Talk:List of Danish architects

Redlinks

I've removed the redlinked names from the article because they clearly weren't verifiable or notable. Lists of people should generally be bluelinked or, if an article is to be written imminently, at least well referenced. Sionk (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest these should be maintained for referencing over the next couple of weeks. If not, I agree they should be removed. Maybe it would also be useful to sort them with dates along the lines of List of British architects. --Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Might be more constructive to stub the articles.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite happy too when someone is enthusiastic about improving the coverage of non-English subjects. For example, if some of these redlinks already have articles on Danish Wikipedia with at least a couple of reliable sources, then including them here (and stubbing them) is a positive step. At the moment its unclear where these many hundred redlinks originated from, let alone whether they meet WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not helpful for the (few) readers of this article to see a very long list of names without any further information. Therefore the proposal above to remove redlinks and to add further info (date of birth/death at least) would make the list more useful. The redlinks would fall in the scope of one of the two concerned WikiProjects where such working lists of redlinks can be maintained as a subpage. --ELEKHH^T 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I made a comment on Sionk's talk page where a parallel discussion seems to be going on but was told that this is probably the better place to put it so here goes: "Ipigott has been kind enoughb to ask for my opinion on this matter on my talk page, although I am not sure if this is the correct place to do so. I am all for removing red links if it can deter anyone from stubbing them. As I have previously commented, in relation to Danish buildings (and anything else, really), I believe it it a very unproductive approach which only leads to a more rudimentary coverage of the subject in the long run. I don't see what good the red link does in the list of architects. In articles they do seem to have some relevance since they make it easier to check how many articles link to a given architect and thus wheather it is time to give him/her a biographical article. But again, if that red link just means that someone will come along and stubs it, I think it would have been better to leave it out ". IMO to mass-stub all these biographies only serve to make it harder for readers to identify the articles of any length that are actually there and therefore. All experience also shows that once a red link is stubbed, chances are very small that the article will actually grow to any length compared to what is the case if it remains a red link. And I really don't see what good it does.Ramblersen (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to say this, I agree in part, and I've said the same thing on Ipigott's talk page. But it would be nice if some of us here worked together to produce quality and develop some of the important ones to GA. WP:Denmark and Architecture lack collaboration. Our number of GAs are dismal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to develop the list in table format with basic details of all the architects, both those covered with articles in the English WP and those interlinked to the Danish wiki. Personally I think this is an excellent way forward and could be used in connection with other languages too. However, I would be interested to hear the views of others as there do seem to be arguments in favour of not including too many non-notable names. --Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks very smart, but it still doesn't solve the long term problem. There are hundreds of names here with no article on the English Wikipedia, though the redlinks are now disguised (in light blue) by interlinking to the Danish Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, at the end of the day. We're not creating some new global multi-lingual version! Sionk (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I keep seeing you say "non notable names" Ian but I'm yet to see a non notable entry on Danish wikipedia. No, not all of them have designed Sydney Opera Houses, but where is your proof that these are non notable names? Do you mean lesser known people? Almost every one I've looked at to date has a collection of buildings to his name which easily pass content requirements. I'm all for excluding entries which are not covered in reliable sources and found to clearly be non notable but this doesn't seem to be the case with most of these entries which are recognized in a government funded dictionary. I think the sheer number of missing articles scares people.. If the plan is to remove them eventually then I doubt I'll continue formatting and working on this as I feel I'm wasting my time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetic or chronological?

I know it will be a hassle to change but wouldn't it make much more sense to arrange this list according to wither century (of birth or the century where most of the oeuvre is from) or period/style? Birth year is probably the most straighforward since style may lead to too many problems when someone fits into several categories. Ramblersen (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You could do both of course, but I think its easier doing it A-Z..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No biggie, but I am for chrono-logical. Except those autistic savants, I don't think anyone would read through such a list A to Z. --ELEKHH^T 11:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Works

And another thing, perhaps you should not add details about works until you are certain that it is correct. Ludvig Clausen has for instance not designed Statens Museum for Kunst, only made a proposal in the competition.Ramblersen (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is why I need an army of Great Danes to assist with writing the summaries and why I was reluctant to create them as exact translations..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Illustrations

I think an image of a representative building would be preferable to a portrait. Is not only that almost none would recognise a 19th century local architect by appearance, but is also not what makes them notable. --ELEKHH^T 11:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking actually neither would be better as we don't have images for a lot of people or buildings and the gaps look scruffy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Revamping the article

Although a valiant effort was begun on providing tabulated info on the architects with names at the beginning of the alphabet, the enthusiasm seems to have waned. I find it difficult to add information on new additions. Can we not reformat it in the normal way (e.g. like List of Danes) so that everyone will be encouraged to contribute? Unless of course Dr. Blofeld would like to continue the table presentation?--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the article to be more in line with other lists. The former design did not align with similar lists and it's not useful to have pictures + resumés for a list that's so extensive. However, 1) I object to the inclusion of links to da.wiki 2) I do not think a list of every single Danish architect is useful - that's the purview of categories. 3) Alphabetic list in this case does not optimally convey the subject matter. The ideal is in my opinion List of British architects or List of German architects. I'm not personally knowledgeable about architecture so can't make the necessary value judgement for inclusion/exclusion. Gardar Rurak (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)