User talk:Ujkiol

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ujkiol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

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

Welcome to the English WP[edit]

Hello Ujkiol. I'm glad to see you have decided to help with translations from Danish into English. Together with User:Ramblersen, I have been trying to give wider coverage to Denmark over the years, especially the cultural aspects, but we could well do with another native speaker of Danish. On the basis of the hundred or so articles you have written in Danish since last May, and judging by your command of English on Bønnelycke, you could certainly help us out. I'm not sure which area tempts you most although I see you have written quite a bit on newspapers. Let me know if I can be of any help, whatever the subject. --Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott. Thank you for welcoming me to English WP. I would really enjoy taking part in a coordinated attempt to cover Denmark and all matters Danish more widely here. I chose Bønnelycke last night quite at random since I didn't really know where to start and since I thought Bønnelycke was a significant poet meriting an article on Wikipedia.

This is where I would like some guidance. What needs doing? I have admired the systematic way User:Dr. Blofeld starts hundreds of new articles but needless to say I also enjoy seeing articles promoted to promising, good or even featured articles (which Blofeld does, too, as it happens). If you want, you are welcome to point out some underdeveloped area and we could start off making stubs and see where that might lead. Or we could decide on some common goal, getting, say, more good articles on Denmark.

My editing history at Danish WP may be slightly misleading; that is to say that I have edited under two other pseudonyms (one account for opera articles and another for articles on Greenland, both at Danish Wikipedia). Ujkiol (which means nothing but is just a sequence of letters which are close to each other on the keyboard) is, on the other hand, an account intended for edits on whatever strikes my fancy. The reason I have edited a few newspaper articles is that I did a large article on da:Lady Gaga (not that I am huge fan; I just thought: Why not? - after hearing one of her songs) and the newspaper articles then ensued in an attempt to avoid too much "red ink" in the article.

So... If you have any suggestions, you are more than welcome to let me know. I am interested in many things and would enjoy developing my command of written English further by writing something for English WP.

Ujkiol (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very positive response. As you may have noticed, I have dabbled in most areas of Danish culture and have done quite a bit of geographic coverage too, especially on Bornholm, Møn and Falster. I see you have made one or two edits on the culture canon. While I certainly don't think the canon is to be taken too seriously, I think it would be a good idea to extend coverage of some of the missing creators, for example Jørgen Rasmussen, Fiberline Composites, Flemming Quist Møller, Schack von Staffeldt, Thøger Larsen, Morten Nielsen, Ivan Malinowski and Per Højholt. On the geographic front, in the not too distant future I intend to cover Lolland (on more or less the same basis as what I did with Falster). (And I also intend to cover other islands.) Then there are quite a few artists: Svend Johansen, Axel Salto, Erik Werner, Eiler Krag, Bo Bojesen, Egill Jacobsen, Johan Rohde, Harald Slott-Møller, Christian Mourier-Petersen, Julius Paulsen and Ole Schwalbe. If you would like to go ahead with any of these, let me know. If you have any preferences of your own, I would also be happy to help. --Ipigott (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott. I am definitely a fellow "culture vulture" and I do agree that the canon is just a starting point of sorts, perhaps intended to stir debate and interest rather than function as a definite yardstick. I could perhaps try to work a bit on creating a Schack von Staffeldt article; I quite like the poem featured on the list, as it happens.

I would definitely enjoy working on canon-related issues (although I need to understand properly how notability works here before I let my work take flight). Other ideas might be Danish opera, Copenhagen museums or perhaps an enlargement of the Theatre of Denmark article.

I also find geography fascinating and quite enjoy the articles you, Blofeld and Rosiestep create; I would be happy to be of assistance if and when I can. -- Ujkiol (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Are there "official" models of how to structure an article?

Proposed deletion of De Levendes Land[edit]

The article De Levendes Land has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability: there is no article on it in the Danish Wikipedia, and it is not mentioned in the article on Grundtvig in either Danish or English WP.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 12:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've dePRODded this, and won't pursue it further.

