Talk:Skagen

Skagen has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 10, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Municipality no more[edit]

The town (Skagen) no longer forms its own municipality (kommune) but merged in January 2005 with Frederikshavn Kommune to the south.

What does "Skaw" mean?[edit]

What is the literal transiation of "Skaw"? I ask because that's the name of the most northerly village in Scotland, Skaw in the Shetlands. I guess it's the same name, coming from norn or some other scandic language? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot offer any meanings of the names Skagen or Skaw, but the Danish word for a person from Skagen, a "skagbo" (literally " Skagen dweller") is sometimes spelled "skawbo" as the pronounciation is identical. Perhaps someone could look into the etymology of the name Skagen; especially the `Swedish skägg (pronounced sheg), "beard".´ suggestion seems far-fetched. -- Hestemand 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a Frederikshavn (2007-) municipality[edit]

Please see the discussion about using official municipality names at Talk:Municipalities of Denmark. --SFDan 06:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dpv and the Cimbri[edit]

Hello dpv. Sometimes the editor misedits, which is why editors and writers ought to communicate amicably. I'm all for it. You introduced an error, which I fixed. No harm done but I imagine interested readers were pretty confused for a while. Tastris is the unknown word. You can look up Cimbri on Wikipedia. Best wishes, keep on editing.Dave 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skagen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SchroCat (talk · contribs) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC) I'll pick this one up; should have some solid comments in a day or so, but one thing that springs to the eye is that there is some overlinking here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to reduce this today. Is it OK though if we also keep the names linked in the Skagen painters section as I think it's more convenient to link them than not. I've delinked most of the others though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so: it makes more sense to be able to link from a specialist section, rather than have to hunt back up the page. Frederikshavn seems to be linked three or four times, so may be worth a look, but I think you've caught most of them. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been a bit of a slow start, but a few points to think on:

~~What version of English is this? Color and jeweler versus centre and harbour: I don't mind which version, but it needs consistency throughout~~

I'd rather English, but I noticed Ipigott had been using harbor so I figured he was using American English, which I generally tend to use I must admit, given that Americans form the majority on here and it is an American website. Ian any preference?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Double image at the top - bad sandwiching of the text here.~~
~~"In 1644, Swedish troops occupied the town during the Torstenson War.[3]" I think we need a bit more here in the way of context: why, for how long, etc. not too much, but just a line or so extra.~~

Was trying to keep to British English. The irritating automatic spell checker on IE probably changed harbour to harbor (as it is trying to do now!)--Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of the painters: more to follow soon. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full review (finally!)

There's a new "Today" section which has a few issues in it: the first paragraph is unsourced, the dates are of an inconsistent format and some of the language is unencyclopaedic, "as celebrities conquer Skagen" conquer? Other parts need re-writing: "As in other outskirts of Denmark" is not good. I'm also not sure of the wisdom of splitting it away from the 20th century: the previous section of "20th century-present" was fine, as "Today" is slightly misleading.

Done --Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

There's a lot of white space here

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

"Skagen's economy has been based on its fishing industry which continues to prosper today, thanks to its fishing harbour": I think it's probably "thanks to" fishermen and market conditions, but helped or facilitated by the harbour.

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However" isn't needed; this sentence also works backwards: starts off with "today", and then works back to the 1960s – could do with a bit of a tweak.

Done --Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skagen Town and Regional Museum

Duch windmill or Dutch windmill

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs & Bibliography

I think publishing years are probably better than specific days.

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation needs sorting out on one or two books.

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should go for consistency in whether you have full biblio and the shortened refs which link down to them, or whether you have the full book details in the refs section (I think there are seven books listed in the refs).

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: FN 15 is still wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now ref 13,

Done♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FNs21 and 26: you need to finish off the page ranges.

Done --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reads pretty well, with only a little polishing needed. Review on hold until the above is sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Passes all the criteria as currently listed at GAN. Well done to all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

It would be helpful for a pronunciation of the name to appear, which is, I understand, counterintuitive to Americans. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Did a first pass on this, based on an online pronunciation service in Europe, with good track record for Danish names. See edit from today. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

″==Demographics section tagged to initiate discussion== Source 4, a webpage, is used pervasively, as the near single source in this section and for several additional subsections and paragraphs in History. This is problematic in two ways, first, as a Danish language source (acceptable, but see main point), and second, as a webpage providing substantial historic and demographic information without (a) clear presentation of content authorship/curatorship and scholarly credentials, and (b) without clear attribution/direct sourcing of the purported factual information presented. (E.g., the long list of population data presented in simple stacked text format does not indicate its original governmental or other source.)

