User talk:Ipigott/Archive 3

Vans

On this: Well done, I think. Certainly he's Arnold van Bruggen. I think, however, that I've seen authoritative pages that use both of these combinations:

• Arnold van Bruggen and Rob Hornstra
• Van Bruggen and Hornstra

i.e. that the disappearance of "Arnold" triggers the capitalization of "van". However, I can't find any such page right now. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well now that I've turned up Van (Dutch), I am no longer so sure of myself. If you look at the rules given there, your capitalisation was probably correct although I have seen lists of Belgian and Dutch participants in meetings where all the Belgians are capitalised and all the Dutch in lower case. See, for example, the List of Participants in this document. You will also see in the WP article that there are different rules for sorting Belgians and Dutch too! - Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a Belgian "Van" friend of mine confirms that I was right. Or rather, she confirms that I would be right if I were writing this in Dutch. But I'm not; I'm writing in English, about which she has no comment. My copy of Chicago (not the latest) says nothing of this (and indeed is, unusually, a bit confused). Further, she says that Belgian "Van"s are routinely rendered as "van" in the Netherlands, and vice versa; so it seems that it's no big issue even for many literate speakers of Dutch. Perhaps we could see how a scrupulous Dutch academic publisher (e.g. Brill) handles abbreviated references to its "van" authors within its English-language book descriptions. And if there were only 28 hours in the day I'd rush to do this myself. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we have the same kind of problem with English as we had with the Icelanders. But I do agree that you are correct for Dutch. There's also the problem of sorting. Would you, for example, list Van Bruggen to be sorted under Van or under Bruggen? I see that in Category:Dutch painters Vincent van Gogh is sorted under the Gs while in the Category:Belgian painters all the capitalized Vans are sorted under the Vs while those with lower case vans (from Flemish times)are sorted under the last name. On the other hand, Dutch Americans such as Hendrik Willem van Loon seem to be sorted under the Vs - but note too all the Van Loons in that article. So it is a never ending story which will probably never be resolved. Anyway, on the basis of these exchanges, I've restored the Van Bruggens in your Hornstra article. - Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Illustrating the Art of Luxembourg

According to at least some Commons "lawyers" it appears that a work of art enters PD on the 1st of January of the year following 70 years from death (i.e. on 1 January 2011 works of artists who died in 1940 entered PD), however I am not sure if this applies in each country and haven't seen many issues on such on-the-limit situations so far. There are also cases when images can be stored on Wikipedia but not on Commons. For instance if a painting is from before 1923 than is PD in the US and therefore can be stored on Wikipedia and later when in becomes PD in the country of origin can be transferred to Commons. See example here. Also, if it can be argued that the use of the image is crucial for an article than again under certain conditions images can be uploaded here under a fair use rationale. See example. So indeed, when all the creation of an artist is post-1923 I would stay with the links to individual biographic articles, where external links can lead to specific galleries, and potentially fair-use images can be used. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all these detailed explanations. I must say this appears to be increasingly complex. I have turned up some of the background at Wikipedia:Public_domain and elsewhere and see that while "70 years after the author's death" is reasonably clear, "publication before 1923" seems to be dependent on lots of other factors. Then there are all the cases of the use of the work for critical appreciation. Immediate repercussions on Art of Denmark would seem to be that all Joseph Kutter's works should be removed until 1 January 2012 (he died at the beginning of January 2011) while earlier paintings by Sosthène Weis (1872-1941) could probably be included (if, for example, they appeared in a catalogue). I also see there is an aversion to galleries for critical appreciation, so perhaps there should be used more sparingly. Do you think I should also request deletion of the Joseph Kutter images from Commons or should I just leave them there for re-use next year? - Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just been looking at File:The_Persistence_of_Memory.jpg. Do you think arguments along these lines would be valid for at least one of Kutter's works? - Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes is terribly complex ;( Regarding works published before 1923, if the work has been exhibited that is considered publication, and generally by paintings that's the usual assumption (is more of a problem with privately made and held photos). Regarding Kutter, if nominated for deletion make sure the deletion request is placed in the commons:Category:Undelete in 2012 which will restore them automatically by bot at due date. Judging by the number of edits, that The_Persistence_of_Memory.jpg. fair use has been worked on quite a bit, so must be a solid model to use. I don't have a lot of experience with these, but yes, I think it should work with one of his most representative works.

Btw, the article appears to be quite comprehensive regarding painting of Luxembourg and fun to read. --Elekhh (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think perhaps the most reasonable way to go forward is to use the fair use argument for Kutter's most famous work File:Kutter Luxembourg.jpg so that it can be included in both Joseph Kutter and in Art of Luxembourg. Rather than go through the whole delete/undelete process for the others, I will remove them from the articles in question but will leave them in Commons. I uploaded them in good faith, applying the license "Author died more than 70 years ago" from the available choices. Unfortunately, I see that there are similar problems with Sosthène Weis as he first started to exhibit in 1923 - but perhaps I can use the fair use argument here too and also for Su-Mei Tse.