But if it's so important it's surprising that the Danish Wikipedia doesn't include an article on it!

I've edited the article to include this claim to notability. I've also tidied up the section about the Lyrikantologi at Danish Culture Canon, which was a complete mess before! I'm not clear whether the Lyrikantologi is an actual publication, or just a collection invented for the purpose of fitting 24 poems into one of their 12 choices. Perhaps you could clarify, in either or both of the articles. My knowledge of Danish is non-existent, I go on guesswork and Google Translate. PamD 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a mention of the hymn in Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig. (Is that really the better title for the article? Shouldn't he be at N.F.S.Grundtvig? I see there were some messy moves in 2006 but it's not been moved since then). PamD 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; N.F.S. Grundtvig is better. You would very rarely see him mentioned as Nikolaj Frederik Severin Grundtvig. You are welcome to move it. Ujkiol (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you've started working on here. A couple of things. We're a bit uppety English wikipedia over sourcing and "notability", if you could use Template:Cite web or Template:Cite book or add full citations and if possible add more than one source this would be great. Just copy the Alcatraz system of formatting refs and you'll not go wrong.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, good to hear from you again. I did get in touch with Ipigott, too, although he contacted me before I got around to writing him. :) As to the issues you raise:

Are you thinking of any particular unsourced information in one of the articles I wrote? I certainly do agree that adding sources to all information except the most basic (2+2=4, the sun rises in the east...) is quintessential. At any rate, I will be happy to use the cite book or cite web as seen in your (great) article to get the technical bit right. Perhaps I should have used cite book for the works found on Google Books (which is a fantastic way of sourcing info, by the way)?
The notability issue is a bit difficult for me, I think. I gather you think of articles like Bryghuset Møn, Samsø Airport and De Levendes Land, right? Please correct me if I am mistaken. I experimented a bit with various topics, trying to let the writing gain momentum. I did the brewery article after seeing Amager Bryghus, the airport was on the List of airports in Denmark and the poem is part of the canon. Please, don't get me wrong: I would just like to know in greater detail how notability works and would really appreciate your thoughts on this before I start creating lots of stubs on Eckersberg paintings, Kim Larsen songs, Holberg comedies or the like.

--Sincere wiki greetings, Ujkiol (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was travelling back to Luxembourg yesterday so could not respond until now. Allow me to add a word on notability too. Many articles about Danish topics (including quite a few of my own) receive a notability tag, simply because the people reviewing them know very little about Denmark. Often they go no further than conducting a Google search on the item in question and looking at the number of hits. If they don't see an array of English-language sites, they assume the article is not sufficiently notable. In my opinion, all your articles to date are certainly notable enough to be included in the English Wikipedia. In the case of the Møn brewery, it was covered extensively in the local press after it reopened in December but I could not find much on the internet and I had thrown the papers away. (Between the two of us, the beer is still good but the restaurant could be better.) It may well be worthwhile doing a general article on the micro-breweries in Denmark. There is also an interesting one in Køge (see here) which I have also visited. The other items you seem interested in developing are of course all notable enough for inclusion. If you run into any trouble, just let me know on my talk page or by email: ipigott (same as my Wikipedia user name) at yahoo dot com. Keep up the good work! --Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, Ian. I have done a few Eckersberg articles today. One of them was on the canonized work so there's another red link gone from the canon article. PamD has created a category for Danish paintings. Do you know if there are other articles which should belong in the new category other than the three that are there at the moment? Ujkiol (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember any other articles on Danish paintings. Good to have the category though. I'm glad to see you have the incentive and patience to write articles on the canon items. Every little helps.--Ipigott (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View through three arches...[edit]

