Jump to content

Talk:Architecture of Denmark/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

DYK?

Very impressive! It should just squeak into DYK as a 5x expansion from 11/11 I think. Worth a try. It seems to me that a particular characteristic of Danish etc medieval churches is that the arches & vaults start from lower down than elsewhere - ie the flat walls are lower - but I don't have a ref for that. Beyond that this goes well beyond any knowledge I have, except that I'd add a bit about the general increase in "bourgeois" building with the prosperity of the Golden Age, going beyond the mainly royal commissions of notable buildings in earlier centuries. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind comments and suggestionsjh ll look into the arches and vaults and try to add something on bourgeois building. Perhaps you could help out by submitting the article to DYK. I find the template impossible to use. Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, see Nov 11 noms. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - but I could find no reference to this on the nominations page. Perhaps it's because Materialscientist had difficulties with the images. You'll see he moved them around quite a bit and created lots of galleries. Rather a pity, I thought, as they can no longer be seen next to the text to which they refer.Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"What links here" shows it has been passed already - last minute at ckeck-in - & will appear in the next 48hrs by the look of it. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There you go! Lead item too. Someone must have added "for churches" to the hook, which I suppose is fair enuf. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Architecture of Denmark or Danish architecture

Aren't these separate things? Architecture of Denmark would inlcude all architecture within the territory of Denmark, while Danish architecture would include all buildings by Danish architects such as the Sydney Opera House... Elekhh (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You make an interesting distinction here. And, what with your interest in languages and your native Romanian as well as your architectural expertise, you certainly seem to be in an excellent position to comment.
In writing the article, I tried to cover both of the aspects to which you refer. I would however point out that in other branches of the arts, e.g. painting or music, it has been common practice to redirect in the same way. :Danish music redirects to Music of Denmark. This is no doubt because many people simply search for Danish whatever instead of Whatever of Denmark. You will also see, for example, that :American architecture redirects to Architecture of the United States. Interestingly, in the case of Romania, the author of the article has taken the opposite path: :Architecture of Romania redirects to Romanian architecture! For these reasons I suggest we should leave things the way they are for now. I look forward to any further comments you may have on the article and its coverage. Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't suggesting spliting the article. I'm just saying that since the meaning of Architecture of Denmark is distinct from Danish architecture, the article should refer to these accurately. As the article covers both subjects, the lead paragraph should have an and rather than the confusing or between the two, or just remove Danish architecture from the first sentence. Elekhh (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think there is any suppot, neither in wikipedia nor in general, for a destinction. To me it appears totally arbitrary, it's not a question of nomenclature but merely two forms of the possesive case. Rather I think it's an advantage to employ both formulations for a varied and easily read language. Everything is perfect exactly the way it is. Anyway, that's just my fifteen cents of wisdom on this matter.Ramblersen (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A few comments

This article just kepps getting better but here are a few comments.

  • Medieval times: Maybe it's worth mentioning the Church of Our Lady in Kalundborg, I think it's considered (one of) the most important Danish buildings from this era.
  • Phillip de Lange: Doesn't here rather belong in the Baroque section, it was only in his very late years that he turned to rococo?
  • 19th century: Wouldn't it be better to stick to the systematic approach of naming sections for styles rather than centuries? C. F. Haensen seems more at home in the previous section (or a new one) whereas Historicism (or revival-something) deserves its own section, considering how much of it is around. Also I think Vilhelm Dahlerup should be covered, having built so many of our leading buildings. Maybe also Theophilus Hansen in spite of the fact that he did all his buildings abroad and ended up an Austrian citizen?
  • Modern period: I think it would make sense to mention Jan Gehl since he's one of the most known and influential Danish architects internationally, though an urban planner and not a designer of buildings. I also think the section on contemporary architecture should be reserved for something a little more contemporary, instead including Utzon and Spreckelsen in the 20th century modernism section. Maybe it's under way, I do realize this article is still under development. Instead I think the section on contemporary architecture should focus on the time after the turn of the millenium, including two trends: 1) The international breakthrough of some of the big companies like HLA, SHL, 3XN, C. F. Møller and D+W. 2) The new generation of new emerging companies, most notably Bjarke Ingels Group, which seems more dependent on international inspiration than influence from (boxy) Scandinavian tradition, compared to what has been the rule in Danish architecture until recently.

These are my thoughts on this article, but I'm not going to mess with it on my own since it's so good and I would just end up making it wose rather than improving it.:-)Ramblersen (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me now fill you in on the follow-up to these suggestions.
  • I have now mentioned the Church of Our Lady, Kalundborg, and have also written an article about it.
  • On Philip de Lange, I'll need some more time. I'll try to write an English article about him. However, I still think his main contribution to Danish architecture is Rococo. There is a wonderful Rococo church in Damsholte on Møn which he designed too. That also deserves an article.
  • The 19th century is now divided into sections. I've added a bit on Dahlerup and on Theophil von Hansen.
  • You've contributed very constructively yourself to the modern and contemporary periods.

Finally, in a later message you suggested including something on the -bros. You are welcome to add something yourself but perhaps the best way to go about it would be first to improve the architectural descriptions in the various articles about each of the bros first.