Thanks for your kind comments about the article. It turned out to be a much more difficult job that I had expected. There was virtually nothing about Luxembourg artists in the English WP and even what was in the Luxembourgish WP was scanty and poorly referenced. So I started off by writing articles on all the artists of note. I am now wondering if I should fill out the introductions to each period in Art of Luxembourg by documenting the historical and artistic trends, the art societies created, the secessionist movements, etc., but I don't want to overdo it. Any comments? - Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No risk to overdo, if the scope is art, than more than painting is welcome. Otherwise your pioneering of encyclopaedic presentation is something I could award every day... :) P.S. Sorry for being the messenger of the bad (c)news. --Elekhh (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now used fair use for the Joseph Kutter image (now called File:Kutter Luxembourg 1937.jpg and very slightly cropped so that it would no be a duplicate!) in the English Wikipedia (it took me at least an hour to get the system to accept the change) and edited the articles accordingly. My "pioneering presentation" was actually based on a suggestion from User:Johnbod who is one of WP's best editors on art. There is fairly good coverage of all the arts on Culture of Luxembourg so I think I should stick mainly to graphic art and sculpture here. If you think it's worth a DYK, be my guest. I tried to process a request myself recently but I ran into a lot of trouble and now I see it is necessary to edit someone else's request first. I've noticed, btw, that since the new rules came into force, we seem to be getting more and more DYKs from fewer and fewer editors. Ever more UK churches and choral works by Bach. Pity. - Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bunga bunga

Thank you for your tweak to bunga bunga but the article is still crap. Perhaps Jonathon Green was righter than he could have hoped, and even the tiny number of WP editors who were so indignant about the article a few days ago have already got bored by the idea of it. Meanwhile, I see no particular reason to think that the recent Mediterranean "bunga bunga" has anything to do with the old one, or (as long as I don't see that) any reason to devote the first paragraph to an irrelevance. As I said earlier on the talk page. Since nobody has yet disagreed with me, perhaps I should just delete that stuff, but then somebody might cry "vandalism". -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to develop the article, you might start by looking at this. - Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good link! I've written more on the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kutter Luxembourg 1937.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kutter Luxembourg 1937.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Image downgrade

I'm not so keen on this. The new explanation is fine, but the artwork is ho-hum. Bring back Kutter! (And see the article's talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Amazingly fast!

Haha, no problem. It was just a lucky coincidence I was browsing through some of the new pages. Cheers and keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Ipigott, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Ipigott/Sandbox2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg literature

Hi Ian,

Thank you for informing me of how infrequent it is that the term "Luxembourgian" is used as an adjectival for Luxembourg. As it would appear that "Luxembourg" is itself the most common adjectival for Luxembourg, I have moved the article to Luxembourg literature. Google Books searches reveal only 6 hits for "Literature of Luxembourg" and another 3 hits for "Luxembourgian literature", but 72 hits "Luxembourg literature". Perhaps it would be good to work towards removing the term "Luxembourgian" from article titles in general.

Neelix (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg Wiki-Project

Hi Ian, thanks for your recent message on my talk page. I'm so pleased to see that you (and a few others) are contributing to articles related to Luxembourg. I'm mainly present on Commons and on the lb-wiki... and can't be everywhere :-). If you think I can give a helping hand here, please let me know. --Cayambe (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps you can help me with your views on the status of photos of recent buildings in Luxembourg. I see images of the MUDAM have been removed from Commons and I have had problems with the Philharmonie. On the other hand, you have a number of images of recent buildings which do not seem to have caused any problems. Ditto on sculptures. Is this just luck or do you know of any special provisions for public domain here? - Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Viktor Kolář

Hi Ipigott. Thanks for this :) Would you mind to look at this article? Any questions or suggestions are welcome! Best regards, and thanks again. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Both interesting articles. Good work. - Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I appreciate your help. Have a good Sunday and a good start of the week! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Videnskab

Hi, remember me the map maker and your collaborator for the Ronne article?. I created this short stub after seeing it red linked. I'm pretty sure its a very notable journal but can't find sources on it. Can you help improve it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly remember you and I look from time to time at what you are doing - like all those Mexican film titles!

The reason you can't find sources is that as far as I can see, there is no Danish journal called "Videnskab". There is a journal "Illustreret Videnskab" (an Australian initiative) which is covered by WP article Science Illustrated and there is a Videnskab.dk website (Danish only) set up by the Danish research ministry in April 2008 to encourage younger readers to show more interest in scientific research. It seems to be based strongly on the Norwegian Forskning.no. Although Videnskab.dk seems to be proving quite popular, there must be literally hundreds of similar sites in languages other than English. There is no article about it in the DA Wikipedia but it has been used in Danish refs (and there is a Norwegian article on http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forskning.no Forskning.no). Do you think it is worthwhile covering in the EN Wikipedia? If so, perhaps it should first be moved to Videnskab.dk. - Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg images

Yes, it is a sad story, and I have consumed a lot of time and energy to get some "common sense" in the debate, but is not easy as this lengthy discussion demonstrates. Sorry, I'm a bit down at the moment and won't have the energy to fight this. --Elekhh (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel discouraged. Generally speaking, less stringent copyright rules are evolving across the board. I think, however, in the meantime it would be useful to take some constructive action to help users along. First of all, we need better information for people loading up images of modern buildings on Commons. It is not surprising there are so many images there at the moment as there is no real explanation of the possibility that they may be infringing copyright and could be deleted. Similarly, it would be useful to have better guidance for those of us wishing to upload "fair use" images on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, there is nothing specific for buildings. It took me almost half an hour yesterday to upload File:Kinneksbond.JPG and the file still looks a mess. The only way I managed to put anything together was to look at what others had been doing. The Wikipedia:Upload form is confusing to say the least. If you click on Free you get a rampling article about Free content which doesn't provide any specifics about the possible copyright issues on files being transferred to Wikipedia. My problem in all this is that I don't know where to go to express these concerns. Perhaps you can help? Don't give up! - Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I wasn't about to give up, but definitely need a wiki-break. Certainly some guidelines regarding fair use uploads of architecture would be useful, and I would be ready to contribute. Maybe this could be worked out within WikiProject Architecture. But simplifying the upload process of fair use images to Wikipedia will meet strong resistance from advocates of minimising fair-use. For major policy changes or changes to key pages such as the file upload page, the village pump would be the most effective place to go. --Elekhh (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps the most useful way of providing advice for those interested in images of architecture would indeed be on WikiProject Architecture. I suppose it would be possible to explain how to handle Fair Use files and point to some existing examples. I'm not sure I want to get into a fight with the purists by raising the matter on the Village Pump. Let's pursue the discussion when you get back from your wiki break. - Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is not such a good idea after all. I see that the image File:Kinneksbond.JPG has simply been removed without any explanation. I received no notification and cannot find any information about it. I think that it would at least be a courtesy to tell users why their work was being deleted and give them a chance to defend their case. I tried to follow the rules but obviously there is not much point. From now on, I'll either have to avoid modern architecture in Luxembourg or simply point to other sources for images. - Ipigott (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up though :) A little tested way is to request a permission from the copyright holder (i.e. architect). I imagine in most cases architects would be interested to have their work featured on Wikipedia. And in today's world a request only takes an e-mail (see OTRS). Architects generally don't earn money from selling postcards, and in most cases have more to gain than to loose from promoting their work. The only court cases so far I heard of where architects claimed their right to commercial gains from publications of images (mostly postcards), were related to highly popular buildings (Louvre Pyramid, Hunderwasser Haus). --Elekhh (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I can now finally see from my log that user:Explicit deleted the file. I've left a message on his talk page at User talk:Explicit. - Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to say the file has now been restored. But the procedure still needs attention. - Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Clemes

