# Talk:Roskilde


### City and municipality
The article don't seperare the city of Roskilde and the municipality of Roskilde very well. If The article is about the minipality (as it is in the beginning), then shouldn't the page be moved to Roskilde municipality orRoskilde Kommune?

Roskilde/post_reform is created. It is, in light of the 2007 reforms, for the creation of an article which is acurate from and past 2007. Please make your edits there. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read the new articles? The facts about the municipality has just been moved to Roskilde municipality, so nothing is deleted or changed, the article is about the CURRENT municipality. The articles have only been seperated, as there (ALSO today) is a different between the size of the city and the municipality. Eg the minicapility includes the villages Himmelev, Svogerslev, Trekroner, Vor Frue, Skalstrup and Tune. But anyway, I would like to change the page back to the new version. If you (or anybody else) still disagree, lets discuss it. Pardy 11:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
Note: Also the picture you have insert is of the New Roskilde municapility.
The difference is explained with this. "It is also the name of the municipality's main city, and the site of its municipal council." It is better to have a larger article that explains both than two seperate articles where one is hopelessly short.--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree! I think it's much better to have one article on the municipaltlity, which explains the political facts, the population-size, neighbour-municipalities, town master etc, and one article that tells about the city and its culture, history, attractions etc. When we have two different "areas" they should be in two different articles. Of course there should be links between the articles, Anohter thing; look at: Category:Municipalities of Denmark about 75% of all the articles are called "municipality" in the end. Pardy 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC).
I guess we have a conflict here. But in 2007, it will be a moot point. Amt reform. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what happend here, but I noticed OrbitOne's message asking for input, so I'll stick to that. I worked on much of the similar material for other Danish municipalities around a year ago adding information about the effects of the municipal reform. The real expert is User:Sfdan who made most of this work.
AFAIK, the reasoning seems to be that if we have a lot of information about both the municipality and the town itself (population, history, landmarks, famous residents etc.) then  it is possible to split the material into two articles, with one about the political / administrative side and another article about everything else. However this is not a requirement. The form used by the /"post reform" article does not correspond to, what to the best of my knowledge, is the normal standard for this kind of material. In any case, I would be very sad seing duplicate articles about the "old" municipalities and the "new" with the same name, since User:SFDan and I cleaned up much of this material. I know that the Danish Wikipedia has articles on both the old and the new municipalities, but it will simply mean a lot of extra work later. When people suggested the same policy here, it was rejected and I believe this was a sound decision. If people want to see how this is normally done, see e.g.  the articles about e.g. Odense and Odense Municipality. The material about the muncipal structure (+ a very short description) in one article ("X-købing Municipality")and one article about everything else. ("X-købing"). But all in all, I think it is better to leave everything in one article unless we have a *lot* of material necessitating a split. Just my thoughts. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The post reform version is to allow quick editing of the article without conflicts. The idea is we should bring it up to speed and use the post reform version when 2007 rolls in. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess since I'm being referred to here, I'll put in my two cents worth also, and it is pretty much as Valentinian has aaid above.  When I was involved in doing a major overhaul, standardization and upgrade of Danish municipality articles about a year ago I used a number of guidelines to help me in decision making:
Where an article about a municipality existed I did not care whether the article was called "Whatever municipality" or simply "Whatever".  This was simply not my priority.
Where an article about a municipality did not exist already, and a new article was created I named it "Whatever municipality".  (It was my thought that one day, someone else might be interested in renaming existing municipality articles with a standard naming convention-- again not a high priority item for me.)  Note also as I named them "Whatever municipality" and not "Whatever Municipality" as municipality is a descriptive and not part of a formal proper name.  Giving the name of the article as "Whatever municipality" helped resolve name conflicts (both existing and future) with the possibility of an article about a town or city of the same name as the municipality.
Where there existed information in the article about both a town and a municipality with a shared name I did not attempt to split them into two separate articles (again, not my priority).  I kept the name of the article as "Whatever" since it referred to both a town/city and a municipality.  I tried my best to make it absolutely clear in the first paragraph that the article referred to a) municipality, b) town/city and possibly also c) county/amt.  Again, my personal preference is a longer article that makes it clear it describes several entities that share the same name (and perhaps share same information), then to split it up into one or more stubs.  I am personally opposed to creating stubs unneccesarily.
Concerning future and former municipalities, I created standardly formatted articles for future municipalities and categorized them as "Future municipalities of Denmark".  In some cases I "retired" some former municipalities in the category "Former municipalities of Denmark".  I do not see why this same principle cannot apply after Jan. 1 2007.  This means that some "Future municipalities" will be recategorized on Jan. 1 and some "Municipalities" will become "Former municipalities".  There will also be some "tense" changes within the articles where phrases such as "will become" need to be changed to "has become", etc.
Note I also did not use the naming convention "New Whatever municipality" as this was (I believe in all cases) a fictive descriptive name, and not an official name.
If the issue here is simply whether to split up Roskilde article into separate municipality and town articles (or more) on principle, I will simply speak against creating stubs if you are not willing to do the extra research to expand the short articles, and to resolve the resultant "link" and "redirect" problems (What links here).
If the issue here is how to "update" the municipality articles, in general, on the first of the year, then you have a "big issue" here, and I don't know if that has been addressed yet.  If not, it probably should be.
Hope these guidelines provide some history as to how decisions were taken.  --SFDan 07:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Hi again. I agree that it would be pointless if the result was making two 3-lines stub, but that's not the case. The two pages i made (Roskilde new version and Roskilde municipality) wasn't stubs, and Roskilde municipality was easy to update after the 2007-reform, and there is also place for a list of all the villages in the municipality.
Another thing: if you look at Danish cities of similar size (Randers, Kolding, Vejle, Næstved, Silkeborg and Fredericia - facts from template:25 biggest cities of Denmark) they all have an article about both the city and the municipality. The only one that doesn't is Roskilde! I think the city deserve it's own article, and personally I will promise to enlarge the articles in a gradual process. 
P.S. I have resolved the link and redirect problems, so they fit to the two articles i made. Pardy 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

I have no problems with the two articles"Roskilde municipality" as they it looks now. My main concern is to avoid having both an article about the "new" and "old" municipality. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more of the muncipality-oriented material should be moved to the new article? The new map at least? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I still am not a big fan of two articles instead of one, but the new article (Roskilde kommune) is more to the point, I agree, but I would like to keep the mention in the new Roskilde (city) version. Can we agree to a compromise here and rewrite the kommune/city mention in the old article so it is still there and is informative and links to the kommune article?--OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if this info was moved down a bit so the first paragraph referred to the town as such? Would that be ok? It just caught my eye that both articles begin with referring to the municipality. Whatever happens, both articles should definitely link to each other. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If we seperate the articles they shall undoubtally link to each other.
To Valentinian: If you look at Roskilde new version, this doesn't start with "Roskilde is a municipality...", but it's link to the municipality in the very first line.
Could we agree to go back to use that article, and then OrbitOne, you can add the facts you think are missing? Pardy 14:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
I was looking at the wrong version, sorry! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"..The Center is situated in the former varehouse of the well known Danish merchant Torsten Fogh Dybvad..." Torsten Dybvad is af ghost, he does not exist in connection to Roskilde. Therefore he has been deleted from the Danish Wikipedia.Guest, Denmark  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.115.114 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 

I know it's a fairly small point, but the article says "The town suffered from plague, wars with the Swedes and a number of devastating fires in the 17th century but began to recover in the 18th century with the opening of the railway from Copenhagen in 1847. " Well, 1847 is the 19th century, so if the recovery was linked to that it should be changed, however it might be that the recovery came earlier and that the railway was an extension (or a result) of this recovery, so I haven't changed anything. Could someone with better grasp of the history of the town fix it? BeShaMo (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the Cathedral?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.130.147 (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roskilde/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Will have this one finished either today or tomorrow ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
#### Lead
I would link Copenhagen for reference  Done
"With a population of 48,721 (1 January 2014)" - this might read better through something like As of the 2014 census(?), the city had a population of 48,721 or something similar?
have made a slight alteration: there is a link to the Danish statistical office
"Roskilde has a historic four-platform railway station" - why is the station historic?
It is explained in the article: "Roskilde Station is the oldest railway station in Denmark still operating and the first built of stone. The first train arrived from Copenhagen on 26 June 1847."
The lead complies per WP:LEAD, as it summarises the main points in the article well (especially with its history). I notice the omission of "healthcare" and "notable people" in the lead, but I personally would not consider this to affect this GAN as the reader could always read the rest of the article, but it's just an idea if you ever plan on bringing this up to FA?
I'll work on this later. You will see on my talk page that I have received some other suggestions for improvements to the lead.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In regard to healthcare, the hospital was in fact already included in the lead but I have now expanded its coverage as well as something on notable citizens. I have also incorporated other recent suggestions.  Done--Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