In the course of time, I'll try to write a few short articles on the key architects and buildings which are included in the article but are still missing from the English Wikipedia - and sometimes from the Danish one too. Ipigott (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything is looking great now, I think. You are probably right as for Phillip de lange, I just mainly known him from his work at the Holmen Naval Base in Copenhagen. Improving the articles on the -bro districts are high on my to do-list but I've started with some articles they would have to rely on and articles on some other smaller districts - and you are definitely right that it shouldn't go in here anyway. What I was thinking about was what is characteristic of the average Danish street/ccityscape but its probably too difficult to pinpoint. I have done a few changes to the modern and contemporary sections which you will probably want to clean up, but I'm sure you will notice that yourself.
If I were be difficult once again, I kind of miss the Grundtvig's Church as maybe the most notable Danish contribution to architecture from the first half of the 20th century and a rare Danish example of brick expressionism. But I think that's it.
Your plans of over the course of time to make articles on the missing architects and buildings in the article make me think that there are a few articles that I shouldn't have made - or abstain from making in the time to come. Not that I don't want to put the effort into it, your's are just so much better than mine.:-) So I hope that you will consider also upgrading a few which you find important eventhough they are formally there. On the other hand, if there are any of them you think should be there but don't care to spend time on yourself, you are wellcome to to drop be a note and I'll make them to the best of my ability. Ramblersen (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You are probably right about Grundtvig's Church. I'll try to work it in. I was also wondering whether to include Hammershus on Bornholm in the Middle Ages section. The problem is I don't really know what is architecturally special about it except that it is very big and built of brick. Any suggestions?
The only other general improvement I would like to make to the article is to try to reposition some of the images so that they can be seen from the pertinent sections of text. Pushing them all into galleries at the bottom of sometimes quite lengthy sections is not the best solution. I think I'll have to compromise on the number of photos, though, to avoid creating screen resolution problems.
And thanks for your offer of assistance. If I have any problems, I'll get back to you. Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know enough about Hammershus to know if it should be included, I wouldn't think so though. But maybe the Trinitatis Complex (Rundetårn/Trinitatis Church/University Library) should? I know I'm being terribly copencentric but its a bit interesting because Steenvinckel here turns to Dutch Baroque plus it is one of Denmark's most famous buildings with a quite idiosyncratic design.
Another thing I thought of is the establishment of THE Royal Danish Academy and the introduction of an architectural education in Denmark. Until then most architects have been imported or they have been selftaought (like Thurah). So quite a defining moment in Danish architecture. After that almost no foerign architects worked in Denmark until recently (I can only think of Ørgård Museum by Joseph-Jacques Ramée and the Alexander Nievsky Church until contemporary times though there may be a few others in the last half of the 18th century.).
Good job with Grundtvig's Church but I wondered if it would be better just to include it as the last paragraph in the previous section, mentioned as an atypical building. I realize I was the one advocating period-based sections but this is basically just this one building, rather than a period in Danish architecture. For it not to seem totally out of place, the angle could be that the Grundtvig's Church demonstrates a different approach to drawing on inspiration from the Nordic past than that of National Romantisism. That it is Brick Expressionism and then who it is named for and so on.Ramblersen (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Denmark rating

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale or the project's importance scale.

  • Suggest C on quality scale.
  • Suggest High on project's importance scale.

