User talk:Ipigott/Archive 10

Archive 10: September 2014 - February 2015

Johannes Østrup

Hello! Your submission of Johannes Østrup at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting this here even though you aren't the nominator; as the author you are probably the right person to address the issues. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of heritage registers

I notice Denmark or Luxemborg don't seem to have a list linked. Would you or @Ramblersen: be interested linking to lists of protected buildings? I'd thought Ramblersen had made some lists somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the link to the official heritage list for Luxembourg (which is rather difficult to follow and contains a lot of site references by number only). Sooner or later, it might be a good idea to prepare a full list for Wikipedia. In the lb wiki, there are separate lists for each locality. The Luxembourg City list might be worth adapting for the English wiki. Ramblersen has indeed been working on lots of lists of historic houses. I assume the large majority of the sites included are indeed nationally listed. The main list is List of historic houses in Denmark but there are also other lists under Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Denmark. Perhaps Ramblersen can help to sort things out.--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite scary isn't it when you look at it globally. Wikipedia eventually I'm sure will have an article on every listed monument on the planet. That alone would probably be several million articles!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of extremely productive Americans (e.g. User:Pubdog and User:Magicpiano) who seem to spend hours every day adding articles from the National Register of Historic Places. Most of Pubdog's 11,000 articles since 2008 are based on the Register and on a good day he can produce over a dozen new ones. With people like that, it should not be long before we hit the 10 million mark! My own approach, as you must know, is different: I try to cover places of interest in a given town or area which add to the interest of the place in question. I probably waste lots of time over-researching everything. If I can average two or three new articles a week, I think I'm doing really well! (BTW, some countries, e.g. Slovakia, only seem to have regional listings.)--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you or Ramb adding something to Dronningmølle?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ipigott:/@Dr. Blofeld: As for the List of Heritage registers, wouldn't a transfer of Fredede bygninger I Danmark and Bygningsfredning (perhaps merged into one article) be the main list/article for Denmark rather than the List of historic houses in Denmark as suggested above? Template:Denmark listed buildings shows which municipalities I have covered so far (not very many) but some of them need to be restructured and I suppose I should add a column with coordinates, right?Ramblersen (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As for Dronningmølle, I have expanded a bit here and thre. I haven't added anything on Dronningmølle's role as a hub for shipping of fire wood from Grib Forest to Copenhagen since I see that one of you have red lined Esrum Å and I wonder if it belongs there? I am a bit surprised to see the population figure fgor all of Gribskov Municipality in the infobox. Dronningmølle and Hornbæk have merged into Hornbæk-Dronningmølle which has a population of 5.198, wouldn't that number be more relevant?Ramblersen (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying these excellent lists and for volunteering to work on them for the English wiki. Please make whatever changes you feel necessary on Dronningsmölle. Thanks too for the photographs you took in the area. Still a bit bogged down with work on articles related to the Skagen Painters and the Odsherred Painters for the time being.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Johannes Østrup

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Skagen Painters

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Launching the Boat. Skagen

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Will He Round the Point?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sunlight in the Blue Room

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Summer Evening at Skagen Beach – The Artist and his Wife

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Midsummer Eve Bonfire on Skagen Beach

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The North Sea in Stormy Weather

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fascinating articles

I just came across your work on Skagen painters via DYK. Fantastic. I have done a bit of work around Australian artists of a similar period, and thought some of these images were fabulous. I was particularly struck by the innovative perspective in Sleeping boy and the dramatic compositions in many other works. Thanks for your contributions! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: Good to hear your liked the articles. I am aware of the Sydney artists' camps in the 1890s but am not too familiar with the artists who gathered there. I see you've written interesting biographies of quite a few Australian artists. When you mention those of the same period, you are no doubt referring to Iso Rae (and perhaps Arthur Baker-Clack) who were in the Etaples art colony, and Jane Sutherland who was one of several artists associated with Melbourne's Heidelberg School. I am thinking of encouraging work on female artists in connection with Women's History Month early next year. Perhaps you would like to help improve coverage of Australia in this connection?--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Iso Rae yes, but was in fact mainly thinking of Florence Fuller and Hilda Rix Nicholas. Women artists is my main area of interest, though also contemporary Indigenous Australian artists as well. I am concentrating on a RL project at the moment, but intend to get back to Violet Teague, Jessie Traill, Rosalie Gascoigne and a couple of others, toward the end of the year. Would love to be looped into Women's History Month; wasn't aware of it. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for opening my eyes to the achievements of both Fuller and Rix Nicholas: both excellent articles. Fuller certainly seems to share some of the features of the Skagen Painters. Glad to hear you are interested in Women's History Month. On the cultural scene, in recent years we've handled women photographers, women architects and women dancers with lots of additional biographies each time as well as top-down articles. As you seem to take a general interest in Australian culture, please add any missing bios (or names with references) to the various lists or sensitize your Wikipedian friends on the need for expansion. Women's History Month is in March but we usually make a start on Wikipedia around the end of January. I should perhaps also draw your attention to the recently established Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers which you might also like to address in regard to Australia. In connection with better coverage of women artists, we will certainly be collaborating with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists which is already progressing well.--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In case you have anything to add

Summer Evening at Skagen. The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore‎. It's also up at Featured Pictures. (My cousin has a copy of Northern Lights which she is going to send to me, but if there is anything in there to add in the meantime that would be lovely; I assuming you have it for some reason; I don't know why; ignore this if that's not the case.) Belle (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another great start on a Skagen painting. I actually have a copy of the original Danish edition of Malerne på Skagen. Unfortunately I left it in Denmark as I started to work on the Odsherred Painters before I returned to Luxembourg a week ago. However, I see I can access the Danish text here. As far as I can see, Svanholm's account coincides with what you already have in your article - but I'll look into it a bit more closely. I see that up to now you have been particularly attracted by Krøyer. Maybe we should try to establish more balance by writing articles on works by some of the other artists, especially Anna Ancher who is regarded by most Danes as the country's most successful female artist.--Ipigott (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the copy I'm getting will be in English or Danish (oooooohhhh, the anticipation). Doesn't seem to be much on it in that book anyway unless Google books is hiding it. I was thinking that the Skagen Painters template was a bit Krøyer heavy when I updated it earlier and have already started looking for sources on a couple of Anna's paintings (the ones I like) as she seems a bit neglected (though not as badly as poor Marie whose article looks basically to be the same as it was in 2004). To tell the truth I don't like much of her work; it's all empty rooms or handicrafts and people with their backs to you (so speaks the 21st century's premier art critic; that'll be quoted in the article on her in a hundred years time; or maybe not) This is my 2000th edit; wooo; give me a medal Belle (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Svanholm does not have an awful lot to say about the painting. I have the feeling she thinks it is over-publicized (which it certainly is in Denmark). In your article, maybe you would like to change the "blue hour" to "l'heure bleue" (linked to blue hour). That is the term Krøyer used himself (even in Danish). It is a concept which is quite common in art and is used in English too. Krøyer even titled one of his paintings L'heure bleue. I had intended to expand the article on Marie Krøyer but there is so much more one could do with so many artists. Skagens Museum had a special exhibition on her a while back. See http://www.skagensmuseum.dk/en/exhibitions/former-exhibitions/marie-kroeyer-alfven/. There's also a good source here. And don't forget the film The Passion of Marie which I found extremely interesting and revealing. Maybe we could work her biography up to GA together?--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made that change (Danish, English and French in the same article; how to confuse the monolingual). I wouldn't mind working on Marie, but bear in mind I'm a GA virgin so don't expect too much (plus I'm going to be away a fair bit over the next few weeks); still I don't suppose I'll make it worse. I saw the première of The Passion of Marie at the Imperial in Copenhagen (not quite; I didn't see the film, but I saw lots of people going in for the première and thought I should watch the film at some point) Belle (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear you get to Copenhagen from time to time. I don't know if we'll be able to take the Marie Krøyer article all the way to GA but it's good to aim for real improvements in quality. I've already started working on it a bit and will continue today. After I've been through the whole thing once and added in-line references, I'm sure you'll be able to come in and tune things up. To do a really good job, though, I would really like to get hold of more of the books about her. I'll be back in Denmark in early October and will try to get them from the library. I think it would also be useful to add a bit more about Marie Krøyer on the Summer Evening at Skagen painting. I'll see what I can do.--Ipigott (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get the dreaded "edit conflict" so I'm holding off until later (I've found some stuff in Svanholm about her engagement to Robert Hirschsprung). I noticed you changed her debut to 1891 in Den Frie, but I can't find any evidence she did not debut at Charlottenborg in 1888. Have you confused access to Kunstakademiet (as stated here) with access to Charlottenborg? (Otherwise the statement will need a new citation as the one currently there says she debuted at Charlottonborg in 1888). It's going pretty well though, don't you think? (thanks to your hard work) Belle (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree edit conflicts can be hard to sort out but thanks for taking an interest at this stage anyway. I think I'll probably be more or less through with my first round of edits this afternoon. It is highly unlikely she debuted at Charlottenborg as it was supported by the Academy and women were not admitted. Whoever introduced the passage was probably referring to her presence there when she accompanied Søren Krøyer in 1888. All accepted submissions to Charlottenborg are recorded in Weilbach and there is nothing there. All they have is "Den frie Udst. 1891", etc. I think I already changed the ref. If there's still an unreliable source, it should be deleted. I now need to add a section on Marie's decorative talents. Maybe later I'll add a section on her appearance in Krøyer's paintings (particularly in Hip, Hip, Hurra! where Vibeke was added later) and the Sankt Hans bonfire (in which Krøyer was open enough to paint her together with Alfvén). But I can do that in a sandbox.--Ipigott (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is strange that so many sources claim she made her debut at Charlottenborg; it's hard to believe that they are all making the same mistake (more digging required I think). Den Frie does confirm that she was a member there from 1891 though: [1], so that bit isn't wrong; it is just a question as to whether that was her first showing. Also, I think it is Helga Ancher that was added later to Hip, Hip; Marie wasn't around in Skagen when Krøyer painted it. Belle (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about Helga. I was mixing the two kids up. One of the problems with sources is that if a Wikipedia article has been around for a long time, new accounts tend to draw on it. I am serious about Weilbach. If they do not list a painting at Charlottenborg, then there was none. Women were first admitted to the Royal Danish Academy in 1888 and you will not find any of their works officially listed until later. BTW, what is the source referring to her submission to Charlottenborg in 1888? It is probably all based on the Danish article which does not give a specific reference. Or have you found something more? Have you now received a copy of Northern Light?--Ipigott (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about this: [2]? I was just doing a Google search on "Marie Krøyer Charlottenborg" to get those results, but thinking about it it doesn't really make sense anyway; as Krøyer's wife she might have had status enough to be among the first women to exhibit, but in 1888 she was still a student. I haven't got Northern Lights yet; I'm just cribbing it from Google books. Belle (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. You can get the full picture here. I've used it as one of my sources. You can certainly submit to Charlottenborg as a student. Like many others, my niece Eva Louise Buus was able to do so. It's strange how Google books provides different coverage depending on where you are. I normally get very little of the English previews in Denmark and Luxembourg but my American friends usually get far wider coverage. Perhaps you do too. Just about finished for today now. Give me half an hour or so.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can submit as a student now, but they would have probably sneered at a woman student in 1888. I seem to get both English and Danish previews of most of the book (I will have read it by the time it turns up, but I can look at the pictures). Belle (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Belle: It all yours now. I know there's now quite a bit of duplication but I won't touch it again until tomorrow. Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if you left me anything to do. Belle (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you think to having a bit of a gallery across the bottom of the the "Life with Krøyer" section showing a few of the pictures he painted of her? There is a bit of a progression of their married life to be told with that: the idealized pictures of their earlier days, the awkward walk on the beach together and the flames licking towards her and her lover at the bonfire. (I can probably do that if you think it is a good idea, I'm getting quite into the image templates now; it's as much fun as poking yourself in the eyes.) Back in a bit. Belle (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Marie Krøyer

