it is.--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the Benedictine monasteries in Catalonia, but started these 2 structures nonetheless, and thought they might interest you: Ciutadella de Roses and Castell de la Trinitat. No worries if you're busy with other things. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana.--Ipigott (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on a nice article. I added photos but don't feel a need to add more prose for the moment. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate

Are we working against a DYK schedule on these or can I deal with them over the next few days? I really would like to finish additions to some of the Copenhagen sections.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not DYK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A church now, yes, es wiki says "Perteneció a un antiguo monasterio benedictino. "♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott!

Something happened here. A copy-paste error, perhaps? In any case, Scharinska villan has nothing to do with Stockholm and I have tried to make that more clear now. Kind regards, Jopparn (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it's been corrected.--Ipigott (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ipigott. You have new messages at Heb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Photographer Mary Randlett may interest you. No 5 day rush. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you proof Aldo Garzanti from Italian wiki, text is hidden?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turned into a nice article. Thanks for that. I've actually been working on the Northwest School (art) members since 2007, so no worries about your timing on Mary Randlett. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott, I understand that you are curious why my translations are fed into the English Wikipedia by Benutzer:Godewind. The reason is quite simple: While I am happy to translate, I am not so happy to look after all the formalities that are necessary to put the article into proper shape for Wikipedia. I furthermore understand that you are offering your help and assistance. Thank you! Since Godewind is the leader of our working partnership, I leave it to him to send you a reply. But you may, certainly, address me directly if you so desire. Greetings --Johann31 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johann31 for your rapid response. Given your proficiency in English and your track record with seven detailed biographies created and maintained on the DE Wiki (not to mention all your other DE contributions), I find your explanations a little surprising and disappointing. Indeed, unless Godewind is using a new user name, it appears you have far more experience of Wikipedia than he has. As you must know, Wikipedia is all about collaboration. If you want to work on the "translation" of an article from the German Wiki, it is extremely useful not only to paste in a one-off translation but to work with others on enhancing the article from other sources, often up to a standard which goes far beyond the original article. Furthermore, like all of us working in these areas of interest, you will certainly be able to learn a great deal from the edits made to the articles you create. Likewise, you will be able to contribute to articles in connection with the QR Bremen project which others create from scratch. It will not be easy to liaise with you via your talk page on the DE Wiki and it will be even more difficult to explain things to Godewind who does not appear to have a very extensive knowledge of English. Finally, if you really are hesitant about formalities for putting articles into shape for the EN Wikipedia, you could simply develop them as sandbox pages until they are ready to be moved into the main space. I hope you can give this some consideration. In any case, it is good to have an English speaker from the German Wikipedia contributing to articles in English. Keep in touch.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott, I really do not want to disappoint you. I agree with you in many respects:

1. a "Wikipedia-translation" should really be more than a pure "translation". Many details which are of interest to individuals speaking German might not really be of interest for persons speaking other languages. Therefore, the "translator" should change and modify, adding and omitting things.
2. cross-references to existing articles in the German Wikipedia cannot automatically be converted to cross-references in the English Wikipedia. I may some day be ready to shoulder this work, but at the time when Godewind acquired my assistance it was my intention to supply translations in quick succession without bothering too much about formatting and having to read all the long-winding explanations provided by EN-Wiki.
3. it is extremely useful to cooperate with others (for many reasons).
4. I realise that it will not be easy for you to liaise with me via my talk page on the DE Wiki. For this reason, I today created a talk-page in the EN:Wikipedia which you will find unter User:Johann31(discussion).