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jim Clemes, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.clemes.lu/index.php?rub=index&menu=aboutUs&page=jobs&lang=en.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, CorenSearchBot was wrong, wrong, wrong. It's a useful bot and does good work, but I suppose that its algorithm needs tweaking somehow.

Thinking of algorithms and helpful technology and so forth, today's recommendation is this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. At the moment, I seem to be increasingly under attack from all sides: deleted images on both Commons and Wikipedia (see above) and now stupid copyright infringements. Well, it's good to see there are still some really constructive people around. A bona fide typewriter is probably what we all need! Actually, adding text to Wikipedia in the editing format is pretty much like typing: same format and font anyway. I've often wondered why the WP editing facility has not been adapted to more of a wysiwyg format like all the office systems software or even old word processing stuff like Wang in the 1980s. There have also been excellent programs for moving between html and word processing but here we seem to be back in the stone age. One easy-to-implement intermediate option would be a split-screen approach where the user could write in the normal way on one half of the screen and see the WP edit on the other side (or maybe a split between top and bottom would be even better). This would at least avoid all the jumping backwards and forwards between edit and preview and would give a more realistic overview of how the page will look after the edit. - Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No! A grotesque idea, at least for those of us who have small screens and -- by the standards of today's computers, which I infer are primarily designed to play pirated DVDs -- puny CPUs. Way back when, there was one (1) good word processor. Its name was XyWrite and it was superb because no mousing was needed, the markup wasn't hidden and indeed was clearly editable, and it was fast. One thing I like about this interface is the fact that I can easily add, see and delete the apostrophe character; I don't have to click any little buttons to italicize, etc. (Though in terms of the "semantic web", Wikimedia is a bit of a disaster, concentrating on [say] visual italicizing rather than on what this might be for.) Indeed, I wish "Office" software were as transparent. ¶ As for the typewriters, yes, perhaps if you let it be known that your Luxembourgeois additions are typed with a Remington people would pause before hitting the delete button. (If only typewriters had had the "Smith & Wesson" brand too.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly the place for a discussion on markup but I do disagree on the apostrophe. I always found it much easier to use "control i" for italics, "control b" for bold, "control e" for centre, and so on. And you just repeat the command if you want to reverse it. As for all the strange characters used for wiki editing, I can never find them on the keyboard anyway - so I have to use those buttons you dislike so much. But I suppose in the end it's what you are used to. As for the semantic web, I don't think it's really going forward as intended. - Ipigott (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish that I had

User:7&6=thirteen's confidence in me, but I do not. I have done very little "Fair Use" stuff, being content (if that is the right word) to just upload images that I know will not run afoul with the copyright police. I have had probably a hundred or two images of sculpture in the USA removed because of the 1921 (or is it 1923?) guideline. Sorry that I can not be of more help. Einar aka Carptrash (talk)

That's what I thought. Thanks anyway and sorry to hear about all your sculpture shots. - Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

One of my tasks at hand is to locate 3 sculptors (one dead, so, heirs will have to do) and get permission to use my pictures of their works here. It should be fun. Carptrash (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, my "typo" at Architecture of Denmark was actually a direct quote from a book (referenced) that spelled it that way. However I am happy with your revision, keeping it spelled the same way throughout wikipedia. Carptrash (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland vs. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

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

File:Kolyma-goldmine.jpg

Your file has been listed for deletion here. Could you provide it with a valid source/author/date? It would be a pity if the wiki would loose it, don't you think? --Hardscarf (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hardscarf, for drawing my attention to this. I have provided the following details on the Commons Deletion requests page: "I found the file at http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/work.php. It is from the 1934 documentary film Kolyma. Courtesy of the Central Russian Film and Photo Archive. As it is at least 70 years old, it should not violate copyright. The description is "Prisoners mine gold at Kolyma, the most notorious Gulag camp in extreme northeastern Siberia." I hope this information is sufficient justification for maintaining the file." I don't know whether I am expected to edit the actual file or if someone else will make the necessary changes. I see the picture is widely used in many different WP language versions. - Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

La Fontaine Castle

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of La Fontaine Castle, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://viswiki.com/en/Castle.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone reads replies to a bot, I can assure you that the content has certainly not been taken from http://viswiki.com/en/Castle which I have been unable to access myself. The sources behind the article are clearly referenced. - Ipigott (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ny Carlsberg Brewhouse

