Wikipedia talk:Danish wikipedians' notice board

Hello! I just created a Denmark-specific stub notice, so I would appreciate all help adding it to all the articles here that are less than 50% completed. It can be linked at {{denmark-stub}}. It looks like this:

Added a few important subjects that I think should be covered re Danish archaeology - hope you agree. I'll try to write something on some of these myself in the coming weeks. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Literal) translations

I'm rather disappointed by the current article name of Radical Left (Denmark) for "Det Radikale Venstre"/"Danish Social Liberal Party". I've previously moved it to "Det Radikale Venstre", but someone (not Danish) renamed it back to the rather misleading "Radical Left (Denmark)" title. I've tried starting a discussion in the page's talk-section, without luck. And I've tried getting in touch with User:Wilfried Derksen, but he doesn't respond.

I'm inclined to move the page to "Danish Social Liberal Party", but since it takes some work (updating links, etc.), I would rather discus it a bit in advance.

In my opinion, it should be either the verbatim "Det Radikale Venstre" (untranslated; makes sense for some names), or the official English (Danish Social Liberal Party) name.

What do you guys think? - Isn't "Radical Left (Denmark)" a strange too-literal translation? Does anyone know of a Wikipedia policy on this? TroelsArvin 01:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The official wikipedia policy is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Here is what it says about political parties, "For articles on organizations (like political parties) the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form."

So, I guess its a judgement call as to whether Det Radikale Venstre or Danish Social Liberal Party is more commonly used in English. According to a google search limited to English, Det Radikale Venstre comes up about 1200 times, while "Danish Social Liberal Party" comes up only 186 times, suggesting that the Danish is more commonly used. However, the search may be picking up some pages that are actually written in Danish. Plus, the party is simply not well known in the English speaking world, so the Danish title might simply be used by ex patriot Danes.

Overall, I'd get rid of the literal translation (less than 600 hits with many non-Danish) and go with the Danish name, but wouldn't mind the official English. Peregrine981 03:57, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I just checked what the Copenhagen Post uses to reference the party, and they wrote the Radical Left and then followed that with Det Radikale Venstre in parentheses. While my personal choice would be to name the article Det Radikale Venstre, I also would follow the Copenhagen Post as its probably the most authoritative source on naming Danish things in English.

I agree that Radical Left (Denmark) is a rather strange construction, and personally tend towards using Det Radikale Venstre, which is - I would have thought - sufficiently well-known to be understandable. Although, I guess that might be just me - we've got to think of the 'average' readers of the encyclopedia! Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Follow-up: Wilfried Derksen reverted his renaming, so "Det Radikale Venstre" is yet again the canonical page name. We didn't seem to reach a clear concensus, but I hope it's OK to go with Det Radikale Venstre. I'll fix the numerous redirections bit-by-bit (Wikipedia is rather slow/unstable at the time of writing). TroelsArvin 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bog people/bodies

I'd like peoples' opinion as to whether Bog body or Bog people is a better name for articles on the subject mentioned. Presently there are articles at both names. Peregrine981 14:28, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bog people is the name most favoured in English - I've never heard the former and think it sounds uneccessarily morbid. I would suggest that the former be deleted, without redirection in this case. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 12:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Pontifex said, "My sense is that Bog body is preferable, with Bog people as a redirect. "Bog body" seems to be prevalent in the literature I've seen and is more descriptive and broad. "Bog people", to me, misleadingly suggests some kind of living tribe. A cursory Google search suggests that "Bog body" is prevalent in scientific contexts whereas "bog people" appears mostly in lay articles."

