This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
A fact from Grue Church fire appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 June 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that following the Grue Church fire on Pentecost 1822 in Solør, Norway, in which at least 113 people perished, a law was passed prescribing that all doors of public buildings must swing outwards?
If someone had the chance to compare the two maps that are mentioned in the article, we could have the map coordinates for the old church in the article. Or perhaps there is a marker in the terrain that points to the spot. __meco (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the maps aren't really mentioned. It could be any old map, though most likely one from before 1822. For the new map, any modern map should do, but which old map is really precise enough for comparison with a modern map? Ters (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this issue can be solved by someone living in Grue or visiting. There are probably some markers at least. __meco (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle of the river? Though it is possible that there is some marker disproving that the site is now in the river. It might be possible for me to see if I find that sometime during this summer. Ters (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A marker on the river bench, of course. __meco (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The marker/memorial actually was closer to the river than I thought from reading the article. I've now added approximate coordinates for the location of the church based on the map on the memorial. I don't think I will be adding pictures from the site. The maps and other stuff on the information board is most likely protected by copyright, and the view of the river was mostly obscured by trees. Ters (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's very nice now to have the exact coordinates and to be able to see it on an external map. __meco (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, tags are supposed to guide editors toward the improvement of the article. tag bombing without explaining what needs to be fixed is not helpful. Someone should take a close look at who is being a dick here. Attack Ramon (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors aren't blind: they can see what is and what isn't sourced. Here, an entire section is unsourced. In Dred Scott you removed a tag for a section which needed improving, equally unjustified. Nor does such a tag require discussion, unlike for instance merge notice or a POV tag. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want every single sentence cited, than that no, that's absolutely wrong, editors don't know and can't know what needs to be sourced. What do you think needs to be sourced in this article? Attack Ramon (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Things that are uncited. Yes, every sentence needs to be sourced. That does not mean every sentence needs a citation. Read Wikipedia:Citing sources on our conventions. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You elsewhere questioned my English reading skills, now I am beginning to wonder about yours. I wrote "Unless you want every single sentence cited, than that no, that's absolutely wrong". And you respond, apparently challenging my comment, with "That does not mean every sentence needs a citation. ". That is exactly what I wrote. Now, kindly identify the parts you think need a citation, or be off. Attack Ramon (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless you want every single sentence cited, than that no, that's absolutely wrong" is improper English. I don't know what you mean. Every sentence needs to be sourced, not every individual sentence needs to be cited. Is that so hard? But if you insist on being not just disruptive but also ignorant, I'll go and deal with the article, which is easier than dealing with you. "Be off"--whatever. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to run an errand (and besides this happened at a church). But the Vårt land source is preserved here and no.wp gives the SNL article, which covers the novel and the date the new church was dedicated (I expect the church history article also has that). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten, with all sources checked (one was being cited for an incorrect date) and a newer source added that covers almost all. Pinging Drmies for inspection. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