Hello again, Ipigott. Thanks for your recent copy edits. Regarding your correction of the name of the group sculpture on the roof of the Ny Carlsberg Brewhouse, I am a bit uncertain of what to call it. Bonnesen has made two Thor monuments and "Thor's battle with the giants" seems to be the name of the other (later) one. See some sources HERE and HERE. However, I dropped Carlsberg a note about it - since they are the source for the "Thors kamp med Jætterne"-name - and they merely referred to Weilbach which indeed calls the Carlsberg statue "Thors kamp med Jætterne". Unlike the sculpture on Funen, the Carlsberg sculpture doesn't seem to depict any fight at all, though, although Carlsberg said that there are some Jötunns under Thor's wagon. Maybe the reason for the confusion is that the Funen sculpture is an elaboration of the earlier one, and since it depicts more battle the name of the early one have been changed. Not sure and obviously a rahter insignificant issue. Very interesting to follow your work on Luxemburg's castles.Ramblersen (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was indeed a bit hasty making the change. Please feel free to revert. On looking at your sources, I agree with you that "Thor driving (with) his goats" is the correct title whatever Carlsberg say. I decided to concentrate on Luxembourg's castles after copyright problems with more recent architectural works. - Ipigott (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Søtorvet

I see you have copy-edited my short article on Søtorvet. I am a bit uncertain about how most correctly describe its style. Danish sources say "parisisk inspireret" or "chateau stil" and the inspiration is obviously French but I was wondering if it was possible to make a more specific reference style-wise. The term chateauresqye sounds very American to me. What do you think? I am particularly wondering about the roof style which seems quite destinctive and typically French but I don't know if it has got a name. With your knowledge of castles and the north of France, I thought you might be the one to ask.Ramblersen (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you did quite well with "The design of the buildings was inspired by Parisian architecture. They have stucco ornamentation on the facades and the roofs have towers and spires." I don't know much about the history or the architects involved but my guess would be that the style is fairly typical of the Neo-Renaissance trend for city architecture towards the end of the 19th century. But Neo-Renaissance is a very vague term and is often associated with North-American developments. I don't like chateauesque either. Perhaps you could say "The design of the buildings in the 19th-century Neo-Renaissance style was inspired by the architecture of French castles and Haussmann's developments in Paris. The buildings have rich stucco ornamentation and are topped with towers and spires." There's some interesting background here which you could use as a reference. But your original description is fine too. I must say you are doing an excellent job on extending WP's coverage of Copenhagen's streets and buildings. - Ipigott (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes much better that way, I have put it in right awat. I discovered that there was something wrong with one of my sentences though, it lacked the last part. I am not sure how well it works now that I have fixed it though. Is " NamedGothersgade and Venthersgade, a reference to the Goths and the Wends of the title King of the Goths and the Wends which was used by Danish kings from the 14th century until 1972,[5] the two streets seperating the buildings on each their side of Frederiksborggade repeat the symmetry." clear enough or, if not, how can it be explained more clearly.Ramblersen (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Grønsalen, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.  :) AdvertAdam ^talk 08:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

For me this was clearly "rearrangement of text without modification of content". In my opinion, a minor grammatical correction and rephrasing for purposes of clarity did not require review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, the edit which immediately followed was not marked minor as here there was new content. But thanks anyway for keeping your eyes open and notifying me of your concerns. - Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a point of view anyways, to stay on the safe side. I did see that your other edits aren't minor, that's why I didn't make a big deal out of it :). Concerning that even adding an 'a' is not considered a minor, because some editors might have a different POV on the edit. Anyways, my opinion is to use minor on spaces, commas, bolding, '['..etc. Take care, and happy editing AdvertAdam ^talk 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Some (possible) illustrations

I have now, at long last, added an illustration to your article on Andreas Hallander as you once asked me to do. Unfortunately the most destinctive feature of the building, the pilasters, is not very visible in the picture though. You can find info on the building here, here and here. This vintage photo shows the building together with the previous Christiansborg Palace which it was apparantly designed to fit so maybe that was another possibility in terms of illustrations for the article.

I have also uploaded some pictures relating to Møn which may be relevant illustrations for some of your articles. Here is an Eckersberg painting from Liselund gardens and here is Westerholdt's original garden plan from 1791. Here is a Christian Dahl painting with Klintekorset in it from Møns Klint/Liselund and here is a pastoral scene by Eckersberg from somewhere on Møn. I don't know if any of them are of relevance to you but just wanted to let you know that they are there.Ramblersen (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ramblersen for all this useful research and support. Accessible versions of images like these are not always easy to find and I still have difficulties myself with Flickr downloads. I will certainly follow up on this and incorporate your work in the relevant articles in the near future but will be tied up tomorrow travelling back to Luxembourg. I hope I can recipricate by adding details to your wonderful articles on Copenhagen streets. - Ipigott (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh it was very little trouble and it is certainly not you but I who have reason to reciprocate after the immense ammount of help you have given me with numerous articles. It really torments my conscience sometimes although I rejoice at the result. I just feel there is so little of use to your great contributions I can be of assistance with. But if you would like a template for all your articles about Luxemburg castles or something else which basically just requires some unqualified labour, just tell me and I will try to put one together at once. But I am not sure if they should be grouped according to geographical area (Luxemburg just seems so small) or status (open to the public, private, ruin) or simply listed alphabetically with no groups. I think templates can sometimes be good for highlighting the number of articles and making people explore them. Have a nice trip back to Luxemburg, I hope you enjoyed your time in Denmark and the lovely wheather.Ramblersen (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a great offer. I was wondering myself if a template on the castles would be a good idea but I too was in doubt about the classification. Theoretically a distinction could be made between fortified castles and residential castles but many of today's residential castles started as forts. As for geographical classifications, you might get a few hints here. I would perhaps opt for Luxembourg City and surroundings, Ardennes, Echternach and surroundings (or just The East), and The South. A geographical classification would certainly help people interested in visiting castles in a given area. Maybe it would also be useful to distinguish between ruins and the others or even on the basis of dates or architectural style. But I'll leave it entirely up to you if you want to go ahead. - Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I went with the geographical categories you suggested and have now made a VERY rough (!) first draft which you can see here. But very unfamiliar with Luxembour geography, there is no doubt a lot of moving about to do (is "south-eastern" south or east and where do central or west go?). When I have been in doubt I have generally just parked them in the first group for now. Have a look before I do more about it and consider if those are the groups you want to go with. And feel free to do whatever modifications you find relevant of course. I think the best alternative is simply to have two categories: Castles and castle ruins. I believe other criteria will easily just lead to difficult destinctions and confusion.Ramblersen (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As you will see, I've made a few changes and additions but I think the template will now be fine as a starting point. So please feel free to bring it up on the real Wikipedia and add it to the articles. In any case, it should serve as an encouragement to further work in the area. Thanks for your kind efforts. Maybe one day you'll be tempted to see some of the castles themselves. - Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made further changes to the template, in particular by shortening the names (no need to repeat castle each time) and providing easier-to-follow headings. Hope you agree with these and that you are happy with this version of the template. - Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I had thought about removing the *Castle* bit from the names too but was uncertain if it could lead to confusion. I think it looks good now. And you are certainly doing a great job promoting Luxembourg, very tempting to go there some day. While I have travelled a lot in France, it has never really occured to me to go to Luxembourg but both the city and countryside looks just lovely.Ramblersen (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GeoCenter Møns Klint