So we accordingly moved the article to bog body. Britannica lists it under bog body. However, it is true that bog people is more commonly used, even in some academic contexts (museums). So, if you feel strongly enough about it we could contact Pontifex and hash it out a bit more. Seems like bog body has to be a redirect at least, as it is used in some of the literature. Peregrine981 13:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes - I see what you mean. I think, in fact that the expression Bog people has indeed come to refer to the Bronze/Iron Age and other people groups who practised this form of inhumation (see The Mysterious Bog People). Interestingly, Google has indexed half as many again references to these as to Bog bodies - not that that necessarily proves anything. Agreed that we should ask advice of Pontifex, if possible. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I took a tour through Google searching for "bog body" and "bog people", and here's who is using what term:

BOG BODY

Silkeborg Museum (Tollund Man exhibit)

British Museum (Lindow Man exhibit)

Encyclopedia Britannica

University of Texas

Ireland Peat Preservation Council (starts out with the headline "people of the bog" and then uses "bog body" consistently throughout)

BOG PEOPLE

Archaeology magazine (headlines "bog people", but text uses "body" and "people" inconsistently)

Canadian Museum of Civilization exhibit "the Mysterious Bog People"

The Bog People: Iron-Age Man Preserved by P. V. Glob

Based on this admittedly short survey, "Bog body" does appear to be the predominant term in scientific literature, and "bog people" in popular literature, although the phrases are often used interchangeably.

Also, as mentioned above, I think "bog body" is more descriptive of the overall phenomenon; "bog people" still sounds vague to me. After all, the connection to the bog is as a body, not (necessarily) as a living person.

My vote's for "Bog body," but whatever the final article title, I think both "Bog people" and "Bog body" should link to it. 2¢ --Pontifex 18:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work checking on this, Pontifex. I stand corrected, and cannot argue with the impeccable sources you quote - nor with your own background - and your conclusions. I guess my original opinion had been moulded chiefly by reading PV Glob, admittedly many years ago. Perhaps there should be reference, within the article, to both names - not just as a redirect. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 00:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official residences

In the List of official residences#Denmark, I have made three links to the Danish Wikipedia. If these three pages are translated to english (as I think at least Amalienborg Castle might be), we would want to change these links.

Danish politicians

I and user:isfisk have now made articles for all current Danish ministers :). Thue | talk 21:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that I, User:Twthmoses and user:isfisk are making good progress on the list of Danish politicians :). I just finished the list of Danish Prime Ministers from 1913 and forward (Anker Jørgensen and Poul Schlüter need some work). If anybody wants to help then a good place to start could be the red links at Cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen I, creating Cabinet of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen I-IV using fx [1] as reference or making a list of the Danish Foreign Ministers. Thue | talk 00:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Thue. I have made a list of Danish Foreign Ministers, but I am not going to create the page (too busy doing other stuff). But please, you or anybody else, feel free to copy this table and paste it appropriately :-) Fred Bradstadt 20:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Source: rulers.org

• Thanks, Added! Thue | talk 18:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Danish municipalities

There has been a push on the danish wikipedia to make articles for all Danish kommuner. The English wikipedia already has articles for them, but does not make a distinction between the overall municipality and the individual towns and villages that may be under the municipality. With the upcoming structural reform in Denmark this may well lead to some confusion. Do you think it is worth making seperate pages for the municipality and the individual towns? Or should we just mention in the articles that they are not necessarily the same thing? If we do make seperate articles should they be named xxx Municipality? As in Greve Municipality, Peregrine981 02:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

As the muncipalities get bigger it doesn't make as much sense to identify them with their main city, so giving each muncipality it's own seperate article seems like a good idea. Named them consistently as xxx muncipality also seems like a good idea. Thue | talk 09:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have made a push to see that there are articles for all Danish kommuner (and I think I have accomplished that task), as well as to see that there is a certain consistency to them all (in regards style, content and structure). I am in the process of verifying that I have accomplished that also. I have also set up articles for the future kommuner, so we are prepared for Jan. 1, 2007. I tend to agree that they should be consistently named "xxx municipality", and in the worst cases I have already renamed a few. I have down-prioritised that task, but will get back to it as time permits in the future, and when other more necessary tasks are completed (and there are a number of those). All new articles that had not been written before I put my hands on them were named "xxx municipality". As for separate articles for town and municipality— I am not convinced that every little town needs to have a one-sentence article, just so it can get a "stub" notice (but that's my opinion). My solution was a sentence about the site of the municipal council, other towns if I had some names, and a subhead for the main town within the municipality article with information (where I had some). If and when the town section gets so large that it should be split off, then it can always be split off later. --SFDan 11:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)