Talk:Roskilde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Roskilde falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] City and municipality

The article don't seperare the city of Roskilde and the municipality of Roskilde very well. If The article is about the minipality (as it is in the beginning), then shouldn't the page be moved to Roskilde municipality orRoskilde Kommune?

[edit] Post reform

Roskilde/post_reform is created. It is, in light of the 2007 reforms, for the creation of an article which is acurate from and past 2007. Please make your edits there. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read the new articles? The facts about the municipality has just been moved to Roskilde municipality, so nothing is deleted or changed, the article is about the CURRENT municipality. The articles have only been seperated, as there (ALSO today) is a different between the size of the city and the municipality. Eg the minicapility includes the villages Himmelev, Svogerslev, Trekroner, Vor Frue, Skalstrup and Tune. But anyway, I would like to change the page back to the new version. If you (or anybody else) still disagree, lets discuss it. Pardy 11:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Note: Also the picture you have insert is of the New Roskilde municapility.
The difference is explained with this. "It is also the name of the municipality's main city, and the site of its municipal council." It is better to have a larger article that explains both than two seperate articles where one is hopelessly short.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree! I think it's much better to have one article on the municipaltlity, which explains the political facts, the population-size, neighbour-municipalities, town master etc, and one article that tells about the city and its culture, history, attractions etc. When we have two different "areas" they should be in two different articles. Of course there should be links between the articles, Anohter thing; look at: Category:Municipalities of Denmark about 75% of all the articles are called "municipality" in the end. Pardy 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

I guess we have a conflict here. But in 2007, it will be a moot point. Amt reform. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what happend here, but I noticed OrbitOne's message asking for input, so I'll stick to that. I worked on much of the similar material for other Danish municipalities around a year ago adding information about the effects of the municipal reform. The real expert is User:Sfdan who made most of this work.
AFAIK, the reasoning seems to be that if we have a lot of information about both the municipality and the town itself (population, history, landmarks, famous residents etc.) then it is possible to split the material into two articles, with one about the political / administrative side and another article about everything else. However this is not a requirement. The form used by the /"post reform" article does not correspond to, what to the best of my knowledge, is the normal standard for this kind of material. In any case, I would be very sad seing duplicate articles about the "old" municipalities and the "new" with the same name, since User:SFDan and I cleaned up much of this material. I know that the Danish Wikipedia has articles on both the old and the new municipalities, but it will simply mean a lot of extra work later. When people suggested the same policy here, it was rejected and I believe this was a sound decision. If people want to see how this is normally done, see e.g. the articles about e.g. Odense and Odense Municipality. The material about the muncipal structure (+ a very short description) in one article ("X-købing Municipality")and one article about everything else. ("X-købing"). But all in all, I think it is better to leave everything in one article unless we have a *lot* of material necessitating a split. Just my thoughts. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The post reform version is to allow quick editing of the article without conflicts. The idea is we should bring it up to speed and use the post reform version when 2007 rolls in. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess since I'm being referred to here, I'll put in my two cents worth also, and it is pretty much as Valentinian has aaid above. When I was involved in doing a major overhaul, standardization and upgrade of Danish municipality articles about a year ago I used a number of guidelines to help me in decision making:
  • Where an article about a municipality existed I did not care whether the article was called "Whatever municipality" or simply "Whatever". This was simply not my priority.
  • Where an article about a municipality did not exist already, and a new article was created I named it "Whatever municipality". (It was my thought that one day, someone else might be interested in renaming existing municipality articles with a standard naming convention-- again not a high priority item for me.) Note also as I named them "Whatever municipality" and not "Whatever Municipality" as municipality is a descriptive and not part of a formal proper name. Giving the name of the article as "Whatever municipality" helped resolve name conflicts (both existing and future) with the possibility of an article about a town or city of the same name as the municipality.
  • Where there existed information in the article about both a town and a municipality with a shared name I did not attempt to split them into two separate articles (again, not my priority). I kept the name of the article as "Whatever" since it referred to both a town/city and a municipality. I tried my best to make it absolutely clear in the first paragraph that the article referred to a) municipality, b) town/city and possibly also c) county/amt. Again, my personal preference is a longer article that makes it clear it describes several entities that share the same name (and perhaps share same information), then to split it up into one or more stubs. I am personally opposed to creating stubs unneccesarily.
  • Concerning future and former municipalities, I created standardly formatted articles for future municipalities and categorized them as "Future municipalities of Denmark". In some cases I "retired" some former municipalities in the category "Former municipalities of Denmark". I do not see why this same principle cannot apply after Jan. 1 2007. This means that some "Future municipalities" will be recategorized on Jan. 1 and some "Municipalities" will become "Former municipalities". There will also be some "tense" changes within the articles where phrases such as "will become" need to be changed to "has become", etc.
  • Note I also did not use the naming convention "New Whatever municipality" as this was (I believe in all cases) a fictive descriptive name, and not an official name.
If the issue here is simply whether to split up Roskilde article into separate municipality and town articles (or more) on principle, I will simply speak against creating stubs if you are not willing to do the extra research to expand the short articles, and to resolve the resultant "link" and "redirect" problems (What links here).
If the issue here is how to "update" the municipality articles, in general, on the first of the year, then you have a "big issue" here, and I don't know if that has been addressed yet. If not, it probably should be.
Hope these guidelines provide some history as to how decisions were taken. --SFDan 07:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