Hi Ipigott, happy to see your extensive work on GeoCenter Møns Klint, so I nominated it for DYK here. Best regards. --Elekhh (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was happy too to see your work on the categories in WP and also in Commons. Was it purely coincidence that Ramblersen was writing an article on PHL Architects while I was preparing the article in a sandbox? Anyway, thanks for your introductory text which is really good. I will try to make a few improvements to the article before it comes up on DYK. - Ipigott (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am so sorry about the PLH articles, Ipigott. I missed that you were preparing something in a sandbox already and just thought that the article would benefit from an extra link (just like a few Copenhagen-related articles I have an interest in) and with the alterior motif that I hoped it would make somenody provide better pictures of their Cph. buildings (mainly Aller). Can't you just upload your article under PLH Arkitekter which is their official name and we can redirect the PLH Architects page to it? I will whatch where I am stepping better from now on and ask first if in doubt.Ramblersen (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding here, Ramblersen: I meant that I was working on the GeoCenter article which mentions PLH Architects. So you certainly don't need to apologize. I was thinking about writing an article on PLH Architects but didn't get around to preparing anything and have nothing more to offer than what is already in the GeoCenter article. - Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear. I was affraid I had gotten in the way of something.Ramblersen (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hotel Astoria

I have made a short article about Hotel Astoria in (yes, you guessed it!) Copenhagen which, since it is located next to the Central Station, was designed to ressemble a locomotive. There is a technical term for that kind of architecture (cf. also the Darwin Centre phase II at the Natural History Museum which is inspired by a cocoon or the new national library in Paris which looks like books) but I can't seem to remember the name (I think it starts with a P). Would you happen to know it? I have found it surprisingly hard to find information about the building though, any suggestions to something which could beef it up ever so slightly? I thought about trying to get it nominated for DYK but it seems a bit short right now.Ramblersen (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are thinking of programmatic architecture. You'll see it's described under Novelty architecture. I'll have a look a your Astoria article soon. I must say I have never been impressed by the building myself but I do have a friend who loves it and always stays there when he goes to Copenhagen. - Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit more on this here. - Ipigott (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC) And here and here. "The engineering design for this building was done by E. Schmidt of Copenhagen using Osterfeld's deflection method. One often hears of the fondness of the European engineer for lengthy and complete calculations. I had the pleasure of going through some 240 closely spaced typewritten pages of calculation which were filed with the Building Department of Copenhagen on this comparatively small job. The walls are 4*^ in. thick, painted on the inside with asphalt and insulated with 1 in. of cork. Plaster was applied direct to the cork. Reinforcement used in these walls gives special consideration to openings (Fig. 10). The mix used in the concrete was 1: 3J^:3)^ by volume, using J^-in. crushed granite aggregate with as "little water as possible." The concrete tested 5600 psi The designer stated that he had some difficulty setting window frames (metal) in 4}4-in. walls. The finish used on this building was produced by hand bush hammering and was as fine as any job I have ever seen. The reactions of various designers to considerations of continuity in building frames are interesting. All of them stated that they experienced no great difficulty in placing additional negative steel required..." So quite a few additional details there. Have fun with them! - Ipigott (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Great finds. I will try to incorporate them as good as I can although that last one becomes awfully technical. Do you think it is relevant to mention that the hotel has been a co-inspiration for the Cardiff hotel? Too bad that neither the hotel nor the architect has en English article, otherwise it might have been a good hook line for a DYK.Ramblersen (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And I finally came up with the term I was thinking of, it was was architecture parlante – so at least I got the p right.Ramblersen (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Architecture parlante: a good term (which speaks for itself!) but it is new to me. I agree the details appear very technical but how about "Great care was taken by E. Schmidt, the technical designer, in drawing up the detailed specifications for a building which was to be constructed with reinforced concrete, a comparatively new technique at the time. The finish on the four-inch-thick walls with metal-framed windows was achieved by manual bush hammering." And as for the DYK intro, how about simply "... that the Hotel Astoria (see picture) at Copenhagen's main railway station was designed to look like a steam locomotive?" There are in fact interesting English-language descriptions here including lots of details of the furniture and colours. - Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Cardiff: I don't think it is worth mentioning the relationship. I sent you the link because it provides additional details about the Astoria. - Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I have inserted it in the Architecture section but am not sure if it would fit better into the history one. What do you think? And is it asccurate to write "a comparatively new technique at the time"?Ramblersen (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ostenfeld's method was pretty new at the time. Here's your reference. - Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your hook I like even better than my versions. With a more impressive photo would become a hit, but I guess neither of you happen to be in Copenhagen... --Elekhh (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's this one File:Hotel Asoria, Copenhagen - detail.jpg which perhaps gives a better impression of the locomotive design. - Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, here we go. Unfortunately there is only author and nominator field at DYK otherwise I think you should have been also mentioned for your kind research, advice and review role! --Elekhh (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been fun helping out here and I am still adding bits and pieces to the article. I was also interested to discover that Asger Ostenfeld (a Dane) was one of the key developers of techniques for reinforced concrete structures. I'll try to put together a short article about him in English. - Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

After further thought, given your sustained and significant contributions I added you as second author, and hopefully that was not breaking any rule given that the hook already got the tick. Btw. the GeoCentre will be up in about 3 hours. --Elekhh (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You have done a great job Ipigott (as always). Unfortunately I won't be able to look more on the article before Sunday (and doubt I eill have more to add). If you are interested in early reinforced concrete you may be interested in the article on Det Ny Teater which I expanded from a short stub a while ago.Ramblersen (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing more to add for the time being although it would be good to have photos of the revolving doors, the 1935 room and the new colour scheme. A better picture of the building itself would also help but the one we have now is good for the loco look. - Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a Template:Location map Denmark Copenhagen for use in inoboxes. I can make a Template:Location map Denmark Copenhagen central if you want it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again, Dr Blofeld. Thanks for the location map of Copenhagen but the title now reads "Denmark". Could you change it to "Copenhagen" (I tried but failed). It would indeed be useful to have a map for Copenhagen central too. And would it be too much to ask for one on Luxembourg suitable for use with castles in Luxembourg (see List of castles in Luxembourg)? - Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for GeoCenter Møns Klint

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Asger Jorn

Good afternoon (or thereabouts), Sir! I wonder if you have come across Asger Jorn. I confess that I hadn't, before today when I encountered a copy of a bizarre book cowritten by him, La Language verte et la cuite: Étude gastrophonique sur la marmythologie musiculinaire. Never good at its best, my French is now terribly rusty, but it's enough for me to suspect that the book is an assemblage of pretentious jokes, no more: but it does come with a large set of B/W photographs of corbels, parts of which have been colored red. Well, I have a soft spot for corbels, and their selective reddening lets me see them in a new way. Plus the book cost peanuts. Odd things can be found in suburban Tokyo bookshops! -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hoary: just approaching noon here. Yes, I certainly have come across Asger Jorn but not the book you cite which appears to be a parody on Claude Lévi-Strauss. Have fun! - Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the title seems to be a parody of that, but I think nothing more -- though I have to confess that like most people I've read no book by CLS other than Tristes Tropiques, and thus cannot be sure. A kind dealer in Turin has typed out for abebooks.com the fuller title: La langue verte et la cuite. Étude Gastrophonique sur la Marmythologie Musiculinaire linguopilée par Asger Jorn Directeur de l'Institut Scandinave de Vandalisme Comparé, linguophagée et postpharyngée par Noël Arnaud, régent de Pataphysique générale. Thacker and Ernshaw's Musrum comes to mind. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Welcome to the club! I would have actually objected to the linkfarm in the external links section given that all the works are in PD so can be uploaded to Commons and thus avoid the need to use so many external sites. You can always ask for corrections and place the review on hold for a few days until addressed. To close the review simply go to Talk:Olive Trees (series), edit the page (the whole page, not the GA section), and replace the first line {{GA nominee}} with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=Arts|page=1}} . Include "GA" in your edit summary. A bot will do the rest shortly after (within 24h, will update the WikiProject class rating and place the GA sign on the article page). --Elekhh (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I actually thought it was rather helpful to have external links to the relevant museums and collections, although I agree that in due course they should all be uploaded onto Commons. Several of them are there already and even in the Olive trees article itself. Anyway, it would be useful if the procedural info you were able to provide so quickly could be included more clearly in the WP articles on GA nominations, etc. I have experienced the same kind of problems with DYK but finally managed to get the thing to work. I think I'll go ahead with the GA approval tag as I've already encouraged the author to make quite a number of changes. She's a comparatively new editor and has been doing some excellent work. I think she deserves some recognition. Next time round I'll leave things open for others to intervene over a few days. Thanks also for your Olive trees tweaks. - Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's your call, I haven't even looked deeply into it. The info is actually there at WP:GAN#Pass. --Elekhh (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A case of not being able to see wood for trees! Now I know where it is, it'll be easier next time around. - Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Olive Trees - GA

Hello Ipigott, Thanks for your review and suggestions for Olive Tree to obtain GA status, Yeah!!! Regarding Langlois bridge, I have some personal life things to work on in the next two days. How about if I let you know here when I've made the similar kinds of changes and it's ready for review? It's great to have achieved GA status!!! Thanks again!--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your GA. By all means keep me informed of progress and I'll keep trying to assist. But next time around, I think you would benefit from another reviewer. See also the points made on the Olive Trees talk page. - Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks so much for all your help, and yes I did see the additional points and responded on the Olive Trees talk page. Thanks for clarifying the External Links concern.