I admit that this is only a small quantity of progress, but there will be more progressive steps in time to come. And since Luxembourg is not too far away from Bremen, it might be possible for you to meet Godewind and myself - we have a standing meeting time for all active Bremen-Wikipedians at 7 pm each last Thursday of each month. --Johann31 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Johann31 is my address for messages and discussions which I erroneously named User:Johann31(discussion)--Johann31 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed frequently pass Bremen on the autobahn when driving up and down to Denmark but it would be difficult for me to attend a meeting in the city. I think it would be more productive to liaise in writing, either on our talk pages or even better in a WikiProject environment along the lines of Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. I would suggest a strong priority should be to bring in additional contributors who are able to work in German and/or English for a start. In Gibraltar, they managed to attract lots of young people by arranging competitions and awarding prizes. Maybe other languages such as French and Polish could also be covered later. I think it would also be useful to draw up a much more detailed list of landmarks and attractions in the city which are candidates for coverage with QR plaques and Wikipedia articles. These could for example also include many of the sites and institutions in DE:Kategorie:Kultur (Bremen). Then there would be a need to enlarge on the article(s) on the city of Bremen itself. I realize the German article has received GA status (despite its lack of comprehensive referencing) but it would require a lot more work to bring it up to GA in English. Just take a look at the article on Copenhagen which we have been developing over the past month or so. But now I would like to return to your translations, at least for a bit more copy editing for a start.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johann31/translation is the address of my latest translation. Your cooperation in checking and improving it is welcomed by Godewind and myself! --Johann31 (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been looking at it. I think the Balge is generally referred to as a tributary of the Weser. Apart from copy editing, it looks as if quite a bit of work will be needed to tidy up the literature and the references, not to mention adding wiki links and so on. I would have hoped these could have been handled through your partnership. In particular, if the same book is referenced for different page numbers, it is not necessary to repeat the whole thing each time. See for example the references in the Paris article where the books are listed in the bibliography with the name of the author and the relevant page numbers for the actual inline references. See if you can sort some of this out then move the article into the main space. I am not too happy working in Godewind's user box. I have, by the way, done quite a bit of work on your Schütting (Bremen) and Stadtwaage (Bremen) articles. I think the latter is a weigh house is English. I would like to complete work on the other articles you have created too.

Finally, if the object of the exercise is to make information available to visitors using smart phones, I would strongly suggest expanding the leads of all the articles, ensuring they present the most pertinent information. As you probably know, when accessing Wikipedia from mobiles, the only text to be immediately displayed is that of the lead. You have to specifically go into the other sections of the article to see the remaining text.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since your last message was received by me on my talk page, that is the place where you will find my last reply!--Johann31 (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I went through your modifications of "Stadtwaage" and found it really most convincing how your tiny alterations changed the quality of the page! Please carry on like that! --Johann31 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They might look "tiny" but they do take quite a lot of time and trouble. I think I've just about finished work on the New Town Hall.--Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moin Ipigott. Frohe Festtage und ein gutes Jahr 2014 in Gesundheit und mit Lebensfreude wünscht Dir --Godewind (talk) P.S. danke für Deine Mitarbeit

Merry Christmas, Ian, and Happy 2014! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyedits here. I made a couple minor adjustments where I thought that the meaning had been lost. I am hoping that you are not yet finished, because the most complaints were on the sections that you did not yet get to. BollyJeff | talk 13:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is already used (#127). Thanks again. BollyJeff | talk 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays! Thanks for all the excellent copyediting work you did on Mughal-e-Azam which has now made it to FA. I think you've done enough editing of it to claim it as your first FA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Glad to hear it finally made it to FA. Just as well it made it now while we're still in 2013. Perhaps you can still get it on the main page before the end of the year. My contribution was minimal but if it helped, all the better. I'll try to get to the Dorchester later.--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's already articles lined up for the rest of the year! Yes you might find more on the Dorchester worth adding from HighBeam if you're interested. I added some things I found last night. I will try to get to Copenhagen over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find anything on Amagerbro? That stub is appalling!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do as time permits over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few lines but could not find much of substance.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian!
Thanks a lot for rating my article. That's I think pretty much a starter version, and I just wanted to ask for more feedback how I can improve the article. If you have time and any thoughts, I would really appreciate your opinion, advise and help.