- Hi again. I agree that it would be pointless if the result was making two 3-lines stub, but that's not the case. The two pages i made (Roskilde new version and Roskilde municipality) wasn't stubs, and Roskilde municipality was easy to update after the 2007-reform, and there is also place for a list of all the villages in the municipality.

Another thing: if you look at Danish cities of similar size (Randers, Kolding, Vejle, Næstved, Silkeborg and Fredericia - facts from template:25 biggest cities of Denmark) they all have an article about both the city and the municipality. The only one that doesn't is Roskilde! I think the city deserve it's own article, and personally I will promise to enlarge the articles in a gradual process.

P.S. I have resolved the link and redirect problems, so they fit to the two articles i made. Pardy 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

I have no problems with the two articles"Roskilde municipality" as they it looks now. My main concern is to avoid having both an article about the "new" and "old" municipality. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more of the muncipality-oriented material should be moved to the new article? The new map at least? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I still am not a big fan of two articles instead of one, but the new article (Roskilde kommune) is more to the point, I agree, but I would like to keep the mention in the new Roskilde (city) version. Can we agree to a compromise here and rewrite the kommune/city mention in the old article so it is still there and is informative and links to the kommune article?
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if this info was moved down a bit so the first paragraph referred to the town as such? Would that be ok? It just caught my eye that both articles begin with referring to the municipality. Whatever happens, both articles should definitely link to each other. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If we seperate the articles they shall undoubtally link to each other.
To Valentinian: If you look at Roskilde new version, this doesn't start with "Roskilde is a municipality...", but it's link to the municipality in the very first line.
Could we agree to go back to use that article, and then OrbitOne, you can add the facts you think are missing? Pardy 14:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
I was looking at the wrong version, sorry! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"..The Center is situated in the former varehouse of the well known Danish merchant Torsten Fogh Dybvad..." Torsten Dybvad is af ghost, he does not exist in connection to Roskilde. Therefore he has been deleted from the Danish Wikipedia.Guest, Denmark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.115.114 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery

I know it's a fairly small point, but the article says "The town suffered from plague, wars with the Swedes and a number of devastating fires in the 17th century but began to recover in the 18th century with the opening of the railway from Copenhagen in 1847. " Well, 1847 is the 19th century, so if the recovery was linked to that it should be changed, however it might be that the recovery came earlier and that the railway was an extension (or a result) of this recovery, so I haven't changed anything. Could someone with better grasp of the history of the town fix it? BeShaMo (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)