@Belle: I am continuing the above discussion here with a new heading to make it easier to access. I was indeed also intending to add a section with a gallery of a few telling images of Krøyer's paintings of Marie but on reflection (and given your own enthusiasm) I was wondering if we could not handle this in two stages: first a fairly short addition to the Marie Krøyer article along the lines you suggest (please go ahead with it if you wish) and second a new article on P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie Krøyer (not sure if that's the best title), perhaps along the lines of this Russian article which contains a host of relevant pictures and photographs. It could also draw on the articles we have already written on some of the paintings. As for the addition to the Marie Krøyer article itself, maybe a subsection titled "Marie in Krøyer's paintings" would be the best way to handle it. Thanks for the other useful work you have contributed to the article. --Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This one also contains some interesting images.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

She looks so ground down in that photo from 1904, poor thing; what a pity. I was thinking of the separate article too (I was thinking of Marie Krøyer in P.S. Krøyer's works, as there are some sketches and photo's that would fit in too); if it is a list we can add as little or much detail on each work as we like. (This project is a monster!) Belle (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There are in fact lots more photographs of her during her "Krøyer period" if you look around - but you are quite right, she was really run down, especially in the 1904 photo with Vibeke. As for the article, I would prefer Krøyer (P.S. or Peder Severin) first in the title as he is in fact the artist. Variants, such as what you suggest, could be redirects. I would prefer an article rather than a list. We already have a list of Krøyer's works and we can add to that. Even if the article is called "P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie Krøyer", we can still include photographs, sketches and related images. I think the article should address Krøyer's overall interest in Marie as illustrated in his art. Maybe we should start it in a sandbox so that we can decide on a final title later.--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the title (maybe "pictures of", "works featuring", "depictions of" or something to broaden it out). The only reason I suggested a list is there are so many pictures that we'll run out of accompanying text and have a big trail of images (unless you zoom your text size up to 300pt). Perhaps we could have a list at the end of the article (though I'm sure that sort of hybridization will give the keepers of the MoS palpitations) Belle (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an easy solution to this: we include only the most relevant images against the text, leaving the remainder to a real gallery (maybe in dated sections) at the end of the article or at the end of relevant passages. A few years ago, I spend quite some time on improving coverage of Van Gogh. Have a look at the main article and some of the related articles listed in the template and you'll see what I mean. Dr. Blofeld is also great at grouping images in twos or threes and could certainly help out when we get that far. I still think Krøyer's paintings should form the basis of the article. Other images (including photographs and paintings by other artists) should be used mainly in support. Some day, when we have covered all the other areas of Danish art and culture, it may be interesting to write an article on Role of photography for the Skagen Painters - but that's another story.--Ipigott (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I also see you've made progress with Krøyer's paintings of Marie in the article but don't you think there should be an accompanying narrative? Would you like to do it or should I?--Ipigott (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away for the past few days, and see you've done a great job on the new article (do you sleep?). I've nominated it for DYK, I hope you don't mind. I see you've also done Nationaltidende which I'd left partly completed in Notepad to finish off today, but you've saved me the bother as I was only paraphrasing the Store Danske article that you've used. I'm not going to be around much for the next two weeks (I'll be popping in and out this week, but then I am away from civilisation for a week; on a boat; I dare say they have wifi on board, but I don't intend to use it) Belle (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at your edits when you left me this message. Thanks for all your diligent changes and for nomming for DYK. There are quite a few more paintings I would have liked to include (especially the watercolours in the Copenhagen and Skagen homes), but there again seem to be problems with uploading. As for Nationaltidende, most of the content come from the Danish Newpapers site. I also added a snippet on Carl Hartmann (sculptor) which could be expanded if you think it worthwhile. Enjoy your boat trip. Where are you going?--Ipigott (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know; somewhere round Costa Del Sol/Morocco I should think. I'm meeting a friend in Puerto Banús and setting off from there. Belle (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Should be able to get it up to GA with a bit of work. Ian, I know you tend to focus on Danish topics but I was wondering if you'd be interested on getting an Italian town like Cortina d'Ampezzo up to GA status. It's long fascinated me that town. Looking at the Italian wiki article here♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Cortina d'Ampezzo

Cortina d'Ampezzo is indeed an interesting place in impressive Alpine surroundings. I first went there in the early 1960s and can remember how expensive everything was there. I see you added quite a bit of content to the article yourself in June 2008. The Italian article is GA despite the fact that much of it is unreferenced, often relying on links to other unreferenced articles! To do justice to the English version would nevertheless require considerable time and effort, especially on the sourcing. I suppose one way of going about it would be to translate parts of the Italian version and use the Italian references where they appear. I am no expert on the town or the region but with its international reputation, I am certain it is also very well covered in the English literature. Perhaps I could make a start on the History and Culture sections before committing myself any further. Maybe you would like to deal with some of the other sections? Surprisingly none of the English articles on Italian towns and cities have reached GA or higher. Maybe you should also trigger efforts to improve Rome and Venice (each around 100,000 page views a month), or even Florence and Milan (with around 70,000 pvpm)? Cortina has only around 5,000 pvpm (slightly less than Skagen).--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've long wanted to get it up to as good a status as possible. Back then it didn't seem possible but now it does. Of course a city like Rome or Milan at GA would be very valuable but I've always thought Cortina an interesting, glamorous place. The best thing I think would be to translate from Italian wikipedia in stages and then to find sources or use their ones if possible and then I can find additional info. Up to you if you're interested though! I'm happy to crack on with Danish cities, but I thought an Italian one might make a change, and I have GAs for UK, France and Spain. If you are interested in translating the history of Cortina though this would be a great start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Variety is the spice of life and it's quite a time since I did anything about Italy. So over the next few days, I'll have a go at the history. There is in fact a separate article in the Italian wiki, it:Storia di Cortina d'Ampezzo, which draws quite heavily on Storia di Cortina d'Ampezzo by Mario Ferruccio Belli. Unfortunately is not accessible.--Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The history doesn't look too long, so should probably fit in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

.:Will try to make a start tomorrow. In the meantime, have another look at P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you proof Province of Caserta?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you just check the geography and climate of Province of Guadalajara too? I found that one tricky.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I know Guadalajara well. But it's in Spain, not Italy. I have made an offer on Italy but Spain is an entirely different kettle of fish. See my emails!--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the only Spanish one, the rest will be Provinces of Italy. No worries. I should be able to find somebody else to check it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• You obviously had not read my emails. I think you should concentrate on Spanish provinces. I am much more familiar with Spain and things Spanish than with Italy. But Spanish provinces cost Ptas 14.500 a time (with a reduction of 15% for five or more). You'll see that's a much better deal than for the Italians.--Ipigott (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

They simply happen to be entries for Wikipedia:Stub contest. I'm not picking Spain or Italy especially! In fact I'd rather be expanding African provinces like I've been doing for it but I've been running out of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie

(continued from above) I did yeah. I think there's way too many images in it and too many short sections but I'm not sure how to tackle it. Gallery images in sections are fine when there chunks of paragraphs above, but when they're relatively short, and with inline photos as well it looks way too cluttered. I'd probably move most of the images to an end gallery like Skagen and just use double images inline for the most notable ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a fair bit of pruning and I think it looks less cluttered now. I've given it a read and minor edits and have asked Tim to review it. Excellent work! You might want to address some of the access dates though, I spotted one for something like 2 August or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I've reverted most of your rearrangement, as it moved (or removed) the images making it more difficult to put them in context in relation to the text. I think the article needs to be grouping them thematically so the reader can see Krøyer's methods and development (and I don't think they are clutter anyway; that's a shopping trolley full of empty cans and string). Belle (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed. Good articles don't consist of very small sections with more images than text. Your version looks like a gallery rather than an encyclopedia article. Please don't get into an edit war on this. You can't have short sections and galleries in each of them. It would be different if every sub section had sizable chunks of text but they don't. It really disrupts the flow of the article having short sections dominated by images. It looks much more coherent with merged sections with galleries placed at the bottom and key image at the sides. I know you're very into imagery but it is an encyclopedia article and I'm sure Tim would say the same thing that it looked too cluttered that way. If you want it to the pass GA, just trust me on this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in it passing GA to the detriment of the reader; have at it. (What's an edit war? Is that when somebody ignores "Bold, revert, discuss" to reimpose their preferred version?) Belle (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, with due respect, Ian and myself do have an interest in it passing GA which is why I made the changes. He asked me to edit it in hope of it passing GA, which it will. I understand why you want to cover each one in stages; it would be different if every sub section had sizable chunks of text in which you could systematically analyse each painting in which the text is far greater than than the imagery but they don't. The imagery placed like that looked too excessive with short sections which make the overall article look less encyclopedic than it really is. I'd actually argue the opposite and that short sections disrupts the flow of the prose to the detriment of the reader. It's not an art gallery, it's supposed to be a good overview of the topic presented as one. Perhaps we can come to some form of compromise on this depending on what Ian thinks. I'm not strictly against covering in stages, but I am if the text isn't adequate to hold separate sub sections which are dominated by the imagery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is not an art gallery, the mini-galleries merely illustrated points in the text; there's nothing unencyclopedic in that, regardless of whether the sections are "sizeable chunks" or not. If we are telling the readers about a picture or its influences then they are (if we've done our job right) going to want to see examples. What's encyclopaedic about making them go and search for those themselves? That's what will break the flow. This attitude is why I originally suggested we do it as a list, as we could have gone mad with the images then (mad, mad, MAAAD!). Anyway, as I said, if GA is the aim, have at it; I simply won't touch it any more (and I won't pretend that's an earth shattering blow to Wikipedia either, though I might do a little tut under my breath before I forget about it). Belle (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What I suggest is adding a (Exhibit A), Exhibit B) in brackets after the painting name and then in the gallery. I did suggest that to Ian even in the original version. That should resolve the issue which was apparent in the first place with matching things up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved this into a new section as others might like to follow this discussion. I see quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the last 24 hours on this. May I first of all say that I think Belle's comments and edits deserve more careful consideration. I think we need to find some middle ground between the list she initially proposed and an article format which really displays the paintings in their historical context. It is unfortunate that after her excellent work on this and related articles, Belle now feels so upset about some of the recent changes made to the article. I can also see that Dr. Blofeld has been doing his best to improve the quality of the article in line with generally recognized Wikipedia quality standards. What I find most surprising is that the article appears to have lost an important aspect of its content as a result of the deletion of the photographs on which Krøyer based the corresponding paintings. If the article appeared littered with images, this is mainly because I added them myself, hoping to provide something of a chronology of the various stages in Krøyer's approach. I can certainly go along with the first gallery which groups the early portraits with those from Italy but I am less happy with mixing the beach scenes with the watercolours. I would like to see these separated again, either by including two separate gallery sections or perhaps by replacing the gallery images by smaller, grouped images in the running text. I do not much like the "Exhibit" approach but we could perhaps add one or two subheadings to the gallery sections. That would still allow the images to be grouped together but would make it more clear how they relate to the text. It might also provide an opportunity to add at least one of the photographs, the other one could be accessed via a link. In this connection, and until things have been sorted out to everyone's satisfaction, I think it might be sensible to inform Tim riley (who has kindly agreed to undertake the GA review) that we might need a day or two to straighten things out. I hope too that Belle will continue to show interest in the article. She is relatively new to Wikipedia and should not be frightened off by differences of opinion. Maybe this discussion should also be copied to the article's talk page?--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a way to avoid short sections and disperse the images much as before I'd be OK with that. I edited it yesterday on Safari though with the standard very small text so each section looked very short with two many images. On my firefox browser with larger font and settings the earlier version doesn't look so bad.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stray opinions: WP articles should look good on a phone 6cm wide or less, which is how they will usually be seen. That means being very cautious about overriding the default 220px float right for thumbs. Gallery mode=packed is o.k., but generally should not specify heights. Wikipedia is primarily a text medium. WP articles must work for the blind, including and perhaps especially articles about paintings. Wikimedia is the visual companion to Wikipedia, more than just a place to store images. All the pictures should be in a Wikimedia category with the same name as this article, with a commonscat pointer. They can be given defaultsort to control the sequence in which they appear, typically chronological, and reasonable descriptions so the WM category slideshow is organized and informative. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Aymatth2, for offering this advice. I frequently view my Wikipedia articles on smart phones with small screens. I have actually found that the packed mode without a height spec produces very small images on an iphone or an ipad. If larger heights are specified, they come out much better, almost filling the screen in this case - which is what people need if they are to see the views properly. To demonstrate what I mean, I have copied the article without the gallery heights to user:Ipigott/Sandbox2 which you might like to view on both your desktop and your smart phone. Thanks too for your advice on Wikimedia. I can certainly add a new category as you suggest but I do not know to what extent the existing descriptions should be edited. There may also be a problem with the dates in cases where none is specified or when the date refers to when the image was uploaded (unless the category:xxxxpaintings is taken into consideration). Not many Wikipedia articles are specifically about paintings. When they are, I think it is important that the paintings described in the text should appear clearly whatever the screen size, whether desktop or mobile. In connection with mobiles, it is also extremely important to ensure the images are in the section to which they apply otherwise they will not be displayed when the section is opened.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Break

Sandbox looks good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not look good on mobiles, unfortunately. You cannot see any detail at all in the bonfire painting and the other gallery images are too small too. Have you compared it with the current version of the article itself? I don't know whether I'll have time today but Belle has suggested I compare two different versions. I have however read the current version through and it seems to me the text is fine. By tomorrow, I think we should be able to go ahead with the review. I've already changed the licence for the double portrait. With these issues, I've unfortunately had no time for your Italian articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for being patient with my suggestions. I have tweaked the sandbox version to take out more of the formatting, e.g. thumb sizes and positions. I think it looks o.k. on a laptop/tablet. The first gallery seems a bit crowded. I would say the problem on mobiles is due to a software bug: below a certain screen size the images should simply maximize to fit the available width. I prefer to let the software do what it can to adapt to the viewing device – tell it what to display, but not how to display it. Again, Wikipedia is mostly a text medium. The user will see Wikimedia as a visual-oriented extension, not as something very different, so we should too. On Wikimedia, I prefer to treat the images as part of a slideshow. Each picture should have a solid description, two or three sentences long. The sort key is whatever you choose. E.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:1897b}}. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• If we could get the software to work effectively on both laptops/desktops and mobiles, I think your tweaked version might indeed be the solution. I have tried it out on various browsers and the results seem to be the same. I cannot understand why the first set of packed images are reasonably large while the second set is tiny. Of course people can click on the images to move into a slideshow but then they leave the text of the article - so it is all something of a Hobson's choice. Nevertheless, as both Dr. Blofeld and you yourself seem to feel very strongly about default image sizes, I suppose I ought to respect your wishes. The only problems is that is simply have not been able to find the time to do all the cross checking but I will now simply replace the current version of the article by the sandbox version in the hope that I can find time to edit it further in the next day or two. I'll also try to follow up on all the suggestions in regard to Commons although I can seen it will require a fair amount of work, not just on the images in the article but on all those that have not been included. I'll try to keep you informed of progress. Thanks once again for taking the time and trouble to look into this.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• On my laptop I get the different results on IE, Firefox, and Chrome. I get the feeling the mode=packed logic is still being tweaked. It seems to default to quite small images, maybe 120px high. Then, whether or not heights have been specified, if the gallery is maybe 70% or more of available width it then changes the image sizes to fill the available width. Something like that. You can experiment by zooming to 80%, 150% etc. I don't feel really strongly about heights in a gallery, but find images that are too large distracting. If the reader really wants to examine the picture, they will click on the thumb. If they are reading about the image, a standard thumb size should be enough for them to glance from the text to the image to see what the text is referring to. Maybe for now, until mode=packed is fixed, the answer is to generally leave thumbs with the default, and specify gallery heights that make the images about the same size as thumbs, maybe 160px or 180px. Probably purely a question of personal preference. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• In virtually all the articles I have written about subjects other than art, I have simply used default thumbs although sometimes I have positioned several of them "left" as it often provides for a better display of the text. Nevertheless, in articles specifically about paintings (rather than biographies about artists), I have found it important to try to ensure image sizes which actually allow the user to follow the comments in the text without clicking out of the article. Once an enlarged images comes up after clicking on the smaller image in the article, people are often tempted to view other images and other articles - which I think should be avoided wherever possible. It has been argued that large images are not encyclopaedic but I can assure you and Dr. Blofeld that not only encyclopaedic works devoted to art but also many general purpose encyclopaedias have large colour plates, often full page size, to illustrate the text of an article. I think we need to find some kind of compromise. Maybe one of our image experts like Elekhh could look into this and try to debug some of the software problems, especially for the mobile environment. As you rightly point out, mobile is increasingly the mode for viewing. After I have sorted out one or two pending problems with the article, I think we should give the go-ahead for the GA review as it will certainly also provide useful advice.--Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article must be accessible to the blind, obviously, so should read well if all the images are removed. I think this article is fine in that respect. I do not mind at all if a reader strays off into other subjects. Everyone knows how to use the back button. They can return if they want to.
  The layout of a printed book is a simpler problem than that of a web page, which has to adjust to different sizes and shapes.
  It is rare to see an image in a printed book with text running down one side in ragged lines 10 characters long.
  That can happen with large images viewed on a small display. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"I can assure you and Dr. Blofeld that not only encyclopaedic works devoted to art but also many general purpose encyclopaedias have large colour plates, often full page size, to illustrate the text of an article." - Well, yes, that is true, but in providing a web page we can't exactly have full page size images.. My main concern anyway was not the image size but the frequency of galleries in sections too short to hold them. If each section had several chunks of paragraphs so that the images don't overwhelm the text, I'd support the previous format.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Spain/Italy

Thanks for your work on Guadalajara. History looks very good. I've expanded the Province of Pisa and Province of Trapani with a translation from Italian, I'm confident on Trapani but some of the sentences in Pisa could probably use a check. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look a Pisa. In editing Guadalajara, I've discovered there is a huge amount of work to be done on important Spanish landmarks: castles, palaces, cathedrals, etc. Most of those with the Bien de Interés Cultural status exist in the English wiki as incorrectly titled mini-stubs. Maybe it's the kind of thing you would like to tackle with Rosiestep? For example, if you look at List of castles in Spain, you will see that virtually all of them (including all the red links) are given as Castle of Abc rather than Abc Castle. As a result, even those which have been started in English carry incorrect titles. Do you think it's worth bothering about?--

Thanks for that. At one point I did start creating lists of Bien de Interes by province but the scale of the task seemed too huge. It's not just Guada but the whole of Spain really, although Malaga area isn't too bad. I may resume on that next month but right now it's more Italian provinces for the contest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked Cavarrone to help with the proofing. Province of Brindisi could particularly use some expansion work as I haven't really done it justice, geology section might need checking most. No worries if you're busy though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Some Neopolitan ice cream for you!!

	Neopolitan ice cream
	You're definitely deserving of an Italian-made Neopolitan for your efforts in helping with the Italian province articles!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Still on a learning curve!--Ipigott (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm back

I just thought I'd let you know as I see everybody has been waiting with baited breath for my input on the paintings. I'm not going to leap straight back in as I'm too chilled from my holiday, but I will look at it as soon as I can prop myself up from the horizontal. (I didn't think you were treating me like a child btw, just showing some concern for a nearly newbie; I don't want to give the impression I need mollycoddling though, I'm quite proficient at all sorts of nasty tortures to inflict on my enemies). Belle (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. Glad to see you're back to editing Marie.--Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Impressive participation

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I was not seriously going in for the stub contest, just listing the ones I was doing anyway for DYK in order to score for the WikiCup. When I realised that Godot13 was going to score so heavily in the Cup with his featured pictures as to make anyone else winning it virtually impossible, I decided to go all out for the stub competition instead. But we had got to the 29th of September by then and I was too late to catch up :-) I also have two FACs on the go but whether Rodent will be successful is questionable. I see you're keeping busy yourself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: 85 articles is astonishing! I'm not sure what attracts you to the wikicup, I've never found anything motivating about it, am I missing something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a competitive streak, and the WikiCup motivates me to do things I otherwise would not have done. If you were to participate in the WikiCup, I think you would be a worthy antagonist. Were you not motivated by the prospect of winning, to work harder in the last few days of the stub contest? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the potential of a reward a motivator, as well as getting me to go that step further to destub core articles. It always makes me feel like there's more purpose to it and that my work is more appreciated that way. As far as I can see the WikiCup doesn't have a reward other than barnstars!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely it has a cup? Belle (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Only in the form of an image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What a swindle! Belle (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

House of Music (Aalborg)

I was so amused to see this, User talk:Rosiestep#Your submission at Articles for creation: House of Music (Aalborg) has been accepted, and thought you'd get a chuckle from it, too. I remember someone was trying to create the Music article at the time we were working on Aalborg, and then I completely forgot about it. I should have rescued House of Music immediately from AfC rather than let it languish there for over a year. But better late than never. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You were of course right to support it as it is indeed an important topic. In fact just last week Crown Prince Frederik and Princess Mary presented their cultural awards there. See Crown Prince Couple's Awards. But now there is a bit of a problem as in the meantime we also have the article Musikkens Hus which causes duplication. I would suggest merging House of Music into Musikkens Hus (unless you would like to do it the other way round). What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

See the talk page, Anne has said she'll do it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Windmill sails

Please be aware that the various type of windmill sails are always speeld with a capital letter on the first word - Common sails, Spring sails, Patent sails etc. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I enjoyed reading your interesting article. In fact I have written quite a few articles on windmills myself, especially those in Denmark (which you have listed so well). Thanks for your rapid feedback on De Vrijheid, Beesd. If it is indeed the case that terms referring to the various types of windmill sails require capitalization of just the first word in the term (and it would be good to have a reliable source as the usage seems rather strange to me), then there is obviously quite a bit of work to be done, starting with the article on Windmill sail itself. You might also like to look here for many other examples of "common sails" in lower case. I have searched in vain for an authoritative source on the capitalization of these terms. Even articles such as Wing systems in the Netherlands use lower case while Wikipedia's Glossary_of_mill_machinery (which you have edited on more than one occasion) uses capitalization of all the words in the terms (not just the first one) for Common Sails, Spring Sails, Roller Reefing Sails and Patent Sails while the authoritative work Power from Wind: A History of Windmill Technology consistently uses lower case. Perhaps you can direct me to the source you have been using? We obviously need to sort this out.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie

Ipigott, Cas Liber has reviewed this nomination, and has a minor issue that needs taking care of before a tick can be given. I was wondering whether you could take care of it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Golden Hall (Stockholm City Hall)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for P. S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie‎

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Chiesa di San Francesco (Orvieto)

Any chance you could translate this one? Or the prettier Chiesa di San Giovenale (Orvieto). Are you still interested in Cortina and Danish cities BTW? Cortina's one I'd like to get to GA over Christmas period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again. I'll try to do the Chiesa tomorrow. I did in fact start working on the history of Cortina but then must have been distracted by something or other. We could try to work on it together although I think it might turn out to be quite a tough assignment. I see you first mentioned Pisa too. That could also be interesting. As you may have noticed, I've recently been trying to get rid of lots of red links in connection with Danish artists. I think I'll be finished with them in a few days now. I was going to do the architects too but that can wait. As for the Danish towns, I was intending to start on Roskilde soon. I see you've been doing an enormous amount of work on films. Quite an achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush of course, it's great that you've been doing lots of work on Danish artists! Yeah there's so much missing still, I think the best way to create films is by director or at least blue link those links which have been shut off in filmographies like Rita Hayworth. Some basic info is at least a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll do the two Italian churches tomorrow. Perhaps Cortina again in a week or so.--Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose someone else can do Chiesa di Sant'Andrea (Orvieto). Read all about it here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Danish Riviera

Glad to see yor article on Munkerup (nad all your biographies on Thorvaldsen Medal recipients!). Talking about that area, I have been wondering wheather it would be relevant with an article the Danish Riviera (it has its own quite flashy website but it seems to be down at the moment, at least on my computer). I must admit that I find the term rather tacky but it is on the other hand consistently used in English for the north coast of Zealand in touristy contexts. It could perhaps be a useful overview article for the area. Do you think it deserves an article and if so would you be interested in creating it?

Another possible article in the area would be on the Kongernes Nordsjææland national park which will soon be established and the term is already used by tourist organisations. It already has a stub in Danish in will probably soon get one when a formal decision is made, so I don't think it would be premature to start an article on it. It could provide an overview of the roual holdings and activities in the area (the residences, breeding of Frederiksborg horses etc). The visitor centre will be located at Esrom Abbey. Again would you or perhaps Dr. Blofeld be interested in creating such an article?

The north of Zealand has a quite high and increasing influx of international tourists so I think it deserves some more well-written coverage than what I am able to give it.Ramblersen (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do in the next few days although I think we should be careful not to make Wikipedia a travel site. But a neutral article with the advantages and disadvantages of the area would no doubt be useful. I must say, although I know the area pretty well myself, I have never heard it called the Danish Riviera. The OED defines "riviera" as "A coastal region with a subtropical climate and vegetation". That is hardly the case in the north of Zealand. "Kongernes Nordsjælland" appears not only to be the name of the planned national park but also of the whole area covered by the Danish Riviera. Maybe it would be better to title the article simply "North Zealand" which is in fact one of the 10 tourist regions covered here by Visit Denmark. There could be a redirect from "Danish Riviera" but then the article could also cover the area more comprehensively, perhaps along the lines of Bornholm. There is already an article on North Zealand at Wikitravel (as well as one on Kongernes Nordsjælland National Park). And I've found some interesting background here. I'll look at everything more carefully later.--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I really don't like the term either and the focus should definitely be on the area's history etc, similarly to the island-articles, so I think it would be a good idea to go with North Zealand. It also adds more flexibility when it comes to how big an area to include and less tedious repetitions in different, competing article. The national park will no doubt need an article on its own once it has been established formally but it can then focus on the nature and just have a short section on the cultural history which explains the the name and refers to North Zealand as the main article. When I reffered to tourism, it was only in relation to how relevant it will be to English-speeking readers.10:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Ramblersen (talk)

Sorry to bring this up after you have already started working on North Zealand but I wonder if it would actually be better to focus on the Zealand article, focussing on the parts outside the Greater Copenhagen area and some general aspects (Sjællandske Lov, early centres etc)? Don't misunderstand me, I would still love to see an article specifically about North Zealand but I just became a bit uncertain wheater there is "room" for it between an expanded Zealand article and the different articles about more specific localities (the individual municipalities, towns etc) without too much overlapping. It would then of course cover the aspects that are particularly relevant to the north of Zealand so I don't think any research would be wasted. I still very much see the adventages in a specific North Zealand article, though, so I am all for continuing down that alley if you think it is the way to go. Sorry again for bringing this up now but I just thought it would be best to make absolutely sure that the right approach is taken.Ramblersen (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I've started expanding North Zealand I think I'll at least try to turn it into a reasonable article although you are of course quite right that work is needed on the Zealand article too. The Danish wiki also has embryonic articles on Nordvestsjælland, Nordøstsjælland, Sydsjælland, Sydvestsjælland and Østsjælland which I suppose could also be covered in the English wiki too. I'll see how it all goes. I would also like to cover the national park.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay sound good. Danish Wikipedia also has this article on landliggere but I'm not sure how useful it wil be.Ramblersen (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Award

		Mary Wollstonecraft Award
		The Mary Wollstonecraft Award is awarded to contributors who have helped improve the coverage of women writers and their work on Wikipedia through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. In particular, thank you for your efforts with the WikiProject Women writers start-up; your ideas and contributions are much appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Rosie for this award but I think it may be a little premature. I was in fact planning to encourage a strong drive on coverage of women writers in connection with Women's History Month next March. In that connection, I think we could try to improve the List of women writers and rearrange it on a country-by-country basis which I think would help with its expansion. Maybe we could start preparatory work in January or even before. I also think much could be done to improve the article Women's writing (literary category) by expanding on the world history of women writers (in all languages and not just English) and in all the various fields of literature.--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have learned that starting up a WikiProject takes courage and requires a lot of work and it cannot be done in a vacuum. Many editors said or did something worthwhile within the project pages since its inception. And that, my friend, is worthy of acknowledgement!

YES; let's promote women writers as the theme of 2015's Women's History Month. I think preparatory and promotion work, such as your ideas above, can start anytime. I see some efforts already at Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month, and shortly, I plan to do some editing on that page myself. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really do like making pages about where I live and more... I'll remember to write to you when I have a problem or get stuck. Thank you. Arbustum (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at the template and make sure to use it when necessary. Thank you for your tips. Arbustum (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Broken WikiProject tags

Ipigott, on this edit, you placed broken wikiproject tags. While {{Architecture}} worked, even though it shouldn't, your second tag was {{WikiProject}}, which put the boilerplate text for WikiProject tags on this talk page. I've fixed it, but please be more careful in the future. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

North Zealand

Eight now the section on Lakes and forests focuses exclusively on the area which will be covered by Kongernes Nordsjælland National Park. Should it perhaos also mention Jægersobrg Dyrehave, Mølleådalen and perhaos Farum Nature Park to better represent all of the area covered by the article?

I also wonder if the section on Developping tourism should be a subsection of a section on Economy as is done in many of the articles on cities (e g Aarhus? Right now Hillerød's biotechnology industry is mentioned under royal castles. And shouldn'y the section simply be called Tourism? Yes tourism is on the rise but that is a global trend really and the area is arguably the oldest tourist destination in Denmark so it isn't exactly a new thing. Should some of the more notable hotels and restaurants such as Kokkedal Slot, Havreholm Slot and Søllerød Kro perhaps be mentioned )again similarly to what is the case in for instance the Aarhus article)?Ramblersen (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ramblersen: Thanks for these additional suggestions. I am still working on your last list of possible additions. Perhaps I'll get to these latest suggestions in a day or two. As for Jægersborg Dyrehave, I thought this probably came more in the realm of Copenhagen but could of course add it as well. Maybe we could also start with a separate article on Mølleådalen which is not even covered in the Danish wiki? I had purposely included the section on tourism as it seemed to be the reason why you thought North Zealand deserved an article in its own right but I agree that other aspects of the economy could also be addressed. I have already mentioned the pharmaceuticals but maybe you can suggest some other important aspects and sources? As for inns and hotels, I am less experienced in their coverage than, for example, @Dr. Blofeld: but could try to make a start. The only problem is that over the whole region there must be quite a few. Perhaps you could cover some of them in your lists of historic buildings in the area? I'll try to take a wider look at the whole region tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Jægersborg Dtrehave belongs in the coverage of Copenhagen but if Lyngby-Taarbæk Municipality is included in the scope of this article, it does seem somewhat strange to exclude its most notable landmarks in the following sections. Perhaps the article should simply state that it only covers the area north of the Greater Copenhagen area then? Gribskov and Jægersborg Dyrehave (and Lille Dyrehave south of Hillerød, I suppose) does have their networks of paths that were created for paraforce hunting (not sure what the proper English term is) in common, though. The reason why I originally thought about articles on the national park and the coast was to avioud this overlapping but I agree that it would have led to just as many problematic destinctions and that one big article on North Zealand has other advvntages.

As for the hotels, I am not sure if you are referring to the lists of listed buildings or the one with historic houses. I am not sure how many hotels in North Zealand are located north of places like Bellevue which is already mentioned in the article. Kokkedal Slot and Havreholm Slot are both listed in the list of historic houses but none of the buildings are heritage listed and they do not have their own articles yet. Perhaps it is better just to exclude this topic, I just thought it would make the content more in line with similar sections in other articles.

I definitely think that Mølleåen deserves an article on its own. Danish Wikipedia has an article on it here, although it is as bad as all the other articles on Danish wikiepda. For a start I have made a list of the Industrial Heritage Sites of Denmark but I was not sure what name space to place it under so if you have a better title please tell me or simply move it.Ramblersen (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ramblersen: Thanks for your great list of industrial heritage sites. Re hotels, maybe it would be useful to include some historic inns, perhaps Bregnerød Kro in Farum, Fredensborg Store Kro, Hundested Kro, but I am really not sure which are the most important ones and cannot find any proper listings. Maybe you can help. I still have quite a bit more to add to your article in line with your suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see what I can find about the inns, although I am not sure how notable most of them (apart for Søllerød Kro) are.Ramblersen (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Then don't bother. It was just a thought.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to do, happy to help where possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Our friend Ramblersen had suggested we should include a section on hotels in the article on North Zealand. I know you recognize the importance of covering hotels and I just thought you might be interested in helping out. I really don't know how to go about finding the most deserving inns and hotels with reference to history, architecture, etc. Maybe you know some of the sources we should be looking at? Don't worry about it if you're busy with other things.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Site here with a few entries. Problem with hotels it's making the coverage look encyclopedic for general articles like that. As far as I can see none of them are really major city hotels. Hotel & Casino Marienlyst and a few others are notable enough though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned four that OK? The "slot" hotels are notable architecturally and should be started. If you or Ramb do start any can you add them to List of hotels: Countries D? Ideally we'd have a comprehensive List of hotels in Denmark though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We could indeed try to start a list of hotels for Denmark although I'm not sure on the basis of what criteria. For North Zealand Havreholm Slot looks interesting. Thanks.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

New Tamayo Museum

You may be interested in expanding this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why you think I might be interested in this one. Perhaps in a day or two if there's no rush.--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sainte-Jeanne-de-Chantal

Sainte-Jeanne-de-Chantal (Île Perrot) could certainly use pictures. I am about five hours drive away in good weather so am unlikely to take them myself. At this time of year I am thinking Costa Rica, not Montreal, for some reason. I searched on the web and could not find any free to use. I found some old pictures that may well be usable, i.e. probably created before 1949, but I don't have dates for them. I can't remember changing any pictures of Fanefjord Church. Maybe that was someone else? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Yes, I think I must have got the lines crossed in regard to Fanefjord. Nevertheless, I sympathize with your interest in Costa Rica. Great place to go. It's sunny every morning and it rains every afternoon. But the food's good and the coffee's really strong! Don't just lie on the beach. Take the steam train up to San José. ¡Buen viaje!--Ipigott (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you add a translation of the short lead on French wikipedia to Districts of Hungary. The articles I'll start soon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Dicte

Hi, I just started watching Dicte (TV series) on Netflix, and it's set in Aarhus! It's really nice to see Aarhus after all the article work on it. Are you familiar with the show? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we saw the first series last year and have recently seen the second series which I did not think was as good as the first. Glad to hear you enjoyed seeing the scenes of Aarhus. I see here the second series is already being streamed in the U.S.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Roskilde#Economy

The section on economy mentions some of "the city's smaller companies" but not really the bigger once. I have compiled a small list of some more companies which should perhaps be mentioned with references so that it shouldn't be too much hassle adding them in case you find some of them relevant. You will find the list in this sandbox

@Ramblersen: Thanks. Very useful. I'll follow up on this. I was wondering if you could provide any more background on employment in the public sector (e.g. major employers in education and administration). It would also be useful to have something on how Roskilde has coped with the crisis since 2008 (partly brought about by the bankruptcy of the Roskilde Bank perhaps?) and any developments liable to contribute to future prosperity.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be away for the rest of the day but I will try to find something on the topics you mention tonight or first thing tomorrow.

Take your time. There's absolutely no rush. It's going to take quite some time to cover all sections of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now added more links in the same sandbox which should at least provide some details on the topics you mention. I don't hope that I have added too many links. Just look at the once that seem relevant anf ignore the rest, they are just as much for my own use. As for the lack of news about the Risø Park, it needed a dispensation from the Finger Plan since it is located too far from a railway station (but it has now been granted) and a complaint has also been pending before the Nature Board of Appeal but everything should noiw be ready (source. The Børsen article which I linked yo is quite recent so I assume its reports of considerable interest should be trustworthy.Ramblersen (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't known if you have already noticed them but I have btw startd creating and populating [in art by municipality] categories on wikiepda commons, which should in time make it easy to get an overview of the topic.Ramblersen (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The art cats look useful.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ramblersen: I think I've managed to work in most of your suggestions but I was surprised to see that there was very little recent news about the new Risø DTU clean tech research park. Early announcements talked of ground-breaking early in 2014 but nothing seems to have happened yet.--Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work on Roskilde so far. Looking on google maps there seems to be a few quarries and water features in the southern part which I suspect are worth mentioning if they can be identified. There is a small lake by where the festival is held. Can you proof/source/improve the hospital stuff I added from here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. I still need to expand the section on the festival and will also look at the health coverage soon. Sankt Hans psychiatric hospital also needs to be included. I also need to do much more on the cathedral and the other landmarks. And of course education needs special attention too. Don't know whether it's worthwhile covering politics and the municipal administration. As for the distance from Copenhagen, from the Copenhagen city hall to Roskilde Cathedral, as the crow flies it's 30 km, the shortest distance by road (according to the Danish Krak maps) is 31.2 km and the distance by rail from Copenhagen Central Station to Roskilde Station is 32 km. Of course if you take the motorway, the distance is longer.--Ipigott (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Google maps is always an accurate source, I believe it is the distance from the old centre rather than the outskirts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the distance you give based on Google maps is misleading. Even on Google maps, if you specify no motorways, the basic itinerary is on the well-known Roskildevej which is almost a straight line from Copenhagen to Roskilde. It is given here as 33.7 km but that includes an appreciable loop on entering the Roskilde area. If you use krak and specify the same parameters under Ruteplan Bil (i.e. A = Rådhuspladsen, København V, B = Domkirkemuseet, Roskilde), and specify Korteste Rute (shortest route) the distance given is 31.2 km. Admittedly, if you take the fastest route by motorway, even Krak gives 35.3 km. I do not object to giving fastest distances by road in the geography section but in all the literature about Roskilde, the distance given from Copenhagen is about 30 km. See for example Den Store Danske. The points I have specified are really the city centres, not the outskirts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, change it then if you feel that strongly about it. I simply enter directions on google maps and jot down the figures it gives me. See here. That's the reading it gives me. On major cities it always goes from city centre I think, and Copenhagen is a big city. If you have sources which say 30km by road or whatever but by air and by road are two different things. "ca. 30 km vest for København;" would imply roughly 30 km as the crow flies and they'd be right. These distances are measured by road. 35.6 km is pretty precise, Krak gives 35.1, so at least 35 kilometres by road is fair. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I think care is needed in interpreting distances from Google maps. I know from experience that Google can often select a so-called faster route which may not be faster at all in practice (ditto GPS equipment). Take the distance between Luxembourg and Cologne for example: Google (default) gives it as 229 km whereas the (even faster) way I frequently go (see option via B51) is 194 km. I suppose you would simply take the distance by road as 229 km on the basis of Google maps default. I don't want to get into an extended discussion about this but I think when Den Store Danske gives 30 km and when the railway gives 32 km, then it is misleading to give a distance of 15% more in the lead. But keep it in the geography section if you wish (although it may be an idea to specify "by motorway"). I was just drawing on all the various sources I had found. Even the Wikipedia Roskildevej article states: "The total distance from Copenhagen City Hall Square to Algade in Roskilde is about 31 km."--Ipigott (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps state between 30 and 35 km and add a footnote that sources vary then? Agreed, it's not worth debating! I'm aware that often the distance google maps generates is misleading, in fact there's some villages in Scotland which are difficult to access and might not be ten miles from somewhere as the crow flies but end up being 25 miles by windy road. But I do state by road though and I'm pretty sure if you did a test from centre of Copenhagen to centre of Roskilde the google map reading would be pretty accurate. The two different routes both give 35k. something depending on the route, not like the Cologne-Luxembourg route where there's routes with wildly differing distances. Honestly, I'd be inclined to trust a google figure above other sources as it uses satellite data than older sources which state ca or about. Best to add in a footnote that other sources state nearer 30 or whatever.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't need to redo the test you suggest. I am very familiar with the bee-line Roskildgevej route I have explained above. Until the advent of the motorways, it was the main road from Copenhagen to Roskilde and was, as I explained, about 31 km. But let's just leave things the way they are now. I've been busy with all kinds of other things today but will try to get back to the article tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you'd like to contact google and tell them to buck their ideas up and get it right!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere but if has any interest the official length of Sekundærrute 156 (aka Roskildevej) from the Danish Transport Authority is 28.2 km (cf. the infobox here) but it only covers the distance from Hestetorvet in Roskilde to the beginning of Vesterbrogade (intersection with Pile Allé]] in Copenhagen, so Ipigott's number sounds very right.Ramblersen (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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.

Møstings Hus

added a link pointing to Neoclassical

Roskilde

added a link pointing to Viking Ship Museum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Luxembourgish Dictionary

Hello,

I have been working on a English-Luxembourgish dictionary for quite some time, here is what I have put on Wikipedia (to see how it looks): Please tell me if the translation is correct, and what needs improving- currently I am still on the letter A about 5 pages in.

Here is just the beginning

Thank you, and Merry Christmas!

Arbustum (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Arbustum: Hello Arbustum, I think it's great that one of our Polish immigrants should be working on an Enlgish-Luxembourgish dictionary. To tell you the truth, I worked for a Luxembourger for many years in the area of multilingual communications and his message was always that language was a media for communication. In this context, for him Luxembourgish was a language (he called it a dialect) for conversation at home or at the pub but not for really communicating because no one in the world spoke Luxembourgish apart from a few emigrants to the United States and Canada who soon forgot it. So although I have a pretty good passive knowledge of the language, I have strived to improve my high German instead of the local language. But things are changing and I have a daughter in her early 40s and a grandchild of 13 who are both fluent in the (now official) language who would love to help me to improve your dictionary. But give us a few days. We're up in Denmark now and it'll soon be Christmas. In the meantime Wesołych Świąt! or should I say Schéi Krëschtdeeg! --Ipigott (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Have a Merry Christmas. You are welcome to help; or anyone who knows the language is too. I have noticed there are no real Luxembourgish-English languages on-line, so my goal is to make one. Enjoy your Christmas break, - I have done a language map of Europe, which I will make available on my profile soon. Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!

Arbustum (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked into this?--Ipigott (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Scope of Roskilde template

I am wondering if we should also include Lejre Municipality in the Roskilde template, what do you think? Lejre Municipality completely lacks a major central town and can of course still get its own template but it is essentially part of the Greater Roskilde area and the two municipalities collaborate in a number of ways. I am in particularly thinking about articles such as Land of Legends (Sagnlandet Lejre), Ledreborg and Gammel Lejre.Ramblersen (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Entirely up to you. Maybe you could simply include Ledreborg under neighbourhoods and suburbs? Or perhaps it deserves a special section? Thanks for the additional work you have contributed to the template and the related articles.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Architecture of Madrid

Thanks for the note. I don't plan to do much more work on the architecture article, so if you have some improvements in mind, go ahead. Thanks for checking first. I agree with you that more cites would be good.

I've begun doing some significant editing of the Madrid main article, and will likely do some more. So far, nobody has reverted or commented, so it looks like people are okay with what I am doing. If you have any feedback on my edits, feel free to leave your comments on that article's talk page and I'll see your note there. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Roskilde

Good job, just doing the final polishing before nomming. I just quickly stubbed some red links:Hyrdehøj, Kongemarken, Margrethehåb, Sankt Jørgensbjerg and Trekroner. Can you and Ramb add a little to them?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you find anything on Kongemarken or Margrethehåb? If not I'll db author them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you find a source for "By that time, it was probably the largest and most important town in Denmark" in the history? Also is it Kongebakken or Kongemarken?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Can't really find anything worthwhile for inclusion. There are a few scanty bits and pieces on Margrethehåb here but as one of the captions says, it's still out in the country.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've included the source you need. I'll expand on the neighbourhoods in a short section on the "cityscape". Thanks for your help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Kongemarken and Kongebakken appear to be streets rather than districts.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah perhaps a summary for each in the main article would be good. I wasn't sure at first if they were villages or neighbourhoods. I see the review has already been taken, that's good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ipigott, you asked that I inform you of the GA nomination and I'm just letting you know that I have finished the GAN (at Talk:Roskilde/GA1) and is on hold, just some minor prose/referencing issues as expected, but it shouldn't take too long to address them. Thanks, and nice article! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

complet the translation from french to english

Hello Can you complet the translation and correct my mistakes of this page Rachid Mouffouk from french to english ?. Dr. Blofeld told me that you can help me for in this task. Thank you in advance.--Vikoula5 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done it already I think. I was just stating that in future, if you plan on doing a couple of articles that they have a better command of the language than me!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ramnøll in Roskilde

I know that I was the one who mentioned Rambøll but a small misunderstanding seems to have occurred. Rambøll has not moved its Danish operations to the city but only the local Zealand ones. O therefore don't think it is relevant to mention it in the lead either and it is at least not one of the biggest employers as the article reads now. On the other hand, I do think that Risø should be mentioned in the lead, being a quite big institution and one of the ones that most people identify with Roskilde. And with the new business park it could become one of the most important engines for growth in the future. In the section about transport, I think it would be worth a sentence to mention Copenhagen Airport as Roskilde's principal airport (direct train, 39 minutes)Ramblersen (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC) BTW, I would like to move my article on Roskildevej ro sekundærrute 156 but I am not sure what the correct translation into English is. Primærrute is translated as "Danish national road XX" but I can't seem to find the official translation of Sekunderrute anywhere, do you know it?Ramblersen (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to take care of all this when I am through with the GA queries. I don't know what the "official" translation of sekundærrute is but we certainly have secondary roads in the English-speaking world. I see here that Google also calls them secondary roads.--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ramblersen: I have tried to incorporate all your suggestions. Let me know if you have any other concerns.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just some very small things: Inn the section on Sankt Laurenti Church Tpwer, he article reads: "leaving only the tower which was built at the beginning of the 16th century and now forms part of the town hall on Stændertorvet". It is the former town hall since a new one was inaugurated in 2010. The building on Stændertorvet noe houses the tourist office, I don't know if that is worth mentioning. In the section on historic churches, it reads: "There are two other historic churches in Roskilde". Since Himmelev is now an integratyed part of the city, I suppise it could be argued that Himmelev Church is also a historic church in Roskilde. There is also Roskilde Klosterkirke which also belongs to the parish of Himmelev but in Rnglish that may be a chapel and not a church? Anyway, I just wondered if that sentence was accurate.Ramblersen (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look at this later. Thanks for all your additional work.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ramblersen: I'm not sure whether Himmelev Church is worth including in the Roskilde Article. It is certainly not as historically important as the other two although there was indeed a mention of a church on the site in 1184. It may nevertheless be worthwhile writing a short article on it. In addition to the Natmus write-up, there is info with illustrations on the Roskilde Historie site here. Unfortunately, as the church has not been covered by Nordens Kirker there are no photos of the interior and furnishings on Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What I was wondering was rather wheather it was necessary to mention that there are "two other historic churches" since the term seems a bit elastic, rather than to propose that Himmelev Church be covered in the main article. But if it works for you, it works for me. Would it be okay to add a "see also" link to the list of churches at the top of the section on historic churches? It can provide the reader with an easy (visual) overview pf the other churches and some links.Ramblersen (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done!--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I came across a small other thing (I promise it is the last one!): "Roskilde is located in northwestern Zealand". Shouldn't it be central Zealand, east-central Zealand or north-central Zealand? The distance from Zealand's east coast is as low as 15 km (Bay of Køge) or 30-somethig to Copenhagen/Amager. The distances to Gilleleje, Næstved and Kalundborg are all approximately 60 km. It is approximately 70 km to Korsør/Skælskør, 75 km to Vordingborg and 45 to the base of Sjællands Odde but 60 km to the tip of it. All in all pretty central but a bit more to the east and north. Ramblersen (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Madrid

You mentioned doing an article on architecture or something? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of going through the entire article on Madrid. Although it contains a lot of information, it lacks citations and much of it has not been touched since about 2007. My interest was triggered by the architecture section, recently split off as Architecture of Madrid, which also needs work. As Madrid is such an important city, I think it deserves the same quality of coverage as Paris. The only problem at the moment is that I am becoming increasingly involved in a number of other things. At Jaguar's suggestion, I have begun to work a bit on Portsmouth and I also intend to spend more and more time on women writers, compiling lists and biographies for the Nordic countries (and perhaps later for the continental European countries) in connection with Women's History Day and Women's Month in March. I had promised Rosiestep I would work on this but now realize it is far more challenging than the photographers, architects and dancers I covered in previous years. That's why I've started so soon. And then I would like to do more on Roskilde Cathedral and have not forgotten your own request for work on Cortina. But if you would like to make a start on Madrid, I could turn it up for further work from time to time. I think it would be time well spent. There are to be Spanish local elections, 2015 in May and Spanish general election, 2015 in October or November -- so Madrid will increasingly be in the news.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

After the Paris ordeal I think I'll give Madrid a miss! Now a smaller town in Spain or Italy I'm always open to! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine. That makes things easier for me too for now but someone really needs to go in and update some of the info. Maybe I'll post a request at WikiProject Spain.--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that would make things easier for you, if I was editing it surely it would require less work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The editing is not really the problem - it's all the additional bits and pieces you always encourage me to research, often in areas outside my normal field of interest: demographics, economy, politics... But these are the very aspects which need attention. I've made a plea on WP Spain but the project looks pretty moribund. I'll get back to Madrid sooner or later. The Spaniards are generally less assertive than the French so I don't expect anything like the Paris trouble.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

G'mornin, can you add more detail from the French book sources for Hotel Kandahar?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. I see it's up for deletion in Spanish too.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

architecture templates at talk pages of new wikis

Hi Ipigott, no offence please and thus just a  Comment:, as in general not my focus within EN-WP: started the past weeks also some Swiss architecture related wikis and just wondering... although adequate references added and pretty fine pictures, more text than the usual Swiss stubs, also no offense please, but always the same 'template related ratings' at the wiki talks, as your's some hours ago. Once more, just wondering and no offense please. Furthermore happy editings and kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roland zh: I enjoyed reading your article Augustinerkirche Zürich. Every day I look through the new articles related to architecture and add WikiProject templates to ensure they can be enhanced by other Wikipedians who follow the project. I thought the article was a borderline case between Start and C. I have now upgraded it to C as you are quite right in emphasizing the referencing. I was nevertheless a bit worried about the English prose. I realize you are not a native English speaker and can therefore be excused for the occasional unusual turn of phrase. I'll now go thought it myself and touch it up a bit. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, thank you very much, for your reply, and your edits of course :-) As remarked, absolutely no problem from my side, was just curious about the ratings in general. Your're right, just self-declared 'starting class' in wroten English language, therefore my usual analogue comment "...thank you for further 'Anglification' and enhancements respectively additions :-)", so from time to time starting wikis. I appreciate every regarded correction very much, learning by every correction, day by day. As even not a long list of imho missiking wikis, but plan long-ranging to complete the imho few missing Zürichsee' related wikis from time to time. Thank you very much and kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Schloss Nörvenich

Hi, can I interest you in this one? It has an article on de wiki but I can't link it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I could ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Telepathy! I had just written this: - Seems to be linked now. Forgive me if I hesitate on this one. The reason is that the castle is now closely linked to Hitler's favourite sculptor Arno Breker. The castle's so-called Museum Europäische Kunst was actually designed to house the surviving works of Breker. The German Arno Breker article states quite clearly "Auf Schloss Nörvenich (Kreis Düren) – seit 1980 im Besitz der Bodenstein-Familie – befindet sich das Museum Europäische Kunst, das im Wesentlichen der Arbeit Arno Brekers und Arbeiten seiner Künstlerfreunde Salvador Dalí und Ernst Fuchs gewidmet ist." Maybe Gerda Arendt would like to expand it?--Ipigott (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Aarhus was strongly associated with Hitler :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Strange comment. No doubt meant as a joke as to the best of my knowledge it is not factually correct (unless you can provide sources, of course). Furthermore, as you once pointed out, writing articles for Wikipedia should be fun. I simply thought I should point out why Nörvenich did not seem much fun to me. I'm glad Gerda finds it interesting and I'm sure she'll do a great job. I don't mind stepping in later and making some additional contributions but I didn't feel like researching the history of the museum. Anyway, I'm pretty busy for the time being with lots of work on women writers. Buen domingo!--Ipigott (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I found your reason equally strange. You didn't have any issues editing Aarhus which was the Gestapo headquarters during WWII! I'm sure there's thousands connected to Hitler in some way or form (often whether they liked it or not), should we avoid editing them for that reason? If you won't enjoy editing it then fair enough, but in building an encyclopedia I think we should leave our personal issues out of article writing. It's a beautiful looking building, and as a fan of architecture like yourself I thought it would be interesting for that reason. Never mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just added a bit for the general reader, not interested otherwise but happy about every Schloss not given as castle :) - I do your job, Dr. Blofeld, filling red links, and every one filled creates two more ;) - I have several plans, after those I would still rather do more on Konzerthaus Berlin (revisited yesterday as where a musical comedy premiered) than this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Nikkimaria if she can take a look at it, I vaguely remember her doing a good job on a building article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Aarhus article

Hello Ipi!

Thanks for your recent addition of Anders Holch Povlsen to the Aarhus article. I have added a little info on "his" article, as he resides at and owns the Constantinsborg Estate at Årslev Engsø just west of Aarhus.

There have been many edits to the Aarhus article since we raised it to the Good article status in the early autumn of 2014. What do you think about it all? User:Anosmosman have made almost all of the recent major edits and I issued a warning some time ago. I found some of his additions great, but he has also changed the image set-up on the page and he deleted some info that I found important. I was worried where this would lead. Thankfully he engaged in some constructive debate about it. But what do you think?

Take care

RhinoMind (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: Thanks for keeping in touch, RhinoMind. Yes, there have indeed been many changes to the article since I last worked on it for GA. Some seem to be good, others not so good, and the prose once again needs some serious copy editing. I am also a bit concerned about the lead: it used to provide a good summary of all the main sections of the article but now several sections seem to be missing. I don't really know what you would like me to do about it. I can go through the article quickly for ce, etc., but I am currently tied down with work on women writers which will take up most of my time until the end of March. Maybe Dr. Blofeld would also like to take a look. I may have something more to say after I've been through the article for copy editing. I see you have been working untiringly on the article yourself. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Great inputs. I felt quite alone with my critique and was primarily just interested in your (and others) opinions. I think I have stopped the edit-flood from Anosmoman for the moment and made him contemplate about his own future edits. He seems to be a new editor on WP, but knows the ropes to a certain degree. He just needed to be poked and reminded that WP is a collaborative project and that edits should be constructive to be of value. I don't blame him, just wanted to make him aware and improve his future contributions.

I don't think you (or we) should do much. That would not be fair. And as you point out, we are also engaged in so much else, that it would be a tiresome job for us. I (or you) might post the concerns that you express here, on the Aarhus Talk-page later on and then perhaps I will re-insert some of the deleted info. But not right now. I am just delighted that you expressed your thoughts about the whole thing. That's enough for now. RhinoMind (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through the article for copy editing at the moment. My first surprise was to see so much about music in the lead!--Ipigott (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. (un-related) I was wondering if you (or Dr. Blofeld) was keen on travelling to (or in) Denmark? If you want some advice or info or anything, I would be glad if I could help? I wanted to make you two this offer earlier on, but never got around to it. I might not be able to help with everything of course, but certainly with stuff that you cannot read in a guide book, that is for sure. Don't be shy of asking. Cheers from Aarhus. RhinoMind (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer. I spend about half my time in Denmark and know the country well. I was in Aarhus just after Christmas when there was still snow on the ground. As my wife comes from Møn and my daughter and her family live near Brovst, we get around quite a lot!--Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, didn't knew that! Yeah we got a rare white Christmas here. Snow is covering the ground here once again after a period of delightful sunshine (but cold). Can watch a lot of snow-men from where I live. :-) Well I got to do some of my (paid) work now, bye bye. RhinoMind (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• @RhinoMind: I've been through the whole thing. Many of the additions are worthwhile but much of the new material is unsourced. If you want to improve the article, you should start by adding references at the end of each paragraph. The other problem is that the article is now too long at about 155 kB. Last August is was only about 120 kB. Some of the sections could be split off as separate articles, leaving only summaries in the main article. And as I said earlier, the lead also needs attention. Let me know if you need any help. Maybe some of this should be on the article's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's too bloated now I think at 155kb. I really wish people would gear their efforts into other articles which really need the work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Morning, can you translate:

Er komponierte neben Orchesterwerken wie der Phantastischen Liturgie, den Strukturen für Klavier und Orchester und Von der Liebe, der Furcht und dem Schweigen für Klavier und Kammerorchester Ballett- und Filmmusiken, kammermusikalische Werke und den Sonnengesang für Soli, Chor und Orchester. Bereits während seiner Studienzeit an elektroakustischer Musik interessiert arbeitete er zunächst mit dem Tonband. In Leo Küppers Tonstudio entstand 1973 Bolivianos...!. Später setzte er auch elektroakustische Klänge und die technischen Möglichkeiten des MIDI ein. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. It's in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cortina

Thankyou. Have started on Cortina :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the remaining churches and some of the other landmarks to you to translate as they're the most enjoyable part of writing articles!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you proof Demographics, I think it's worth translating from Italian wiki for starters as it's not an easy section to write.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. I see you've made a pretty good start on tidying the article up and improving the references.--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've hidden it for now so you can check it in your own time! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Having difficulty with "un ampezzano fabbricò una volta una spada di tale elasticità che si poteva piegare e annodare e poi tornava diritta". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"A man from Ampezzo (now Cortina) once made a sword that was so flexible that you could bend it over, tie it up, and then allow it to straighten out again" - what we call a tall story!--Ipigott (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've begun religion, the rest is hidden in the editing page. All yours for now. I don't think it would need a terrible amount of work to get up to GA, certainly not on Madrid level anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to give Cortina an hour or two tomorrow. They're expecting huge snowfalls there on Wednesday and Thursday -- so the season's far from over yet! I've noticed the article is a blend of American and British spelling. Can we go for British? It's no so much a matter of getting the article up to GA (although that's an additional extra), it's more important to produce an up-to-date account of such a popular holiday destination. It's really surprising how many well-written articles from 2005/2008 are in need of attention. Maybe you could open up a specific line of action? Especially on the delisted GA/FA cities, I would be one of the first to step in and help. Unless I am a dunce at interpreting Wikipedia stats, I think it's really amazing that there have been no FAs on cities since 2009? (See here). One option might be to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities by making a list of articles requiring updating and sensitizing the country WP projects involved?--Ipigott (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to focus on making it American English hehe but sure, British English is fine by me! I think for a place like Cortina there should be a strong focus on the ski facilities and lifts too, the average reader would want to know more about those I think that its churches! Yes that's a shocker, plus many of those which passed in 2005-08 period should be delisted today too! An FA on a big city is really a lot of hard work though, there's a big scope for nitpicking. I was actually thinking Aalborg was very comprehensive and might be achievable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• As for American English: percetage (istat.it) of foreign (non-Italian) tourists in Cortina's hotels (2011/2012): Austrians 29%, Germans 18%, British 11%, French 9%, .... US Americans 2%, Canadians 0.4%. Joking apart, I agree we should expand coverage of the skiing facilities but you would be surprised to see how many people visit the area in the summer too. As for Aalborg, I would be game for further improvement but we should really draw attention to the need for more general work on outdated articles on major cities. Any ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

New York City is one which badly needing cutting and sorting out! I'm not sure. I do think we really need to look at what matters the most on here and to really try to get those core cities of the world up to some form of approved quality as priority. The only problem is that sometimes high traffic article have OWNers crawling out of the woodwork like the Paris article. You never know when they're going to pop up. There would be two of us though so that would at least be something. I do think we should have a long term goal, like getting every European capital city up to GA or something, or the world's top 20 biggest cities. The problem as I say is maintenance, maintaining just two or three high traffic articles is hard work, it's difficult to really block out shoddy sourcing and additions to more than that I find. It's best really to work on articles which don't get that much traffic or editing if you really want to retain your work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Calvary at Kergrist-Moëlou

Thank you very much for looking over my article. When I click on "view history" I am asked whether I wish say a thank you for any edits done. I. Invariably click "yes" but, as is the case with this article, I am asked the same question the next time I click "view history". Wondered if this facility was not working so thought I would send you this message to ask whether you received a "thank you" Weglinde (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I received several thank-you messages from you. They all worked.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I shall only click the once in future.Weglinde (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

I make much use of the sandbox in preparing my work and wonder whether it is possible to have more than one sandbox running at the same time. If this is possible how is the second sandbox opened? Thanks for your helpWeglinde (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weglinde: I see no reason why you should not have several sandboxes open for editing at the same time. To open a sandbox or any other articles in your user space, just use the edit function. If you simply want to use more sandboxes, you could for example create them as user:Weglinde/sandbox 1, user:Weglinde/sandbox2 and so on. Hope this answers your question.Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Weglinde (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

History of Nordic Women's Literature

Hi, I saw you added a link to the Swedish Wikipedia article for the History of Nordic Women's Literature at List of Internet encyclopedias. Just letting you know I created an English version: The History of Nordic Women's Literature. It's still a stub, so if you know of any good sources (in English or otherwise), consider this an invitation to improve it. :)

Thanks --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Very glad to see you added an article on this to the English wiki. I was actually feeling a bit guilty about just including a link to the Swedish page as items listed should normally have an article in English. I intended to get back to it but I have been bogged down with several lists and biographies of European women writers as we are trying to improve coverage for Women's History Month. I've added a few words to the article but I think you have done a pretty good job and don't see the need for much more expansion. I've also added the item to Bibliography_of_encyclopedias.--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The calvary of Guéhenno.