Taken together, these two aspects make it difficult, if not impossible, to verify the accuracy of the cited data. Hence, as this cited websource approaches the question of the veracity and verifiability of its data in the manner of "Just trust us," this standard is transferred to Wikipedia in its re-use of the information so pervasively, and without checking.

I do not expect you to change this, or even allow the tag to stand (because this manner of sourcing information is so widespread in this article, and at WP in general).

But I do wish that individuals who write, ostensibly at an encyclopedia, would understand standards generally associated with encyclopedic writing. With regard to the population data, I would argue that we, as an encyclopedia, would wish to cite the governmental or other source of the data (a verifiable and WP:reliable source), and not this webpage. Hence, I would argue, at this stage, such parts of the article are "student draft" pieces of work, half completed (finding the first research hint regarding reliable information, but not taking the critical further step of finding and sourcing the actual reliable, verifiable information itself).

Here, it seems, we ask readers to trust us, and we ourselves are likewise overly trusting, and so unscholarly, in our selection of sources—conveying that it is better to say something, even if we cannot be sure of its accuracy, than to leave a subject unaddressed for inability to track information to its true reliable origin. Cheers, bonne chance. Le Prof. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite unreasonable to expect English language sources for demograpics of locations in non-English speaking countries. But yes, the point about using governmental data by preference is well taken. I have not contributed to this article in a major way, but being a Danish speaker I will try to find the governmental source on which the data is presumably based.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "well taken" point: any luck with the better sourcing of this, @Maunus:? 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the historical demographic data are not going to be possible to get through online sources, my guess is that the local historians in Skagen built it based on church books. One would have to visit the society to find out with certainty. So it probably stands and falls with the quesiton of whether a local historical society is considered a reliable source for local history. I think it should be.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do be one that ikke kan få øje på skoven for bare træer (misses the forest for the trees). About the language, I noted "Danish language source (acceptable". The point regarding the language is simply to say, that if the original editor—whose job it is to provide verifiable reliable, scholarly sourcing for his information, not based on trust of the editor/author—does not do this work, then language serves as a further post hoc barrier to any that would try to verify or provide sourcing. It is to say, all the more, in articles based on foreign language sources is it necessary to hold to high sourcing standards from the start. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website by the way belongs to the Skagen historical society. I don't know why that wouldn't be considered a reliable source for historical demography of Skagen.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skagen is not even one of the major cities in Denmark. There is absolutely no chance that there's going to be English language sources for local things like population. It's not even a requirement that sources must be in English anyway! Can we ever be 100% sure of accuracy anyway? We're here to report what has been reported.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, @Dr. Blofeld:, the forest is being ignored for trees (language is not the issue, Jeg elsker det danske sprig). Issue is the sourcing of the data. In re: that, "We're here to report what has been reported"… yes, but only from reliable, verifiable sources. Key distinction. Self-published, blog-like information of any type is disallowed at WP, and I would argue (i) that unreliable and unverifiable apply to any web-sourced population data that is not governmental or similarly solid, or that appears at a site, absent a source therein (i.e., if missing a "Data appearing here taken from Danish Census data, …" or similar). And (ii) that, per @Maunus:, the vested interest of the website owners make it all the more important that there be a traceable source therein. In short, this and other reputable online, open encyclopedias (absent expert authors as at EB) are "just trust us" venues to the extent that they lack reliable, verifiable sourcing worthy of respect, and this very often is the case at WP; moreover, the citing of sources that cannot be seen as an ultimate reputable origin of information is just a dodge (hiding the "just trust us" message one further layer deeper). Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have pinged and important policy influence at WP, and asked him to look in to the general argument. Let's see if he responds. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And he disagrees with you anyway, and considers it to be a reliable source for population, not that he actually makes policy decisions around here. Let it rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just for the record I am not an important policy influence in any way. I have no particular authority or importance. I think the source should be considered reliable until proven otherwise - but if you think its reliability requires further discussion then I suggest the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where other editors will be able to comment on whether they consider it reliable or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I and I believe the IP were referring to Jimmy Wales, who he left a post about this to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok that makes more sense. Except of Course Jimmy Wales doesnt have any authority on these matters either, and is unlikely to take any interest in it.m RSN is the way to go.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Skagen map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]