Wikipedia-diskussion:WikiProjekt Kirker

Danmarks Kirker

Bogværket Danmarks Kirker omfatter danske kirker fra før 1850 og enkelte andre, og er stadig under udgivelse. Det er et særdeles omfattende værk, og man kan argumentere for at det er relevant at have et link til det i artiklerne om de berørte kilder. Nationalmuseet, der udgiver værket, har desværre ikke allokeret ressourcer til gennemgående at referere det på Wikipedia, men nok til at indsætte i alt fald nogle af de omtalte links. Hvad siger I? --Palnatoke (diskussion) 24. mar 2014, 16:38 (CET)

Hvis der er er koncensus for at det er relevant, så for min skyld ingen alarm. Min umiddelbare reaktion på indsættelsen og kontakten til brugeren skyldes at det skete uden foreudgående diskussion (eller har jeg misset noget?) og at der ikke rigtigt var nogen respons på mine forespørgsler. :Mvh Knud Winckelmann (diskussion) 24. mar 2014, 17:32 (CET)

Der har været en del kommunikation med museets medarbejdere, men jeg kan ikke pege på en specifik diskussion. Jeg er ikke i tvivl om at der et eller andet sted i processen har været et "det er glimrende at indsætte relevante links". Der har uden tvivl også været noget om at det ville være bedre med rigtigt indhold. --Palnatoke (diskussion) 24. mar 2014, 19:42 (CET)

Age and style of village churches

Dear friends,

collecting Gothic brick buildings all over Europe, I had to notice, that some articles on Danish village churches are not very reliable:

Verden domkirkens DE klokketårn, romansk, midt 1100-tallet, et italiensk campanile i Nedersaksen

• Some articles on village churches give the foundation of a probably wooden (or kampesten) predecessor as the age of the present building.
• Some articles guess the style from the age, or the age from the style.
  • Both together can create an ond cirkel.

• According to accepted basics of the history of architecture, there is no medieval brick north of the Alps before the 1140s. The oldest sufficiently dated brick buildings in Denmark are Sorø Klosterkirke and Sankt Bendts Kirke in Ringsted. As the use of brick was introduced by high authorities, it first appeared in such prominent buildings, not in "poor" village churches. The very first medieval bricks in Germany and Denmark were small (Italian norm, as the technique had been imported from Italy). The next step were the large munkestener. Afterwards, there were different developments, smaller bricks as well as continuous use of munkestener. In the Netherlands, the medieval use of brick began in the 13th century, at once with "kloostermoppen" (munkestener).
• Exept of Arab influenced buldings in southern Italy (en:Arab-Norman Palermo and the Cathedral Churches of Cefalù and Monreale) and one or two examples in Burgundy, see http://denstoredanske.dk/Kunst_og_kultur/Arkitektur/Romansk_og_gotisk/Gotik_(Arkitektur) , there are no pointed arches (spidsbuer) in Christian Europe before Gothic style. Therefore, as soon as a building has pointed arch windows or a pointed arch door, it should be called Gothic. If such an element was built in the original state of a building or building part (choir or nave or base of the tower or …), this building or building part was Gothic from the onset. If a building in its original state had both Romanesque and Gothic elements, we may call it Romano-Gothic. If the Gothic elements are younger, we should mention Gothic alterations, preferably dated.

With my best regards, Ulamm (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 13:37 (CEST) + Ulamm (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 14:30 (CEST)

http://danmarkskirker.natmus.dk

Today these links do not work, but the scanned pages are available via yumpu. I've found some via Google.

And the yumpu.com URLs can be used for references in articles.

Helpful are also the short Trap Danmark 3 descriptions, presented by Danske Aner, such as https://www.danskeaner.dk/wiki/index.php/Bjerager_Sogn → Kirken --Ulamm (diskussion) 25. apr 2018, 22:58 (CEST)

Now there is no problem at danmarkskirker.natmus.dk and it is much faster than yumpu. - Nico (diskussion) 25. apr 2018, 23:07 (CEST)

Trying Hundslund Kirke once more, now I have got it:

Natmus.dk works, but in some articles the presented link to natmus is not targeted to the existing page on that special church.