Hi

I would very much appreciate your help. You recently looked over my entry on the calvary at Kergrist-Moëlou. Your interventions/edits were useful and appreciated. I am currently preparing eleven articles on Breton calvaries. Whilst you made no qualative comments on the Kergrist-Moëlou article I assume that you were broadly happy with it. A few days ago I loaded a piece on the calvary of Guéhenno. The article is in my sandbox-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Weglinde/sandbox&action=edit Within hours the article was deleted. Fortunately I had kept a copy and this is what is in the sandbox. The deletion comment was "22:46, 9 February 2015 TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) deleted page The calvary of Guéhenno (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW))" I have asked TexasAndroid for an explanation but so far there is no reply and it may be just a "bot". I hesitate to bother you but just wanted to bring these events to the attention of a wiki editor. Is there a way I can appeal against what has happened? Look forward to hearing from you. Weglinde (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weglinde: Thanks for letting me know about this. I know how frustrating it can be when good work is deleted without explanation. I have left a message on TexasAndroid's talk page. Are you sure you actually created the article with the text from your sandbox as I can find no record of this in your contributions? Is it possible you only sent the title and forgot to add the text? That would perhaps explain the reference to the blanked page in TexasAndroid's explanation of deletion. Anyway, I can see a few reasons why some other editor might have wanted to delete the article. First the title: it is unusual to include the definite article in the title. A better title would be Calvary at Guéhenno. Then the lead or the initial lines of the article: you have simply written "The calvary of Guéhenno" which is not sufficient. The lead should ideally be at least two or three lines long, stating the most important details of the item (in this case perhaps the date, the location, and the cultural or artistic value of the calvary). I also sympathize with your presentation of large images but as a rule it is just as well to use the default "thumb" size, at least at the beginning of the article. (I made one or two changes along these lines on Calvary at Kergrist-Moëlou). I would now suggest you try to make a few such changes to the sandbox version of the article and let me know when you think it is ready. I can also help out a bit if you wish. You could then recreate the article as Calvary at Guéhenno. You could also make similar improvements to Calvary at Tronoën and Calvary at Plougastel-Daoulas (I've slightly changed the titles). I certainly think it's a great idea to try to cover more of the calvaries in Britanny and look forward to seeing your future work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Thinking back I think that I loaded the article then thought I was going back to the sandbox and deleted but unwittingly loaded then deleted the article. Very stupid. Anyway thanks TexasAndroid for reloading the article and to Ipigott for the recommended changes. I will take note of what you have said. Weglinde (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Not a bot, just a user with a vaguely bot-like internet handle. :)

As for what happened, copying from my response on my talk...

-----------------------

The explanation is on the deletion notice. The article's original creator blanked the article. This action is generally assumed to be an indication that the original author not longer wants the article to be on the project. Speedy deletion criteria G7 allows for the deletion of such blanked articles without needing to bother the author. Occasionally it turns out that blanking is unintentional. Or that something else was intended. The protests above by the article's author make it clear that, in the current case, he did not actually want the article gone. So I have restored it, and unblanked it. You can see the blanking action here.

As for it not being in my contribution list, admin actions do not appear in the normal contributions list. There are other logs of the admin actions of a given admin. My deletion actions can be found here, though I'm not sure if non-admins can see that log. There are other logs for other admin actions, like protection changes or blocking actions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. See above Weglinde (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric Kress

I have made a stub on the French-Danish cinematographer Eric Kress but hav e encountered a problem with linking to his biography at "Den Danske Filmdatebase. When I link to his biography there, I get this page. Would you happen to know how this problem can be solved? His notability has been questioned and I cannot find that many online references even if I think that he is quite obviously notable, so it would be very useful being able to link to the page.Ramblersen (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed And the editor PRODing it was making an obvious mistake, don't worry. It can be fleshed out and there are lots of sources. -- Sam ^Sing! 03:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian - any thoughts about Picking up More Women?

My proposed Wikimania talk "How To Pick Up More Women" is here. I was hoping that you might give this some thought? Victuallers (talk)

@Victuallers: Well I certainly agree with the need to do more for the coverage and the involvement of women and women's interests on Wikipedia but I must say I find the tone of your proposal rather sexist with its picking up more women approach. Maybe you just wanted to put it forward humorously in a "tongue in the cheek" way but I would have preferred an approach which encouraged the women themselves to become more active. I don't have a catch phrase but something along the lines of "Closing the Gender Gap" might have been more appropriate. That said, I have certainly appreciated your efforts to promote new articles on women via DYK, etc. Maybe your proposal would be more convincing if you could involve some women Wikipedians who are always full of great ideas. Maybe Rosiestep or Gobonobo can give you more useful feedback. In any case, I have not forgotten your intention to continue DYK work on new articles and biographies of women in connection with International Women's Day and Women's History Month. I very much hope you'll be around to help with work on women writers which I have been trying to promote.--Ipigott (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too keen on finding a DYK hook, but closing the gender gap is the aim here. I hope you realise that this a tongue in cheek approach - I would hope that we can smile whilst we work. I have approached Rosie and other editors although I'm not sure of some editors gender. You may notice that the DYK queues are now starting to fill with articles and I think I'm doing as I intended. Do go and have a look. I do want to work out what can be done pragmatically to improve out productivity. We have done a lot in the last year and I think we need to do more of what works. Do you have ideas? Victuallers (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see Rosie is supporting your approach but I also note that at least one other editor shares my concerns. I'm not too sure how the Wikimania thing works but if you are required to make a presentation I would suggest you team up with at least one woman. Here are my reactions to your specific questions:

• Is there a way that we improve our productivity in creating articles about women? I think a targeted approach is called for, maybe along the lines of specific WikiProjects like Women writers, or even on a country or language basis, maybe by sensitizing the countries involved. Ideally a female ringleader for each area should be identified. In addition to biographies, I think we should also address more general areas of achievement, for example the success women are enjoying in Scandinavian crime fiction, in youth awards on the music scene, on the academic front or in politics.

• Should we try and avoid English speaking white women so that we increase our benefit? We should certainly not avoid anything but we could indeed try to put more emphasis on non-English speaking women and perhaps on women's initiatives, associations and successes in at least the world's leading countries.

• Are new articles enough? Should we just make sure articles are well linked and well cited? More than just linking and listing, I think we should make a special effort to destub or expand on existing articles, especially those on important figures.

• Do you have any data on the success (failure) of overcoming systemic bias in Wikipedia? I know some such data exist but it might be useful to bring these together under one of the existing WikiProjects.

• Do women only editathons/wikiprojects help? Don't know but I expect they do. Recruitment of women editors (backed by mentoring) might lead to better results.

Much of the above could of course be achieved outside the conference too but a good presentation would help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I cannot find the DYK queues you mention but I see there is a page Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/Missing articles which obviously needs to be updated.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian, Victuallers and I thank you for your feedback on the first draft of the proposed Wikimania talk, How to pick up more women.... I've subsequently expanded the proposal considerably, in part based on your comments. Again, thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Glad to see you're playing such an active part in this presentation. You've vastly improved the proposal and I go along with everything you've added. Just one more suggestion. I know that in Norway Wikipedia has benefited enormously from collaboration between the local cultural institutions (libraries, museums and archives) and schools where children are given incentives about making contributions related to their own area or their own interests. You suggest involving universities. Why not start with the schools? Maybe a programme could be developed to add one country a month with the help of WikiProjects and the cultural institutions? I think it would be worthwhile sounding out. It would also help students to improve their command of English although they should also be encouraged to write in their own languages too. Keep up the excellent work!--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Þórdís Gísladóttir

On a related subject. I clicked on Þórdís Gísladóttir immediately I saw it. If we could find a person with such an unusual use of Icelandic script in their name then they would do well IMO at DYK. Victuallers (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Maybe you could help to process her for DYK. We're now more than half way through February and it often takes a couple of weeks for DYK's to reach the queue -- so it would be good not to waste too much time. I hope to write at least one biography per day on women writers for the next few weeks. Last year you and Rosie were extremely competent in coming up with good hooks and handling the mechanics. I have plenty more lined up for most European countries, especially Island (which has not been handled well on Wikipedia) and several Slav countries. There are also lots of stubs that could easily be brought up to DYK. Let me know how I can be of most assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ian, there are about a dozen in the DYK queue ready to go.... but that would be used up in 36 hours or so.The problem with the Icelandic woman's article above is that it too short..... and many recent offers are too. They have to have at least 1500 original reffed text. I am moving a couple through the DYK process at present (soon Mehetabel Wesley Wright, but we could do with some more candidates. If you see a good one then ping me. Victuallers (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Victuallers: When you told me it was an interesting candidate, I immediately started expanding it and think it's OK now (but I still intend to add a bit more). Last year people seemed much more interested in collaborating on expansion. For that reason, I have been fairly brief on my new articles but if you think I should aim for the DYK minimum myself, it would be easy to do. If there are any more you are interested in, e.g. Jaroslava Blažková, Halina Pawlowská, Daniela Crăsnaru, let me know. BTW, I have still not found your queue but see there are quite a few in DYK nominations.--Ipigott (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see! Sorry. (The "queue is here". Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that there are several articles which might be ready for nomination, so I'll get rolling with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Rosie. I've been putting my recent articles on WP Women writers together with a few others I have found. Let me know if I can be of any help with your own articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindermädchen für Papa gesucht

Great work on the women lists! Any chance you could proof read this from German wiki? I'd have left it as a stub but it really is a great comedy film which should have a half decent article on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Will look at it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, hidden for now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for that, there's also a hidden production and reception, they're relatively short though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you check Wilhelm Pieck – Das Leben unseres Präsidenten?

Desyatinny monastery

Hey hey! We have been in contact before concerning the article about Desyatinny Monastery, you kindly helped to make some copy edit. The last thing you told was your question if I like you to continue. I gave a positive answer and made some comments, expressing my view on the conception and some other stuff. Haven't seen any further changes performed by you, so i think i might make them too squarely or without any attention to your view, or something like this. Somehow, I would like to give you my thanks for the help you rendered, and for your contributions, and make some excuses if i am right: it was way to unconsciously if it was. Good luck! --Sterndmitri (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)