Thanks again, and have a really happy holidays!

Jojojoe (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical wikipedia, the article is that detailed compared to the town Hajdúdorog...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian & Ernst!
First of all thanks a lot for your edits on the iconostasis page. My mother tongue is Hungarian, so checking my wording through a native's eyes can be quite helpful. Yesterday I added some references and a couple of sentences to the lead - as you suggested. It was pretty late, so I decided to let you know about that today - but you were quicker :)

Hajdúdorog: Actually I pretty much agree with Dr. Blofeld. A relatively less important article is a lot more detailed than the main one related to the topic. This was among the first articles I finished here on the English wiki; and I definitely want to carry on. The Hajdúdorog article seems to be a good one for that :)

Thanks again for your comments and help; and happy holidays for both of you!

Jojojoe (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the article! Not a criticism of your work of course, but the town should probably at least be brought up to start class status. I can try to help expand it but not speaking Hungarian it's an obstacle!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Ian, Have a good one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...for your kind comment and season's greetings to you. --Soman (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian, I just wanted to drop by to tell you I've finally found some time to sit down and start an article on

Thanks, Yakikaki. I'm glad you've made a start on the article. I must say with all your efforts on the individual churches, the fresco scene in Sweden is now very well covered. I've also been looking at all your other articles describing Swedish churches, including all those without surviving frescos. I was particularly impressed by your recent Gothic secular and domestic architecture article. Excellent work! My very best wishes to you for the New Year. I hope we can work together on interesting topics in 2014 too.--Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historic centre of Córdoba, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, might interest you. I'm sure a bit can be carved away from the Córdoba article. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is turning out great! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to draw on better sources. I'll try to cover some of the red links in the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off work till Thu, so I can assist with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. The article can also be expanded to cover all the other historical sites in the old town. See this and similar Spanish cats.--Ipigott (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Historic centre of Córdoba, Andalusia and inter-wikilinked it with the es counterpart. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Cordoba is one of the spiritual homes of flamenco. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you proof the translation of Fabio Rugge and improve it. I've also created Template:Córdoba, Andalusia. Will have Copenhagen nommed by the end of the week!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott. Thanks for your work in the Bremen QR project an happy new year. --Godewind (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy New Year to you too, Godewind (or should I say Jürgen?). I think it would be useful for Furius and me to have some indication of which articles you would like to have translated next.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

de:Domsheide is interesting for the project, because there are three buildings around in the list and also de:Schlachte (Bremen). --Godewind (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year .... I can be "officially involved"?? .... tell me more? :-) Actually we could help you with a Bremenpedia page and explain more about getting other languages. (I read you discussing it above) I'd like to find out more about the project and I havent "tripped over" a page that explains where you (etc) are going to use QR, NFC and/or Google Glass and how many plaques are in place so far.Victuallers (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Godewind and Ipigott, started Domsheide.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Copenhagen has begun.. You might be interested in helping get

Hi Ian, just wanted to tell you I've begun an article on Votive ships, you know those charming models of ships found in so many Scandinavian churches. With your great contributions about and knowledge of Danish churches, I thought you might be interested. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that certainly sounds very interesting.--Ipigott (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have knocked up a DYK article about the main post office. It could do with a copy edit and some polish from a polyglot. Fancy co-authoring it for DYK? Anyway - best wishes Victuallers (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well you let me know - short and sweet. I was about to do the post office myself. I'll try to contribute today, if not tomorrow. Have you seen Bremen are considering a GLAM QR project? That would seem to be right up your street. I've volunteered to assist.Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)--[reply]

I'd be very interested in their project. Seems to me they have a QR project! I'm interested in seeing if we could do more. Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their current project is based on the sightseeing tour of the old town. I think the GLAM project would centre on museums, like the Hamburg project. Godewind is ready to start the project now (see here. You should let him know you are interested. Thanks for nomming these for DYK!. --Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Added 1 more for DYK and offered my help Victuallers (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply