Jump to content

Talk:Odense/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Provincial assembly

[edit]

down to 1805 it was the seat of the provincial assembly of Funen.

It is obscure what "assembly" is referred to.

Sebastjan

The "Landsting" for Funen? The information seems to come from the "1911 Encyclopedia" (see http://www.1911encylopedia.com/ ), which even contains the "Odin's island" bit that you got rid of. - Kaare 12:25, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
[edit]

What is the point of adding this ugly logo (Image:Odense 001.jpg) here? Also, does the copyright holder actually hold the copyright to the image of Odense's coat of arms which included in the image? (Fair use does not apply in Denmark.) - Kaare 18:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be angry about something? Anyway.
I don’t think the article is anymore readable now then it was before, but it’s a matter of taste I guess. It is ok with me as it is now. 2nd the Palace image was removed, cause at that time it did not link to the large image it does now, but a tiny one where you could not see anything anyway.
3rd the ugly logo (and it aint a logo) is made by me, and you are free to remove it if you don’t like it. The Coa is not the Coa of Odense, but of Odense Municipality, and it is not the exact one (official one registered 1938). Anyway this is a derivative work not used in misleading contents, (which is legal by the Danish “ophavsretsloven” §4). And I specified state you can’t mod the image (except resize), so you can’t mod the Coa.
And btw there is a sort of fair use § in Denmark; “ophavsretsloven” §3 is about - sort of- fair use.Twthmoses 21:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Twthmoses
I didn't add the image of Odense Palace to make it possible for people to count the number of bird droppings on the statue in front of the palace, I simply wanted to show the reader an image from Odense in a reasonable good resolution, and the old version of the image served this purpose, I believe. Besides, the image was added at a time when Mediawiki didn't handle images as well as it does now - if you wanted a thumbnail and a large image, you had to make and upload them yourself, and you also had to write the necessary HTML code...
In the future, please always use the summary field (and if large changes are needed, also the discussion page) to document changes to articles; this includes removal of content (text or images). Generally you shall preserve information when editing.
On the logo (if it isn't a logo, then what is it?): What is the point of adding an image with the text "Odense - Discover the city" to a article in an encyclopedia? This isn't the front page on a tourist site about the city. The coat of arms without the text might be relevant in a article about Odense Kommune, if the copyright issue is resolved.
What is the origin of the coat of arms in your image?
Has your interpretation of Danish law been confirmed by a copyright lawyer?
- Kaare 08:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please don’t talk down to me and try to make me look like a newbie that just committed a major vandalism act. I removed an image that I did not think was good enough at that time and replaced it with some other. That is all that happened. It happens on 100 of pages daily. You now inserted it again with a better image, and that is ok with me. What is the big deal?
Are you going lawyer on me now? My interpretation? Confirmed by a copyright lawyer? You are not going a little fast eh?
I don’t know if is has been confirmed, I don’t know all the cases ever done in denmark – more importantly maybe, one should ask does it need to be? Well lucky for us it is written in plain danish. You can read it yourself.
The origin of the Coa is Odense municipality. As far as I know any Danish municipality (and counties) registered Coa can be use in general informative non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise stated by that municipality (or county).
But just to be sure I have written Odense Kommune for the in’s and out’s. Hopefully they will reply soon.Twthmoses 22:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, we had a heated discussion going here...
Here's something from Danish law for you to interpret, Lov om kommunernes styrelse § 4. stk. 2.: "Kommunevåben og -segl, der er registreret i Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen, er forbeholdt de kommunale myndigheder i den pågældende kommune. [...]" [1]
Did you get an answer from Odense Kommune?
- Kaare 19:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I already know this, that it is the municipality’s CoA and they have the right to it. Btw this § apply to the 1938 version, the only one that is registered.

I'll tell you a funny story. A few months ago I had a major discussion on Commons about Norwegian counties and municipalities CoA, because I put up some 500 Norwegian Coa for deletion, because they lack source. It so happens that Norway and Denmark has near identical rules for CoA’s of counties and municipalities (in fact they have near identical copyright laws). I was reversed and unable to convince them that they are in fact illegal to keep on Commons. They reside under some completely bogus tag that states that they are eligible for copyright (yeah right!).

As in Denmark, it is the individual municipalities that gives the right to when and how to use the CoA. For general informative non-commercial purposes, there is a standing rule that it is allowed to use them (I’m sure they could block that too if they wanted). I talked to National Archive Services of Norway, which just insured me that I was correct, that you have to talk to each individual municipalities and counties to be allowed to use them on Commons – cause commons does not allow non-commercial images (it is allowed here). Of course I already knew you could not get these permissions, even if you talked to all 500 offices, because they would essentially be given the entire world rights to mess with there CoA at will. So I just gave up and left that copyright violating dump, and swore to never again upload anything to it.

Anyway I did get a response from Odense Kommune. Here is the entire mail.

Mange tak for din mail. Vi har tidligere haft informationer om Odenses våbenskjold liggende på hjemmesiden, men efter vi fik ny version af siden, blev det udeladt. Du har dog en god pointe, så jeg vil bede vores dygtige historikere på vores stadsarkiv om at skrive en tekst om historien bag våbenskjoldet og ligge det på hjemmesiden.
Mht. rettigheder kan jeg fortælle dig, at det er Odense Kommune, der har rettighederne til våbenskjoldet. Formålet med at placere byvåbenet på fx brevpapir, busser eller bygninger er at vise et tilhørsforhold til Odense Kommune. Derfor har byrådet besluttet, at private som hovedregel ikke kan få tilladelse til at bruge byvåbenet. Mht. leksika er det en lidt anden sag, hvis det udelukkende er til faktuel oplysning. Odense Kommune kan også undtagelsesvis give tilladelse til at private bruger det, eksempelvis til dekorative formål, men altså ikke til kommercielle formål som sådan. Det er sandt, at det er et gammelt skjold, men det "tilhører" altså Odense By - dvs. Odense Kommune.
De samme regler gør sig gældende for Odense Kommunes nye bomærke, som du henviser til. Det blev tegenet i 2004 og det er det, Odense Kommune nu bruger over alt i stedet for det gamle våbenskjold. Versionen, der blev lavet for nogle år siden og primært er brugt på internet og i publikationer, udgår nu helt.
Jeg kan dog tilføje, at alle frit må bruge "Odense-liljen", der også figurer i det oprindelige våbenskjold.
Jeg håber, at dette var svar nok til dig, ellers er du velkommen til at kontakte mig igen.
Venlig hilsen
Katja Antabi Informationskonsulent
Informationstjenesten Odense Kommune Flakhaven 2 5000 Odense C

As you can see it is allowed to use in lexicons (“leksika er det en lidt anden sag, hvis det udelukkende er til faktuel oplysning”).

This is btw the same kind of statement I got from National Archive Services of Norway .."You should contact the individual municipalities for clearance on using their coat of arms. However, there is also a general guideline that if coats of arms are to be used for general informative, non-commercial purposes, then no permission needs to be sought".. Twthmoses 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]

Odense, Denmark → Odense – This page was recently moved without proposal (AFAIK) and changed to a disambiguation page. This was a bad idea, since the risk of confusing Denmark's third largest city with the Odense River is close to nil. Secondly, this page is now named inconsistently with all similar Danish material. Please return this page to the original name. Valentinian (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please show the inconsistency. The dab is well in line with other articles in Category:Cities_and_towns_in_Denmark. Further you may notice when visiting Odense there are other objects with that name than only town and river, most notably the municipality. So the dab was not only for the river. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on 23 of Denmark's 25 largest cities are named without the ", Denmark" suffix. Viborg can be confused with "Vyborg" in Russia, but only if the Russian name is misspelled / transliterated oddly, so it seems like a not-too-ideal choice as well. Most of the Danish municipalities have their own articles independently of the articles on the main city, but we don't have dabs on those. Given the municipal reform currently being implemented, I guess most of the rest of the articles will have the municipality information split out as well. In Denmark, many bays and waterways are named after a town, but these are always referred to by both parts of the name, so nobody confuses "Køge" and "Køge Bay", "Skjern" and "Skjern River" or "Svendborg" and the waterway "Svendborg Sound". It is this article that is the "odd man out". Regards. Valentinian (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

I'll second that suggestion. Valentinian (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. 

Vegaswikian 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material from the Catholic Encyclopedia

[edit]

I've moved the following recent addition from the main article space. I see no reason to use half of the article on the Catholic Church's view on its own history. Denmark has been Lutheran since 1536 and the number of Catholics in Odense is very small (5,000-10,000 is probably too high a number, and the vast majority are ethnic Poles or Vietnamese). Furthermore the article clearly has a great many misspellings of names and it looks rather outdated. Salvage whatever anybody can but don't clutter up article space this way. If the history section needs expanding / improving, I'd much rather go with e.g. August Baggesen's Den danske Stat (1840) which has more information on the history of this city. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(begin quote)

Ecclesiastical history

[edit]

The former Roman Catholic bishopric of Odense included the islands of Funen (where Odense is located), Langeland, Tåsinge, Lolland, Falster, Als and Ærø. It was founded before 988 from Schleswig, and the first church built at Odense was dedicated to St. Mary. Othinkar Hvide the Elder, a missionary bishop in Sweden, is said to have preached Christianity on Funen, but the first Bishop of Odense whose name is known with certainty is Reginbert() (Reginar), an Englishman consecrated by Archbishop Alnoth of Canterbury in 1020 or 1022 and sent by King Canute the Great to Denmark. Reginbert was succeeded by Eilbert, a clerk of Bremen (about 1043-72). After his death the diocese was vacant and subject to the Bishop of Roskilde, until 1086, at the earliest, when the English Benedictine monk Hubald was appointed its bishop. On 10 July, 1086, King/Saint Canute was murdered in the Church of Sankt Albani (St. Alban) in Odense. The fame of his miracles and the bad harvests which followed upon his murder led to his canonization and to the translation on 19 April, 1101 of his relics by Bishop Hubald to the new Church of Our Lady and St. Alban. At King Eric Ejegod's request King William II of England induced the Abbot of Evesham, Worcestershire, to send over twelve of his monks to Odense in 1100 who served the newly-erected Cathedral of St. Canute, and later they and their successors formed the chapter. The Church of St. Canute, which was at first of wood, and connected with the great Benedictine monastery of the same name, was burnt down more than once, and the present fine building was not begun until the time of Bishop Gisico (1287?-1300?). It is built of brick in pure Gothic style, and is considered one of the largest and finest ecclesiastical edifices in Denmark. Its construction was continued under his successor, bishop Peter Pagh (1304-39), who apparently assisted, even if he did not found, the school at Odense. The next bishop, Nicholas Jonsen (1340-62), made the school a free one in 1349; before this the pupils paid half the cost of their education. Bishop Mogens Krasse (1460-74) seems to have finished the cathedral. His successor, Charles Rønnow (1474-1501), who had been provost of the Church of Our Lady, was hostile to the Benedictine monks at St. Canute's, and in 1474 drove them from the cathedral, replacing them with regular canons. It was not till 1489 that the monks were brought back, at the command of Innocent VIII.

Long before this Odense was one of the richest bishoprics in Denmark. It was so exclusively regarded as belonging to the nobility that the famous Bishop Jens Andersen Beldenak endured much persecution on account of his humble origin. In 1529 he resigned his bishopric to Canute Henriksen Gyldenstjerne, Dean of Viborg. The latter can scarcely be regarded as a Catholic bishop. His election was never confirmed by the pope, and though imprisoned in 1536 he was released in 1537. From the beginning of his episcopate he had practically been a Lutheran, and after 1537 he married and lived as a rich lay nobleman until his death (1568).