The major advantage of natmus.dk and runeberg.org/trap/3-4/ is that official databases are allowed to be linked without a footnote.--Ulamm (diskussion) 26. apr 2018, 09:26 (CEST)

http://danmarkskirker.natmus.dk (2)

• A lot of Danish churches have a commons category, but not yet an article.
• Some of these churches have a high quality description in Danmarks Kirker.
• To provide this information to our visitors, the link has to be visible in the category.
• I have entered such links into many categories, but now User:Hjart has begun to delete them.
• A formal template would be useful, but the informal presentation is better than a lack of information. The informal presentation must be available (if deleted, it has to be restored), until there is a template. If the template will be available, the informal links can be transformed.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 11:32 (CEST)

As long as databse links in Wikidata are not visible in the category, it is bothering for visitors, to click Wikidata without knowing if there they get the necessary information or not.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 15:04 (CEST)

Locations

The reason I started reverting your changes was https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:G%C3%A5rslev_Kirke&diff=prev&oldid=369743307&diffmode=source , which I find just plain stupid. The correct action here would be to correct wikidata, which I suggested to you several times before. --Hjart (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 11:44 (CEST)

Locations are another subject. Wikidata locations of buildings sometimes take a central point of the town or village, instead, or the figures behind the decimal dot have been abbreviated so much that the building has gone out of sight.

The matter with the infobox locations usually is that the "precision" of the otherwise correct wikidata coordinates, where in most cases set far too high (or low. Not sure which is what here) when transformed from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. People just didn't notice the problem until the Commons Wikidata infobox became popular. I have corrected tons of such misleading Wikidata coordinates. Please understand though, that it's quite a massive undertaking (we do have ~2400 danish churches in Wikidata as well as tons of other structures). It would be helpful if rather than complain, you would help correcting them. --Hjart (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 16:58 (CEST)

If in the visitors find the correct location in the category, it doesn't matter what is written in Wikidata. The useful thing of Wikidata are the interwiki links. The other contents are useless and mostly of minor quality than the WP articles. Obviously, some Wikidata authors do routine work without real interest.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 18:34 (CEST)

It's obvious that your idea of what Wikidata is actually good for is quite rudimentary. My experience is that working with basic data in Wikidata is way more efficient than having it stored in either Commons or Wikipedia. Also please note that some kind soul since yesterday added links to "Danmarks Kirker" to the wikidata items of practically all 2400+ danish churches. Please note that this makes your edits to the commons categories superfluous. --Hjart (diskussion) 9. okt 2019, 12:39 (CEST)

My notes telling "Wikidata is wrong" are also meant as challenge for the Wikidata authors to improve the quality of their work.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 18:43 (CEST)

Working on a list of several thousand buildings, i have to visit so many pages, often ill kept pages, that I prefer to correct them with little effort, instead of hesitating my main work by compensating other authors' laziness.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 12:50 (CEST)

In other words you prefer to be lazy? --Hjart (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 13:05 (CEST)

Deleting fake links to non-existing articles and adding necessary links to scientific information, I am not lazy at all, but for my main work these are side works, delations.

I am not the rubbish collector of those people, who are too lazy to maintain their categories and infoboxes.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 14:59 (CEST)

If you as in the example with Gårslev kirke, add a location to the Commons Category, complaining that "wikidata is wrong", then you cannot rightfully call other people "lazy". If you do that, then you are the lazy one. --Hjart (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 15:44 (CEST)

In side works, I concentrate on correction of mistakes. Nice layout may be done by the guy who had provided incorrect informatoin in a nice layout.--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. okt 2019, 16:03 (CEST)