Please add your comments and rating. (Ice Explorer (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Ice Explorer, for suggesting these ratings. Unfortunately, in my experience, it often takes an unusually long time for people to give ratings to articles about Denmark and Norway. It may be because those modest Scandinavians feel that someone else should do it first! So may I suggest that you become the ice breaker and simply insert your suggestions for now.
Secondly, as you seem to have participated very actively on articles about Denmark, may I suggest that you try to fill any gaps you may have observed in order to further improve the article. Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I would have no problem to work on this article but I think what I would like to do is put together a team of people, say 4 or 5, then create a sandbox so we can all work on getting it to Good Article status. So anyone interested please put your name forward and when we have enough people we can start. (Ice Explorer (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
My opinion on this matter: I'm generally very happy with this article as it already is. I think C is too low a rating (and I don't really get the hurry to get it rated since it is still undergoing so much work and that so many other articles remain unrated within Wikiproject Denmark). If I compare it to other similar articles, the one on Norway has a "good article" rating for something not much different and the one on Sweeden has the rating 'B' though it hasn't even got references (obviously wrong rating but that's another story). To me it certainly seems one of the best articles of this kind (that is, articles covering a larger topic) within the scope of Wikiproject Denmark. Of course there are omissions but an article of this kind will by nature have to provide an overview and not an exhaustive coverage of it subject matter. And I think it does that job very well. Improvements are always good but I think the way to go about it with this article is 1) For smaller and abvious changes just to do it 2)For larger changes or if in doubt to discuss it here. Isn't that how Wikipedia works? I think a sandbox for this article would be out of proportion and both unwise and unconstructive. I actually find the proposal rather strange considering that it is one of the very few articles within the scope of this project of good quality in regard to both length, contents, language and references. Unfortunately the rule is that Denmark is a wasteland on wikipedia, most often articles are a copy-pasted paragraph from somewhere else in poor language with no notes (and the Danish version is not even much better, sometimes even worse actually). Therefore I think it is great to see someone taking an interest. But IMO the most obvious way to improve this article is to add articles on some of the buildings and architects mentioned (or to improve existing ones) but that involve only very small changes to this article. If anyone has other suggestions, it's great. I've had a few myself over the last few days and I think it has worked very well just talking about it here and I've found it easy to get them implemented. Well I'm rambling here, I guess what I'm trying to say comes down to:
  • I think Ipigott has down a very nice job with this article which I very much appreciate.
  • I think the C rating is wrong and should be changed to B
  • I totally fail to see the need for a sandbox and think it would be a very bad idea. A few examples of what the article needs to motivate the suggestion would have made it easier to comment on it in substance though.Ramblersen (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your suggestion of getting a team of people to work together on improving the article. In point of fact, this is exactly what has been happening over the past two or three weeks. You only need to look at the history of the article's edits to see what has been done. In this connection, I am particularly grateful to User:Ramblersen who has also made a number of useful suggestions on my talk page. I must say, though, I am not too happy with the idea of a mutual sandbox. What makes Wikipedia so dynamically interesting for many of us is the fact that positive changes can immediately be inserted into an article for all to view. And then anyone else can come along and modify the pieces he is interested in. I cannot see that a sandbox would offer the same opportunities.
My own feeling about improvements to the article is that it first and foremost needs to be backed by number of substantive English-language Wikipedia articles linked to the buildings and architects mentioned. I have made a start on this by adding pages on St. Bendt's Church, the Church of Our Lady, Kalundborg, Østerlars Church, St. Peter's Church, Næstved, and Anthonis van Obbergen. In due course, I hope to continue this for the rest of the article. I am sure there are also important gaps to be filled in the article itself, especially in relation to the evolution to ordinary housing, both in towns and in the farming community. Much more could also be added on contemporary architecture, for example the advances made in energy-saving design. And what about 21st century town planning? Finally, there is need for further work on the illustrations, especially in order to bring them back closer to the text to which they relate rather than have them relegated to galleries at the bottom of each section. And finally, it is not so much the high ratings which interest me per se but rather providing a high standard of encyclopedic information - but perhaps we're talking about one and the same thing! Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The article evolved very nicely recently so I increased the rating to B, and for both projects since the quality scale is similarly defined for both WikiProjects. I can't judge importance scale for WikiProject Denmark, and as an architect my view would be easily biased (inclined to say Top :). I think the article is almost ready for GA, but maybe you want to aim for FA directly. I am not sure if the sections Towns and villages of interest and Danish architectural firms fit in the article. The first is more about urban history/design and the second has a bit of commercial aura. I would also suggest changing the lead image to one which is more evidently exemplifying architecture. The present lead image is 50% water and 30% sky. Or if you consider Frederiksborg Palace to be the best choice, you could try to crop the bottom and enlarge it to 300px width. Elekhh (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Elekhh, I added the section on "Towns and villages of interest" for two reasons. First because I had a feeling that with all the churches, palaces and castles, it must be very difficult for anyone who has not been to Denmark to get an idea of what the place actually looks like. It thought a few examples along these lines would help to fill the gap. Secondly, I tried to choose examples which really contribute to an understanding of how Danish architecture has evolved in a more general way and not just for the nobility through prestige works of art. Perhaps there is an argument for trying to merge these example into the periods to which they apply - but in some cases it might be rather difficult. And as for contemporary architecture, I agree it might seem a bit commercial and could be toned down. Maybe Ramblersen was right in suggesting that the list of major players should simply be worked into the running text. But in the absence of a separate article on the subject, I think something along these lines needs to be included here for the time being.
Yes, I think trying to merge relevant parts of both sections (Towns and villages of interest and Danish architectural firms) into the article, and removing less relevant parts, would be best even if sometimes difficult. Elekhh (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Ipgott has done a fine job too. Please don't think the sandbox idea was about taking anything away from him. My reason for it is simple. A sandbox allows anyone too make a number of edits, it also allows a number of people to see and share research. This helps bring the quality of the article up. It also allows for the team to decide on one writer who can give the writing a continuous flow and style that a Good Article needs to be passed. Something this article still needs. Like I mentioned before, I would be more then happy to participate in making this a Good Article or Feature Article but only if a number of people are interested in this idea. My reasoning is the same as mentioned above and also because it shows that a number of people care, thus showing that the article is deserving of its top importance and rating. (Ice Explorer (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
In answer to Ice Explorer, thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into this article. If you really think a sandbox is the answer, perhaps you could convince us by pointing to existing examples and also explain the mechanisms. For example, will modifications to the sandbox also be posted on this talk page? If not, how can we follow what is going on? Of course, another way of encouraging involvement here might be to sensitize the members of WikiProjects Denmark and Architecture. Does anyone have any suggestions how this could be achieved - perhaps by contacting competent people you know? It would also be interesting to have more feedback from you on what you consider to be the article's weak points. Then we could trying to put some specific effort into their improvement. Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Please have a look at one of my Sandboxes where you can see how I organize and use the space. Since you are the lead on this project it would be my suggestion that you canvass some people to see if they would be interested in this project. Things to canvass for are:
  1. Copy-editor ( Someone who has good editing skills and knows how to organize teams. )
  2. Copy-writer ( Someone who can write good prose. )
  3. Researcher Online ( Person willing to find sources online. )
  4. Researcher Library ( Person willing to go to the library. They would also need to scan or type out parts relevant. )
  5. Translators ( People willing to translate Danish to English. )

If you have further question please let me know on my talk page.

Sincerely,

(Ice Explorer (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

Some Tips

Ten rules to make an article FA

How to satisfy Criterion 1a

(Ice Explorer (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

  • Images - I personally like "mini-galleries", but they do not mean the whole section above need be blank. Also 150px is very small on most screens today, especially for a visual subject, and is only justified to avoid side-by-side (an FA no-no) or overcrowding. My view anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Then the solution would seem to be to enlarge the important 150px images in the text and put the others in mini-galleries. I'll try to work along these lines. Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As a former web designer and someone who counts the lead designer for the Obama campaign as a friend I can tell you that this is a complex problem that is only getting worse since the recent gap between small (Netbook screens) and large (Desktop screens). At the moment the standard is to design for a 1024px x 768px screen. With margins on the side this means you have a width of 960px. A photo next to type should be no larger then one quarter of this space (960px), which gives us a maximum width of 240px for the photo. Good layout design, would be the photo on the left at the beginning of a paragraph. Further placement of photo's should be done sparingly and must be balanced with regard to the amount of type and relevance to the paragraph. This is the art part, that takes skill and experience. As much as people who are visually inclined would like Wikipedia to be more like a picture book, we must understand that it is not. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and as such uses words to draw pictures. This being said, it can include pictures to a certain degree if done skillfully. I personally would use "mini-galleries" (Please be consistent and use 4 photos only in all 'mini-galleries") at the bottom of a paragraph and if there is a large enough amount of text, then a small tall photo, at the beginning of the paragraph and to the left. Here are some links with regards to screen display size. Computer display standard and [Display Statistics] (Ice Explorer (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC))
It is confusing! There is also the issue of user preferences - over-ridden here. Bear in mind the default setting is about to go up to 220px. 300-350 for lead photos is a very well-established size. I would not agree with the emphasis above for visual subjects - art books of all types are as heavily illustrated as they can afford. We are not attempting to "use words to draw pictures" here at all - illustration is essential. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
For the time being, I'll leave the images more or less the way they are. There are plenty of other areas to work on. Let's just see how things evolve. There's no mad rush. Ipigott (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am the confused one now. Fountains in Paris has not even been assessed let alone been a Feature Article or Good Article, and yet you claim it to be of excellent quality. With this claim it has become clear to me that their is a clear difference in what you call an excellent article and what would be considered an excellent article by Wikipedia standards. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but I have on a number of occasions tried to be helpful and I've even given this article a B rating, because I wished to avoid conflict and tried to use the rating, to encourage people to take an interest in making it a Good Article or better. Something this article is clearly not. You have asked me to give you specific examples on how to improve the article. I have not done a full review for one simple reason. The entire articles English needs to be improved from top to bottom, the article headings, structure, photos, references, ect. ect. If you do not believe me then I suggest you submit it for Good Article review or Peer Review. As for me I can no longer spend time discussing things in this talk box as it does nothing to improve the articles quality. I have tried to share with you my wisdom as well as sharing with you the wisdom of the best and brightest on Wikipedia with the links on how to make a Featured Article, but sadly they have fallen on deaf ears. So all I can do is wish you all the best in your endeavors and one last time encourage you to read the links I have provided for you. Sincerely, (Ice Explorer (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
I understand your frustration Ice Explorer, as I also felt the same way when constructively meant criticism and suggestions were not exactly welcomed. However, I think you shouldn't react so abrubtly and entirely give up yet on this... I think this can become a very good article, if it manages to integrate a broad input, including yours. Elekhh (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a piy if you, Elekhh, haven't felt that your suggestions and criticism was welcomed. I certainly don't think they have been anything but constructive, I also think they have been received that way though. It's important to note that just because others may not agree with one's criticism, it doesn't mean that it isn't welcome. In such cases it should come down to the validity of arguments relied upon and "wikipedia best practice". But in some cases it all comes down to a matter of discretion or personal taste, in which case I think it is important to respect majority decision and other people's right to have their own opinion. And personaly I think priority should be given to the opinion of whoever has put the strongest effort into a given article (but only on discretional matters of course). It is perfectly fine that Ice Explorer has an opinion on how to improve this article but so it is not to agree with him on how to reach this common goal (and I have yet to see someone agree with him btw). I therefore think it is very unconstructive to take it as a personal insult when they don't — particularly not since all he has contributed with so far is a set of box brackets around Lund Cathedral. And just saying that everything sucks (when it obviously doesn't) isn't particularly constructive either. Nor is it particularly helpful that he makes false claims, stating that he gave this articvle a B rating when the truth is that he rated it C which was afterwards changed to B by Elekhh. But all the links he has produced are of course very useful to all of us - just not more relevant to this article than so many others. He is also most welcome to critisize my English skills, I've done so myself, but before he criticizes those of other native English-speakers so fiercely, I suggest he notes the difference between 'their' and 'there' (above in his previous posting). 'too' and 'to' (in another article) etc. This kind of behaviour and discussion is exactly why I abstained from any kind of talk page activity until very recently,and that is probably what I should go back to. Could we please go back to the topic now?Ramblersen (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Good comment, and only wish to clarify that when writing above about unwelocmed critisim I wasn't refering to this article in particular, but my general experience, it simply happens sometimes. Anyway, let's move back to the article. Elekhh (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really Elekhh. It's a personal attack and a big whine form someone who has written more negative words on this talk page then contributed to the the article we're working on that she said she would help with. So far all I've seen is nothing but a lack of understanding and awareness. I have no problem with the fact that you have a difference of opinion and that is why I wished all of you, all the best in your endeavors. There was really no need for the personal attack. In future Ramblersen, please keep the bitter negative attitude to yourself. Find some happiness and constructive behavior traits. (Ice Explorer (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Danish architectural firms

I removed the section on Danish architectural firms. As Elekhh has pointed out, it should be incorparated in the text and I think it pretty much already has happened. Most of the companies are already mentioned in the section on contemporary architecture. If anyone disagrees, feel free to put it back in. Ramblersen (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your decision to remove this section now that we have better coverage of the firms elsewhere. As you seem more familiar than anyone else with the emergence of new players in this area, perhaps you could continue to add any further descriptions you feel might be important. Also examples of fine new buildings. Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Towns and villages of interest

I see this part tries to achieve two goals: (1) provide more information about residential architecture, and (2) present architecure in its urban context, i.e. streetscapes. Both are very relevant for the topic, however, as it stands this section does not fit well into the article which otherwise is clearly ordered by historic periods. I have the feeling that it makes the article too long as well. General guidelines regarding article lenght also suggest that this might become the case. I imagine parts could be merged into the main article, while the rest could become a separate article on historic towns or heritage preservation areas. Elekhh (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning, Elekhh. I was already thinking along these lines myself. I'll try to get around to it in the next few days. The problem at the moment is that I don't have too much spare time to spend on this. Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

I agree with Ipigott that finalising the text should be the priority: images are secondary in wikipedia, and the final layout would anyway depend on the lenght of the text. As it stands I feel there are too many images, and some are too low quality (building in shadow, behind trees, etc.). I will try to cleanup a bit, but if you don't agree please feel free to undo. Elekhh (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up on suggestions

I have just completed a major revision where I have tried to take recent advice into account as far as possible. The text has been thoroughly reviewed, typos and markup errors corrected, and the general presentation improved. As suggested by some, I have reduced the number of images in the minigalleries to a maximum of four and have deleted some of the poorer images. I think most of the links have now been fixed too and some new references have been added. The section on Towns and villages of interest has been partly integrated into the rest of the document. The remainder has been deleted. I look forward to comments on the present state of the article and what further improvements are needed. I would particularly like to hear if any additions need to be made to the content. Ipigott (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks better and better. I made also a few changes mostly minor typos, wikilinks, and paragraphs. Also re-layouted the page, removing a few more images and simplifying the visual appearance by adopting some simple rules: all galleries have four images and appear at the end of a major section, portrait format images are 150px width (so they are the same size with landscape format) and always located on the right (otherwise they tend to mess up section titles). I think the balance between order and good placement is now right, but if you don't like it feel free to revert. Made Rococo a subsection of Baroque as is often considered in architecture history a late-Baroque. This allowed reducing the number of galleries, which I think is a good outcome. From my point of view is about ready for official WP:GA assessment.
In terms of content I would be interested to know more about how Danish architecture differs from other Nordic architecture. Probably the section on National Romanticism is in greatest need to be expanded. For the 20th century I think it would be worth a reference to critical regionalism in which I remember Utzon's Bagsværd Church was a prominent example, and distinct from the dominant internationalist approach. I would also be interested to know if there are any 21st century firms which aim to develop an architectural expression which is distincly local. In terms of formal weaknesses I would say there is certainly still some scope for improving the prose and quality of images, but all these last comments refer to WP:FA criteria. Elekhh (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help and encouragement on this. There are in fact quite important differences between Norwegian and Danish architecture. For example, many old Norwegian churches are made of timber and have quite a different style. Christianity came to Norway from Britain which also explains some of the stylistic differences. When Norway was part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it always felt a poor neighbour as the kings built their prestige castles and palaces in Denmark, leaving Norwegian developments mainly to fortifications. Sweden is rather different as Scania was a more or less integrated part of Denmark and its churches and cathedrals have much in common. Not sure how to put all this into the article though. Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know either, certainly considering Nowegian sensibilities :) Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
On the article itself, you've made lots of improvements but I am not sure the two images at the beginning of Neoclassical should be maintained. What do you think? Will get back to you again later. Pressed for time now. Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it breaks the rule having two images there, one should go, but I just couldn't decide as both are good images! I tend towards keeping Liselund, per your previous arguments that otherwise it would appear that Denmark is made only of palaces. Is also a more refreshing image in the mids of classicism/historicism. Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
In regard to Elekhh's suggestion, I don't think there are any firms which aim for developing a destinct local expression. A project like the Sluseholmen Canal District partially draws on local (vernaculatr) traditions (closed blocks, diverse facades designed by different architects) but is as much inspired from Amsterdam (but so was local Danish architecture, so in a way the local Danish tradition is not to have an own local tradition, I guess. And it's just that specific project, not the work of the firm in general plus there are no photos available on wikipedia (yet). The small firm Entasis may also have a tendency to favour local traditions (eg their Carlsberg masterplan) but I think it's more a question of classical urban planning than something specifically Danish.Ramblersen. As for Bagsværd Church, I agree it should probably be included. (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A few comments

A few comments, a couple of which I've alreadu made before but since I didn't get any trdponse, I assume it may be because they were overlooked. If it was just becauser they were not considered relevant, It's of course perfectly fine with me.

  • Rundetårn/the Trinitatis Complex should probably be covered (in the Baroque section). Rundetårn is one of Denmark's most famous buildings and it's a bit interesting because Steenwinckel, until then the epidemy of Dutch Renaissance in Denmark, here turns to Dutch Baroque.
  • Would it be worthwhile to mention the establishment of the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, instituting an architectural education in Denmark? It led to rather a dramatic shift from almost exclusively relying on foreign architects - with the odd self-taught architect such as Thurah) to virtually exclusively using Danish architects for two hundred years.
  • Regarding subsections in the 20th century: Would it be better just to include the Grundtvig's Church in one of the other sections, rather than having a separate subsection called Expressionism? Expression can hardly be called a period in Danish architecture since it is more or less just this one building. It may well be that it is better to keep it like this though, I'm just wondering. And is it better to keep the sections 'American modernism' and 'Late 20th century' apart or could they be merged? I just created the Late 20th century subsection when making the section on contemporary architecture more contemporary, but I'm unsure if there is a need for two seperate subsections covering the post-war period.
    • I agree with all comments above, however I would tend to keep Expresionism. It was generally a minority movement in most countries but is very distinct, so it would be confusing to be seen under a different heading. I wonder if a Dutch influence can be tracked back again, since brick expresionism was strongest in the Netherlands. Elekhh (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ørestad: I think the focus should be changed from the planning of the area to the individual buildings found there. The planning of the area is not very noteworthy, actually considered quite unfortunate by many, while a number of buildings have received international attention and numerous international awards. They include the IT University of Copenhagen (LEAF Award), Ørestad College (Forum AID Award), VM Houses and Mountain Dwellings, Tietgenkollegiet (already mentioned) and a few promising buildings on the way. I will of course happily try to make a new version which others can look at and then clean it up or stick to the old version. Regarding Ørestad, it also sounds a bit weird to me, describing it as "outside Copenhagen" since it is in fact part of the city. Ramblersen (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Very useful observations, all of them. I'll certainly try to take them into account in my next update. Forgive me for not acting on all of them when you first mentioned them but there were others calling for action too. Great to have you so intimately involved. Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed the heading American Modernism to Modernism - I think is better as is more inclusive, and will avoid disputes on what is american modernism, modernism or late modernism, as I don't think there is a world-wide consensus on classification of this period. For the international reader there will be a surprise not to see postmodernism at all, so a paragraph explaining the almost complete absence of postmodernism in Denmark would preemt criticism. Elekhh (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Architectural education and other factors of influence

Following up on Ramblersen's suggestion that we should mention the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, I wondered if we should not have a short section describing the key schools of architecture, museums, exhibitions, etc. For example, there is an interesting exhibtion on climate and architecture at the School of Architecture. We could also say something about the Danish Architecture Centre which also hosts exhibitions and has an interesting website documenting current trends. The Aarhus School of Architecture could also be included. The general idea would be to show that there is considerable general interest in architecture in Denmark.

But it may be a bit late in the day to consider a completely new section along these lines. Any suggestions? Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't make a separate section on architectural education, per same arguments as previously presented for Towns and villages of interest. But the question you raised is interesting, as it points towards providing more detailed explanation of the different factors influencing the development of architectural expression in Denmark. Currently the article refers often to foreign (i.e.Dutch, French, etc.) influence, but doesn't talk of other factors such as local climate, local materials or architectural education. I think if you find information on these aspects and insert in the relevant section (i.e. climate and local materials influencing roof form by the vikings?) it will improve the article. Again, as an outsider not knowing much about Danish architecture, I would presume that architectural education and the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts probably played a central role particularly in the 18th-19th centuries (Neoclassicism and Historicism) to the development of Danish architecture, so it seems worthwile mentioning in that section. For the 20th century, I read some time ago about the importance of design competitions in lifting the general quality of design in Denmark by stimulating public discussion and debate, but I couldn't find any english reference on this. Elekhh (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have had some of the same thoughts that Ipigott mentions here. But I think this article has a choise between two paths - and has already made a (good) choise for the latter:
  • The first option is to focuss on Danish architecture as of now. All the current period-based section should then be subsections in a section called 'History'. In turn it would leave room and provide legitimicy for a more comprehensive treatment of contemporary architecture as well as sections covering the topics Ipigott mentions: Architectural schools, exhibition venues etc.
  • The secound option is to focuss on architectural history. This is the path this article has already opted for and then I agree with Elekhh that separate sections would appear confusing. Instead such information should be included only if it can be demonstrated to have had an architectural historic significance. This is obviously the case with the Royal Accademy but something of the other institutions could also easily be integrated in the existing text. The problem is that they generally relate only to the contemporary section which shouldn't become too long (if the historic approach to the article's subject matter is maintained) or hte article will sort of 'tip over'. Instead I think the best sollution is to create separate articles on the institutions mentioned by Ipigott and then to add them to this article in a 'See also' section at the bottom. I have started making an article on the Danish Architecture Centre but it's in a sandbox right now and has not come very far.
I agree with Elekhh's thoughts on what would improve this article. More information on local condition and sources of influence would certainly make this article more about 'Denmark' and not just how one international period has given way to another. The problem is that it is rather difficult to find sources on it. Also there may not be that much to find. Denmark hasn't generally been a place where new things happened, rather we have been tracking international trends, often with much delay and the help of architects from abroad. In the same time Denmark is so small and by all means 'average' that there aren't many features or conditions to destinguish us from surrounding areas in Germany, the Netherlands or the UK. Of course something like the abscence of rock in our geology has made timber-framing and bricks the obvious choise over stone buildings (unlike the situation in the rest of Scandinavia). In conclusion I very much agree in principle but I think we are a bit short of both sources, expertise and good and interesting points to make.Ramblersen (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Image captions

I noticed that in connection with Architecture of Bangladesh, Elekhh has suggested:

  • improve image captions by adding year of building, and name of architect if known.

The captions in Architecture of Denmark do not always provide this information. Should it be added consistently? Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have now edited all the captions along these lines - as far as reasonably possible, that is. Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional suggestions: style

I have just received the following suggestions from User:Ice Explorer on my talk page and thought it would me more useful to post them here for any reactions. Ipigott (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I've read the article again and did notice it was much improved and it pleased me to see it. Here are some quick notes I jotted down whilst reading:
  1. Some prose reads like a list. It should mention why it is interesting or famous not just that it is famous. (Gothic style was interesting; "false doors, dead-end corridors, murder-holes for pouring boiling pitch over the attackers")
  2. Kronborg should be called Kronborg Castle or Kronborg fortress. It should also have a slightly larger paragraph due to it's fame and notability (UNESCO World Heritage Site).
  3. Please avoid using " th century " so often in one paragraph like here: (Renaissance) Holbæk in northwestern Sealand began to develop towards the end of the 13th century. Prosperity continued in the 17th century as corn grown locally was traded with Germany and Holland. The hlaf-timbered houses which now form the town's museum date back to the 17th century, providing an insight into how the town functioned at that time.
  4. Place names like Præstø, Sealand, need to be changed to the proper English names as the letters are unfamiliar to English speakers. This applies to all words in the entire article unless in brackets like so, Hotel Marienlyst (Marienlyst Kurog Søbad). If the original article link has incorrectly spelled it using Danish letters you still should have the correct English spelling in your article. I personally am fine if you use Danish letters in a persons name but some might reject this as well specially when letters like æ are used.
  5. Avoid the use of initials before peoples names like this, C.F. Hansen. Do some research to find out the full name. If you can't find it, then they are probably not notable enough to be in the article in the first place and should be removed.

(Ice Explorer (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

  • Yes, this is the right place to have these comments about improvements to the article, which are generally sensible and constructive. I welcome Ice Explorer's continued interest in the article. In terms of place names, English forms are only recommended when widely accepted (i.e. Copenhagen), otherwise the use of Danish names is perfect, even if an English form exists. Elekhh (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Elekhh, the lead needs to be a bit fuller. I'll work on it asap. Ipigott (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The lead is now fuller but I don't know if it reads as well as before. Would appreciate feedback. Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of names of firms

In a recent edit, user:ProfDEH capitalised the Danish firm schmidt hammer lassen. The problem here is that the firm itself - like several others in the field - users lower case in its own official title. While I fully agree that normal English usage prefers capitalisation of proper nouns, titles of firms, etc., I wonder whether it is required here. If so, there are several other firms cited in the article which would need to be capitalised too. Any thoughts on this? Any Wikipedia guidelines? Ipigott (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It just looked like a typo. You could put a hidden comment in the text so it doesn't keep happening. ProfDEH (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination?

After trying to follow up on all the suggestions I have received in recent weeks and in the light of all the positive inputs from others, I don't think I can do much more with the article at the moment. It may therefore be a good time to ask for a peer review for GA. I am not too sure whether I should submit the article myself (if I can cope with the template!!!) or whether someone else should do it on my behalf. As always, open to suggestions. Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most people do it themselves. Let me know if the template gives problems, though it's not one I know. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was also wondering if you had any further suggestions for improvements. Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really - the article goes well beyond my knowledge, & looks like a GA to me (but I never know). Well done! Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've finally managed to use the template correctly and see the article is in the Arts queue. Ipigott (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some notes on GAN

  • Viking period and Middle Ages
... Confusing title: perhaps in Danish tradition these are two distinct periods, but for the outsiders, including yours truly, the historic Vikings are part of the Middle Ages.
  • Romanesque style
... "A very large number of stone churches in the Romanesque style, were built in the 12th, and especially the 13th century". - weasel "very large", apparent juxtaposition of two centuries when it was in fact a continuous process. Perhaps changing to active voice ("Romanesque style prevailed in church construction in the 12th centurt" etc.). NB: I am not a native English speaker.
  • Gothic style
... "Bringing about major changes" - again weasel modifier.
... "Most of the older Romanesque churches were adapted to the Gothic style" - that is, rebuilt, right?
... "Commissioned by the Danish nobleman Jens Holgersen Ulfstand with the assistance of Adam van Düren" - awkward, why would nobleman Jens need anyone's assistance in commissioning? Please separate the sponsor from the builder.
  • Half-timbered buildings
... "During the middle ages..." - too vague. We know that one survivor dates back to 1527 but did the change occur at some earlier point in time? when?
  • Renaissance
... "Prosperity peaked in the 17th century as corn grown locally" - corn as maize or wheat or?
... "Danish country vicarages" - "vicarage" as Rectory or?
  • Baroque
... "after he provided funding for an observatory along the lines defined by the astronomer Tycho Brahe who had fallen out of favour" - conflicting statements (why give money "along the lines" of someone out of favour?) perhaps remove this background at all?
  • Nordic Classicism, Functionalism - Unreferenced sections
  • Modernism
... (general comment or call it rant if you would) I struggle to see how Danes working overseas relate to Danish architecture, apart from their background. What I would like to read is how did the 20th century change the environment of Denmark? What makes living in a contemporary Danish town different from, say, living in Finland or Scotland? The Brits, we know, are crazy building roundabouts on every corner and they drive on the wrong side :)) what about Denmark? Bicycles? Shoebox shaped theatres? Quite common all over Western Europe. But how do you live, actually? What kind of housing is most common and/or most wanted today? Do you move into suburbs, or flock back to gentrified cities, or brusselize them in and out, or?
  • Contemporary period
... This section overlaps with the last two paragraphs in "Modernism". And it's not about architecture, it's about architectural profession. Perhaps rename the section? "Architectural profession in contemporary Denmark"?
  • Emerging practices
... Vague title (what is practice? aren't they already established?). If "practice" = firm, can it be "talented"? I have strong reservations against this section at all - yes, these firms emerged in the past decade, but did they survive 2008 and 2009? Firms go belly up every day.

Regards, NVO (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have a few comments to your last three points.
  • I guess it's a matter of definition. But this article is not aboutthe"History of the build enivronment in Dem,ark" or the "History of human settlements in Denmark". It's about an (applied) art form, just like music, painting, sculpture, literatureetc. And work abroad is imo relevant simply because it is an important part of these architects' activities. Does Hemmingway not write American literature while he lives in Europe? But again I guess it's totally a matter of definition, if you don't see this article as covering an art form but a geographical area, it is of course not relevant. And what you request instead is certainly relevant as well, it's just quite har to pinpoint, quite hard to sourse and will easily be too comprehensive for an article of this nature, which gives an overview with the most importantarchitects and buildings as well as their context.So what you request is basically an entirely different article as I see it.
  • Architecture versus architectural profession: I guess this is pretty much a matter of the same destinction. I don't really see why it's about the profession and not architecture. Just like the other sections, it tries to provide an overview of the most important architects (/firms) and their most important works. Maybe it's a bit more vague but it's simply harder to find fitting -isms (neo-modernism?) and put things in a historical context when it is here and now as well as to pinpoint what characterizes it without ending up in something sounding as promotional blabla. The same goes for finding good sources, even in many articles a lot of info seems to be copy-pasted directly from the architects' own newsletters. Still I think it does the same as the other sections: Who are the important architects and what do they do?
  • Emerging architects: As for the use of the word 'practice', yes it IS 'practice' as in 'firm'. It simply seems to be the word most often used in this sector - most wikipedia articles on architectural firms seem to use it. Therefore I don't think it should confuse anyone interested in reading this article. But it can without any problems be replaced by 'firm'. As for 'emerging' as opposed to 'talented' I would personally prefer the former — because they are just that: Firms that have started to win competitions and recieved attention and acclaim but still may not have that many projects realized yet for the simple reason that they are too new. 'Talented' seems much more of a vessel to me and more subjective as well. Talented at what? Making good architecture? Selling themselves? Building crap that the clients want? Now is this section relevant? All sections employing terms like 'contemporary' or 'emerging' will by nature have to be updated eventually (or regularly actually) and should therefore be used with caution. And surely some of the firms mentioned may disapear but architecture is a slow process (at least in Denmark, in Cina I know skyscrapers go up overnight) and if you only cover what has already been build and those who have established a firm (as in 'solid', not as in 'practice') reputation from it, you will miss a lot. If I read an articles like this one, I would certainly want to know what is going on right now and get some names that I could google if interested. And I would be aware that some of these firms might not be around in another few years. Because the article doesn't state otherwise, merely that they are right now part of the architectural scene. I find that relevant and useful but of course it can be excluded and if so, it leaves more room for a more thorough coverage of other topics.Ramblersen (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NVO for going through this so thoroughly and coming up with a series of interesting suggestions. If things have hit you as peculiar, it is only fair to suppose they will strike others in the same way - although I have a feeling some of them might be triggered by the fact that the article is written in British rather than American English. But let me try to address them one by one.

  • Vikings, etc. Yes, technically you are quite right although in northern Europe when we refer to the Middle Ages we are usually talking about the 11th to 15th centuries - see [1]. But this needs attention. It happened when someone merged two sections. I'll take care of it.
  • Very large number of churches. You're right again. I'll use a figure (some 700 churches) explaining that churches were built for virtually all the towns and villages in Denmark at the time.
  • "Most of the older Romanesque churches were adapted to the Gothic style" - that is, rebuilt, right? Some were rebuilt but in many cases the existing structure was simply adapted to the Gothic style by altering the windows, arches, vaults, etc. I'll try to improve on this.