I noticed there's a redlink for Royal Engraving Collection. Is that the collection described as "The Collection of Prints and Drawings" in Statens Museum for Kunst? If so, you might like to to mention that alternative title in the Statens Museum article, and make a redirect from that name, turning the redlink blue. I couldn't be sure from looking at http://www.smk.dk/en/explore-the-art/the-royal-collections/graphic-art/ whether "The Royal Collection of Graphic Art" was another name for the same collection, but the same would apply - redirects from alternative titles are always a good thing, to help readers find articles and help editors avoid creating duplicate articles! PamD 20:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Den kongelige kobberstikssamling" is called Royal Engraving Collection in the article on P. C. Skovgaard and "The Royal Collection of Graphic Art" at smk.dk which you linked to. I am not completely sure about "The Collection of Prints and Drawings", though. Ujkiol (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you to sort that lot out! But on a different topic, I've just stub-sorted the two paintings and noticed you'd put them both at Category:1800s paintings. That's for paintings in the 1800s decade (there's a "19th-century paintings" category for the century), but there are also categories for specific years. I've put the View into 1810s because of the 1815/16, and the Ship into 1828. I also created the category Category:Danish paintings on the model of other countries: it's now got 3 items, because Hip, Hip, Hurrah! has been sitting there with a redlinked category for 2 years.

I also notice that another editor has moved the View to a different title, as "Common title". I know nothing about which is the "right" title for the article, but it would be useful to have redirects from all likely alternatives. If you're happy for it to stay at the title it's been moved to, it would be good to change it in the Canon template, the source of most of the incoming links which are now redirects.

I'm not an art specialist, just a stub-sorter who sometimes gets distracted trying to fix other aspects of the articles which come into my sight! Happy Editing. PamD 21:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have now changed the title of the work in the canon article as the museum's web site uses "A View through Three Arches of the Third Storey of the Colosseum in Rome". Ujkiol (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've fixed the categories for Vestfyns Kunstmuseum. Whenever you create a building article can you always ensure that you add the municipal buildings category? You might have to create a few if they're missing, basically we want to have buildings and structures for every municipality of Denmark! FOr paintings, please add the year of painting also, e.g Category:1816 paintings. Thanks! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blofeld. Indeed I will, thanks for correcting the categories on the new museum article. Was wondering how to do the categorization. I started typing using the hotcat dialogue box but sometimes nothing relevant turns up, so I guess will just have to create a category. I am not quite sure what to do when the category link turns red but perhaps it's self-explanatory once I click on it? We've got 98 municipalities to cover so I had better learn it now. :) Ujkiol (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click edit on any existing category, try Assens Municipality you'll find the relevant regional category, the main category for a municipality and the relevant Danish wiki link. Try to copy what is in it and paste it into the missing category, just changing the name, The convention is to use capital letter for Municipality not kommune or whatever. Ask User:Ramblersen if you encounter a red linked category and feel uncertain, he's done an overhaul of the system and one of his priorities is to try to replicate that of Danish wikipedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a window[edit]

Sorry to keep turning up on your talk page but ... is this really a drawing in "oil on canvas"? Or did something get left over in the infobox from a previous article? These things happen! PamD 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another new cat[edit]

I've just created Category:Danish poetry while stub-sorting Gittes monologer. As seems to be standard I've made Category:Danish poets into a subcat of this cat (without disturbing their existing links to other cats in the hierarchy). I'm sure you'll find/create plenty of articles to populate the new cat! PamD 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bikuben Kollegium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Danish, DKK and Handicap

The Wounded Philoctetes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Danish, Greek and Brothers in arms

David Collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Peter Hansen and Jens Juel

Bryghuset Møn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stege

L. A. Ring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ring

Odense Zoo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DKK

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grønningen, Copenhagen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Petersen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josefine Klougart speedy deletion decined[edit]

but do please add content from reliable sources so that notability can be established. Dloh cierekim 04:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastiske Toyota[edit]

I just finished reviewing your article, and ended up deciding against placing a notability tag because I hate to discourage coverage of any artistic endeavor. However, it would seem to me that the article would be better situated in the entry for the main band. It's just my opinion though, and I'm still new at this, and I realize you may return soon to add information that would better establish its notability. Best wishes, Dictioneer (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]