I made the changes to the Langlois Bridge article - it's one of my newer articles so it didn't have the challenges that the Olive Trees article did. Is there something I should do to let someone know that I made changes and it's ready for review?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the Langlois Bridge and made a few more minor edits. It seems to me to be coming along very well but if another reviewer takes it on, he could well come up with other constructive suggestions. The way things look today, the article should be picked up within the next two or three weeks. You are luckly to be in the art queue as some of the others (e.g. music) are very much longer. So I don't think there's anything special you need to do. - Ipigott (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I appreciate the edits to the article. At least for now you've given me a lot of new tricks to make the articles I work on in the next several weeks even better! Much appreciated, Ipigott!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On looking more thoroughly at the article, I find I have a number of additional concerns. The first is in relation to the article Langlois Bridge. A reviewer might wonder (a) why you did not simply expand that article and (b) why you have copied a fairly long section (the Silverman quote) from it without - as far as I can see - any changes at all. I also note that nearly all your images are in that article too. I therefore suggest you enlarge on the section you have copied, for example by providing a more complete introduction to Silverman's work, possibly along with comparable sources, and replacing the bullet points (which are not always welcome in WP articles) by a paraphrase in running prose. In regard to the images, I suggest (especially in connection with the drawings) you add an appropriate introduction. Perhaps you could go even further with the section on drawings, explaining more of the background and the relationship between the drawings and the paintings. There might be some indications here or here. There also seem to be a number of books on the subject including the one from the Rijksmuseum (Sjraar van Heugten, Vincent van Gogh drawings, Vol 4 - ISBN 0853317410). You may well have other sources or access to libraries. And while I'm here, I'm glad to see the problem with the redirect has been sorted out. Look forward to your reactions. Maybe once again I'm pushing you too hard! - Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I also see there's quite a lot on the drawings (in French) here. You should be able to find the equivalent passages from VG's letters in English. - Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there's definately plenty here to chew upon, let me take a stab:

1) Why two articles - one on the paintings, one on the place. I didn't start either of the articles, but I did work to improve both of them. The only thing that I can day that definitely should be in the article about the place is the one paragraph about the history of the bridge, which I will certainly move over - good catch!! I will also go and take a look at the article about the place see if there's information related to VG's paintings that can be trimmed out of it.

2) Silverman quote - sure the entire quote doesn't need to be there, part of that can absolutely be paraphrased.

3) Images in the article about the place. Yes, those can absolutely be trimmed down and just refer to the article about the paintings. And, if I remove most of the text about Van Gogh's paintings, that should be a more proper "place" article.

4) Introduction to the drawings - makes sense.

5) I just started working on this to improve it from what it had been, it's not necessarily and article that I'd like to go to the library and do research on (I'd have others higher on the list). If you think that without more information it is not suitable as a Good Article, I'll respect that.

6) I'm a little confused about the comment about the drawings images being in French.

I will say that what started out as just a touch up of the articles has become much more than I would have dreamed, but I also very much enjoyed working on it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd answer here rather than the second thread on my talk page, 'cause this has the list I was working from. The only thing that I can see that is in French is one item on the place article - and that was probably used by someone just starting this article. The link (which can be read in English (top right)) doesn't contain the information that is being cited. I'm going to remove the ref and add a citation needed template. I've got to run right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, as I'm signing off I realized I forgot to say that I completed items 1-4 and 6. It's been a wild personal and WP 24-48 hours (moon in uranus or something?) but hopefully this addresses your concerns. Good comments there. Take care!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your trouble. It looks better now. You will see I have also added a line on the drawings. And I have made a comment on the bridge's history on the article's talk page. I think the account needs to be more factual and based on more reliable sources. - Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Great research on the bridge's history! Looks good! Thanks, Ipigott!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Skagen Painters and Dutch Golden Age

Wonderful job on both articles. I am duly impressed and inspired. I've got bits of information that I've been collecting for an article about an artist's colony dear to my mother - and I think I'm going to borrow some ideas from your Skagen Painters to help me get started. The works are beautiful!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling you might like these. For some reason, Danish art is not widely appreciated although the Danes and their friends really brought back home much of what had been going on in France and Germany at the time and adapted it to the local environment. If you like the Skagen Painters, explore further at Category:Skagen painters. And when you next visit Europe, come to Denmark too! - Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I love P.S. Krøyer's work, it's incredible and somehow reminds me of Frank Weston Benson. Starting at 16, I used drive to the art museum in the city, one hours drive away, by myself (my friends didn't like to go into the city) on weekends to look at one particular Benson painting. After more than a decade I found a print that I had specially matted and framed and is now over my bed. So, when I saw Krøyer's work, it immediately brought me back to that time. At first Hip, Hip, Horrah got me -- but even more so the couple walking on the beach and especially the painting of his wife. Really incredible! Thanks for sharing that with me!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Krøyer was certainly one of the most highly appreciated of the Skagen painters. I can see why you associate him with Benson, particularly Benson's Eleanor paintings. Benson seems to have been inspried by Abbot Thayer who also spent some time in Paris where he obviously came under the same influences as several of the Skagen painters - so the similarities are perhaps not all that surprising. Do you know of any artists' colonies in the United States towards the end of the 19th century? It could be interesting to expand on comparisons...

I have just noted you headed this section "Dutch" Golden Age. Perhaps that's because you've been dealing with Van Gogh for so long. I'm sure you meant the "Danish" Golden Age. - Ipigott (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this earlier - oh, much earlier I see. Yes, comparisons can be made to the Taos art colony, specifically the Society of Taos Artists and the Tryon art colony in North Carolina, which I have some notes for but haven't started working on that article yet. In both cases there are connections to Paris in the late 19th century. Oh, and also Frank Weston Benson studied in Paris and was part of the Ten American Impressionists. I think (if I remember correctly) a correlation can be made to the Hudson Valley (NY) artists and I think Boulder Colorado. Oh, there was a really quaint artist colony that grew out of a ghost town in Colorado, I cannot remember the name --hmmm, it would be interesting if there was a connection there, too. Like I said to the reply below, I'm a little demotivated at the moment. Maybe another thing (with the reception section for Langlois) to add to a future works list.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Two templates

Partly inspired by all your recent articles on marine artists, I have made a first draft of a template for the Maritime history of Denmark which can be found here to go with an article of the same name (compare Maritime history of England). Any suggestions for improvements (structural or for extra content) will be very welcome.