#### History
"Roskilde developed as the hub of the Viking land and sea trade routes over a thousand years ago, is one of Denmark's oldest cities" - is this missing a "and"? and is one of Denmark's oldest cities or am I wrong?
Well spotted.  Done
"By that time, it was probably the largest and most important town in Denmark" - this part is unsourced, never mind, I have just found out that ref 6 covers it!
"Since the 1980s, the service sector has prospered, replacing industry as the major employer" - which industry did it replace?
have specified "manufacturing"; there are explanations under "Economy"  Done


#### Geography
"1,300 m (4,300 ft) south of the fjord, is c. 40 m " - should be approximately 40 m?
 Done
"Also of note is Hyrdehøj Skov, to the south of the stadium and just north of Route 23" - what is Hyrdehøj Skov?
 Done


#### Demographics and administration
The second paragraph is unsourced, should it contain the same reference as the one in the box?
 Done


#### Economy
"the Scandinavian Pizza Company (Domino's Pizza)" - isn't Domino's Pizza American?
The name of the company (see ref) is Scandinavian Pizza Company. Maybe they produce Domino's pizzas under license but I agree this is confusing and have deleted Domino's
 Done


#### Landmarks
"Facing the courtyard, the façade" - just curious, why not just 'facade'?
I did not add this myself but I know that some automatic spell checkers constantly change facade to façade; façade is perfectly acceptable in British English, less common in American English
The two small paragraphs in the "Roskilde Jars" section could be merged together to create a better flow, what do you think?
 Done


#### Transport
"Roskilde has a four-platform railway station" - the lead said that the four-platform railway station was historic? I notice that it later says "Roskilde Station is the oldest railway station in Denmark" but this should be mentioned in the lead?
have reworded the lead as you suggest  Done
"The airport is also home to a small Royal Danish Air Force detachment, maintaining a helicopter based Search-and-Rescue" - should 'Search-and-Rescue' be capitalised?
sloppy cutting and pasting  Done


#### Education and sport
"Six gymnasiums" - I notice that 'gymnasiums' link to Gymnasium (Denmark), if there anything that differs between Danish gymnasiums and other ones to be notable enough to include here? I would have otherwise thought it was WP:OVERLINKING!
Must disagree on this one. A gymnasium in Denmark (as in Germany) is a secondary school leading to the matriculation diploma, not a gym for gymnastics. I don't think many English speakers are familiar with the usage. The link to the Danish article also provides background on the precise set-up and curriculum. There are also significant differences between gymnasium schools in Denmark and those in other countries such as Germany and Austria. I think it is better to maintain the link as it is although it would be possible to to substitute Gymnasium_(school)#Northern_European_countries. I await your reactions.
Sure, I was just wondering what the difference was with a gymnasium in Denmark and others, but now I know then perhaps it's best to keep it as it is? Thanks for telling me! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


#### WP:ENGVAR
There are cases of both British and American spelling in this article, as per most GAs and the criteria, they usually are meant to have on spelling variant. Which one would Roskilde use? I see instances such as "centre" and "recognized" in the same section!

I have tried to adopt British spelling throughout. Verbs in -ize coincide with the preferred spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary. I am English myself generally use -ize forms but also accept -ise of course. See American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Greek-derived_spellings. Please let me know if there are any other instances of American spelling and I will change them.Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


#### References
Ref 36 is dead
Updated  Done
In the external links, Roskilde Domkirke (English version of Danish site) and NetBorger Kommunefakta are both dead
Thanks for checking this out. I must admit I did not go through them myself. No that the article is much more complete, I don't think any of the external links are necessary and have deleted the section.
I think I have now dealt with your most of your queries. Please let me know if you are happy with the changes. I still intend to do further work on the article, especially the lead, but you might consider this to be outside the review. In the meantime, thanks for dealing with everything at Jaguar speed and coming up with a number of useful comments.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a final word to let you know that I have now completed changes to the article in connection with your comments and other suggestions I have received over the past 24 hours. Hope everything is now OK.--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


### On hold
Overall just some minor issues that include the prose and some dead links that could be clarified, but other than that it is a fine looking article. Sorry for the delay too, as I've been caught up in some things. I'll put this on hold for you, and will be happy to review the development of this article further! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
Thank you for addressing all of those concerns, Ipigott! After seeing the improvements made to the article, it now meets the GA criteria. It is broad, comprehensive and well written, with no problems with the references. It was an interesting read too, as was Aarhus (which feels like a long time ago). Anyway, thank you for coming to this quickly  ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Roskilde - Roskildekrukkerne - 2007.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)