User talk:Ramblersen

Hi, Ramblersen. I

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 {{

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

• 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.

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

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]

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

]

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

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.

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

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

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

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

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]

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