I have also made a template for country houses around Copenhagen which can be found here but I am not sure about what to call the corresponding article. What do you think works best: 'Country houses around Copenhagen', 'Country houses near Copenhagen', or something third? I am also not sure what to call the group of buildings which are still there, 'present' as it says now doesn't seem a very good choise butsomething like 'preserved' sounds too much of 'listed' which not all of them are. What will be the best word to use? Ramblersen (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

These are both interesting subjects and seem to deserve a template. I think the maritime one is fine as it is for a start and recommend you use it immediately but I am in two minds about the country houses. I can see that at the moment, most of the articles on the subject are indeed centred on the Copenhagen area but with time coverage could be extended to the rest of Denmark. However, if you think the Copenhagen area deserves special treatment, then fire ahead. After all, there are plently of country houses in your template to work on over the next few months! - Ipigott (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the country house template ended up a lot more comprehensive than I had first made it but someone made a bunch of suggestions on my talk page and I figured I might just as well add most of them although I have no immediate intentions of working my way through them. As for the special treatment part, I guess the same could be said about 'churches', 'museums' or any other category and it seems to be the standard for these to limit them to city coverage when I look on other similar templates. It also has the practical reason that I think it is hard to make clear templates if you have too many parameters in play at the same time (Geographical area, type of building, existing-demolished, period, style etc), it easily ends up a mess. And if a template contained a lot of buildings from the Copenhagen area (whetather it is churches or country houses) and only a few randamly scattered ones from the rest of the country, I also think it would look somewhat peculiar and as a case of "special treatment", while giving it the same thorough coverage nationwide would take a lot of work and research and make it of monsterous proporations. I also intend to make a template about castles and manor houses which will obviously have national coverage and I think most candidates in the provinces will fit in there better. I am also tempted by a list of historic houses to highlight certain notable buildings around the country but I think it may have too much of an overlap with the list of castles as it appears today - and cleaning that list up to only include buildings which are actually castles will be far too controversial for me to want to get into (remember Marienlyst?) and lead to a lot of difficult destinctions anyway. However, I think it might be worthwhile to make the list of historic houses in spite the overlap and if it is devided into geographical areas it will have something new to offer anyway (unless the same is done to the castles list of course). If any building (or any other subject) would benefit from a template, I will always be happy to make it. Did you have any specific buildings/articles in mind?Ramblersen (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Copenhagen area is probably the best basis for the template. I also had a quick look at Urbandweller's Danish version and see that quite a few of the houses have already short articles in Danish. This should help in reducing the red in the English template and also give us something to do for the rest of the summer. - Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New articles

Hi Ipigott,

Here are the articles that I've started drafting for communication with people who are inquiring about delated - and newbie non-techies to get familiar with how Wikipedia works. Both are very much in progress, but it would be good to get your opinion.

• User:CaroleHenson/Responding to article deletion questions
• User:CaroleHenson/Getting Started Concepts

Thanks for your comments so far, especially around strategy!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The article on article deletion already seems pretty good to me. As it is aimed at those who delete articles, it may be useful to add a few more suggestions on some of the most common reasons an article is deleted, e.g. commercially oriented, not suitable for an encyclopedia, too self-centred, duplicates an existing article, lack of notability, etc. Wording for each of these cases could be suggested too perhaps.

I am less happy about "Getting Started Concepts" (perhaps the title could be "Getting Started as a Wikipedia Editor". If I were a novice, I would be rather fightened by all the technical details you give. For example, suggestions like "New users should create articles in their user space" could be completely meaningless for many newcomers. How about trying to keep it down to the real basics and providing some easy examples. Perhaps it would also be possible to devise a kind of "Beginners Work Space" where people could play around and test out the effects of their editing? And finally, I think there will soon be new editing features on the way. This should make Wikipedia behave more like traditional word processing systems and less like an html editor - but the details have not yet been released.

I do however think both your documents are a good basis for further work and congratulate you on your efforts. If you would like me assist in editing the versions as they stand now, please let me know. - Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Both are really good points!!! I absolutely want to (for lack of a better term right now) dumb it down - so it doesn't sound too techy. I get scared by some of the help documentation - and I've been in a quasi-tech (working with business to implement technical solutions) consulting role for years. Good points! And, I like your points about deleting articles. I've got to step away for awhile, but I'll work on them later today. Thanks much for taking the time and giving your feedback!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the copyedits you made to Anton Wilhelm Brøgger (printer) and Einar Hoffstad! Much appreciated. Cheers, Eisfbnore ^talk 09:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I always enjoy reading your articles. On Hoffstad, I was a little curious to hear how he had been treated after the war. Any additions possible there? - Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything on his post-war activities, sorry. At least Sørensen doesn't mention anything, and the only source I could find in old newspapers was his death notice in Verdens Gang. --Eisfbnore ^talk 09:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on Hôtel Ritz Paris

Most grateful to you for riding to the rescue. I have now made the changes I was recommending the recently-vanished proposer to make, and I will, if I may, hand over to you to make a final adjudication about promoting the article. Tim riley (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(Digressive afterthought: Just looked at your user page, and thought I'd add here that I'm being introduced to Nielsen's symphonies by Colin Davis and the LSO who are working their way through them at the Barbican.) Tim riley (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)