Besides the cathedral at Odense with its crypt, containing the bodies of St. Canute and of his brother Prince Benedict, and its glorious reredos etc., there are many fine churches at Nyborg, Svendborg and elsewhere. Before the Reformation the diocese had Augustinian Canons at St. Mary's, Odense; Benedictines at the cathedral, Odense and at Halsted (Lolland); Benedictine (?) nuns at St. Gertrude's, Odense; Augustinian nuns at Dalum; Cistercian monks at Holm (Insula Dei), now Brahetrolleborg; Franciscans at Odense, Svendborg, Nysted and Nykøbing Falster; Dominicans at Odense; Carmelites at Assens; a convent of Poor Clares at Odense; and a Brigittine abbey at Maribo (Lolland), the latter until 1620. Finally there were hospitals of the Holy Spirit at Odense, Assens, Faaborg and Nakskov, and a Commandery of the Knights of St. John at Odense.

In the early 20th century there were Catholic churches at Odense itself (Church of St. Alban, dedicated in 1907), Svendborg, Nyborg, Assens, Maribo and Glorup, as well as schools. There are also Redemptorists of the Austrian province at Odense and Franciscans at Maribo. The Sisters of St. Joseph had a hospital at Odense, the Sisters of St. Hedvig a sanatorium in the ancient nunnery of Dalum besides creches and kindergartens at Odense and Nyborg.

(end unquote) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population statistics

[edit]

Is excessive and not consistent with almost all city articles in Wikipedia. I notice Copenhagen has it too. I will put a similar note in Talk there too. Michellecrisp 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Town or city?

[edit]

Could someone please inform me on why Odense is classified as a town and not as a city? Does it have something to do with it having the status of "købstad" in Denmark? Thrane 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated accordingly. I simply based the infobox on one from another article so my bad. Odense has a cathedral, so it qualifies as a "city". Valentinian T / C 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area for the city

[edit]

The city is listed as having an area of just 15 sq. km, where does that come from? It is clearly wrong as the city/urban area would cover an area significantly larger than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image in the infobox

[edit]

I think the current infobox img with St. Canute's Cathedral, mostly obstructed by a tree, and the Hans Christian Andersen statue, tiny and off-center, isn't the best choice. While the sky is blue, neither the building nor the monument are well-depicted, and they don't really convey a sense of the city. I think BrandtsOdense.jpg would be a better choice as it's a street scene in front of the cultural center, with some interesting architectural details (the windows). --Rosiestep (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not to happy with the current image either, but the one of Brandts also suffers from an excess of foliage. At the risk of sounding reactionary, I would prefer a revert to "Odense - Sankt Knuds kirke 2005-07-16.jpeg", which was used for a long time. (Took the liberty of adding it to your gallery.) Favonian (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see your back with us on Odense, Favonian. I too always thought "Odense - Sankt Knuds kirke 2005-07-16.jpeg" was a suitable image but a short time ago it was removed in favour of St. Albani Church, File:Odense_St._Albani_Front_2.JPG, which I did not think properly represented Odense. As we are now having a general discussion on candidates for a box image, allow me to present some other options below:
  • City Hall
    City Hall
  • City Hall (used in Odense Municipality
    City Hall (used in Odense Municipality
  • St Albani
    St Albani
  • Andersen's childhood home
    Andersen's childhood home
  • Andersen's birthplace
    Andersen's birthplace
  • Alternative image of cathedral
    Alternative image of cathedral
  • Andersen statue & cathedral (cropped)
    Andersen statue & cathedral (cropped)

However, if there is no major disagreement, until we find something better we could return to "Odense - Sankt Knuds kirke 2005-07-16.jpeg" as suggested.--Ipigott (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Odense - Sankt Knuds kirke 2005-07-16.jpeg, please, let's not give the image thing any more time..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody lives. Thanks to all involved for what you've done to the article about the old town! Favonian (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odense/Archive_1&oldid=616358642"