Will also try to follow up on your other stylistic suggestions except that for me corn is a general term for cereals (but certainly not maize which came from the New World) The variety of corn may well have been oats but I doubt that it was wheat. References difficult to find for the precise variety. Perhaps I should use the term "cereals" (although this smacks of Corn Flakes). Vicarage is the term I would naturally use to describe the houses specially built for protestant priests while serving their parishes. But as many of them go back to Roman Catholic times, rectory might be permissible.

Rectories are only for rectors - it is not a general term for a clergy house of any church. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nordic Classicism, etc. Yes references are needed here. Will tidy it up.
  • Modernism: I agree with Ramblersen here. I think it is important to document the fact that Danish architects have been successful overseas - just like Danish Design. But I also agree with you that it would be useful to have a completely different article on, for example, contemporary Danish architects. But I haven't time to write it now!
  • Emerging practices: I must say the heading seems perfectly OK to me. The reason the practices are emerging is that they are gaining prominence. But if you think something like "Recent players" would be better, then I would be happy to substitute it. I don't like the term "architectural profession" as a heading.

It's been pretty hectic over the Christmas period but I hope I'll now have time to follow up on your helpful suggestions. Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

  • Shouldn't the subsection "Classicism" be called "Neoclassicism?
  • "Urban developments" at the end of the "19th century" section: Maybe it should open with a more generally formulated sentence, as it is now I think it appears poorly integrated, leaving the reader with a "Why Svendborg?"-fealing. But I do realize it used to be in a seperate section at the end due to the very problem of integration so it can also just be left the way it is - it's only a small thing. And it just IS hard to integrate.
  • "20th century": I find it a bit confusing that this (important) section opens with a subsection on "Expressionism" which was hardly even a period in Danish architecture as such and the only example of which mentioned in the article is a building completed in 1940. As it is now I think it creates an inaccurate or deceptive picture of Danish architecture at the beginning of the previous century. Maybe the sollution is to have a few general comments before any suvsection, stating that Historicism, National Romanticism and Neoclassicism continued well into the 20th century et (like Nordic Classicism opens now but with a bit more details).
  • Functionalism/Modernism: This destinction seems a bit strange since Functionalism is part of Modernism. If Rococo should be a subsection of Baroque, so should Functionalism be of Modernism. But that leaves the problem of what to call the non-functionalism part? I know you tried with American Modernism which was changed by someone. Maybe it would be better just to have one section called Modernism, writing first about Functionalism and then moving on to write about the American influence – exactly the way things are now? I don't even think the destinction is very clear (not in Danish tradition at least) so also in that respect merging the two subsections would hold advantages. Furthermore I think it's overkill to call Århus City Hall a masterpiece (main work, central work, important work maybe?) but I may be mistaken of course. Nor am I sure that Rødovre Town Hall is generally considered one of Arne Jacobsen's more important buildings, I think it it would be more relevant to mention Bagsværd Church or the Bellevue Theatre. But again I may very well be mistaken here.
  • "Recent urban developments": This urban development has largely taken place in this century and not towards the end of the 20th century so the subsection seems a bit misplaced. For instance the first building in Ørestad was completed in 2001. But I do realize that the article points out that the planning largely took place in the80s (and 90s). Still I think it belongs in the Contemporary section - since it is very much part of the contemporary boom, parallel to the international succes, while the planning it relies upon is in no way notable.

On a general note, what does Wikipedia say about the length of an article of this kind, can it be expanded or should something basically go out if something comes in?Ramblersen (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The guideline is:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.
The article is now 57Kb with most of it made up of "readable prose", i.e. there is some danger that it might get too long. An obvious split would be to separate urban development, however I wouldn't split it at this stage. Elekhh (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the dead links discovered during this article's GA process appears to be live at http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/About-Denmark/Danish-Design-Architecture/Architecture/SecondHalfOfThe20thCentury. It could be reintroduced as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tegnestuen Vandkunsten

I just noticed that Tegnestuen Vandkunsten, the winners of the 2009 Alvar Aalto Medal are not mentioned here, although probably notable enough. PS. Congratulations for the GA! Elekhh (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

Theophil von Hansen (1813-1891) was not the brother of C.F. Hansen (Christian Frederik Hansen, 1756-1845), but of Christian Hansen (1808-1883, Hans Christian Hansen), a historicist architect working in Athens and later in Copenhagen. I don't have time to rework the section now, so I'm mentioning this mistake as an item for the to-do list.--Urbandweller (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops...thanks for clearing this out. My fault, I'm affraid and I will see to it that it becomes sorted out..Ramblersen (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Medieval village churches

First of all, this is a great idea for an article. One thing I found lacking was an image (and possibly a bit more information concerning) the typical early medieval white church (landsbykirke) which is found in massive numbers in village parishes on Funen and Zealand, see e.g. the Churches in Denmark category on Commons. This type of church also exists in (formerly Danish) Scania, e.g. the Södra Åsum Church, and as far as I know, this type of church building was the common one in the 1100-1200s, although it is also seen in later centuries). This type of church normally has a single nave, a (square) chancel attached to the nave (often lower than the nave, as the chancel was constructed first), a tower on the west end of the nave, a "weaponhouse" (porch) on the south side of the nave near the tower [porch and tower are normally later additions], and the entire building is normally whitewashed and typically has a red tile roof. A rather typical example is the Allesø Church, although it lacks the rounded apse, but which does contain the characteristic "weaponhouse" located on the south side of the nave and the square tower on the west end of the nave with the typical crow-stepped gable (kamtakker). Examples containing a transcept also exist, but they are not typical. Valentinian T / C 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Architecture of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Architecture of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Architecture of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Architecture of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Architecture of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Architecture of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Meddelelser fra Akademisk architektforening, Volume 3

This title on Google Books might be a useful resource with which to expand this and other related articles: Meddelelser fra Akademisk architektforening, Volume 3 (Announcements from the Academic Architectural Association, Volume 3) https://books.google.com/books?id=7XhKAAAAMAAJ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architecture_of_Denmark/Archive_1&oldid=1170088219"