Brugerdiskussion:Ulamm

Fra Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi
Spring til navigation Spring til søgning
Gtk-dialog-info.svgHjerteligt velkommen til den danske Wikipedia, Ulamm! (Storbritannien English)
Jeg håber, at du vil trives her. Brug venligst 10 minutter på at læse denne velkomst, som er ment som en hjælp, hvis du vil oprette og redigere artikler. Yderligere oplysninger og inspiration findes i vores fulde velkomst og i punkterne nedenfor.
Crystal Clear app lassist.png Wikipedias fem søjler
Wikipedias politikker og normer er baseret på Wikipedias fem søjler.
Gtk-dialog-info.svg Retningslinjer
Wikipedias hjælpe- og instruktionssider.
Hjælp:Guide Guide
Tag et skridt ad gangen ved hjælp af dette selv-kursus.
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Følg politikkerne & notabilitet
Regler som man bør følge. Herunder er bl.a. kravet om overholdelse af ophavsretten.
Cicero.PNG Få inspiration fra vores bedste artikler
Skriv artikler, der opfylder vores designmæssige krav.
Nuvola apps edu languages.png Mentorprogram
Et program designet til at hjælpe nye og uerfarne brugere.
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg Hvad Wikipedia ikke er
Ting man skal undgå – herunder partiske artikler og selvbiografier.
Nuvola apps ksirc.png Ofte stillede spørgsmål
Svar på ofte stillede spørgsmål.
Crystal Clear app kedit.svg Sandkassen
Denne side kan bruges til eksperimenter.
Crystal Clear action apply.png Få yderligere hjælp
Stil spørgsmål i Landsbybrønden eller i nybegynderforummet. Besøg gerne hjælpe- og chatkanalen på IRC.
ToolbarSignVectorDA-2020.png

Denne her side er din diskussionsside, hvor du får beskeder fra andre brugere, og hvor du kan besvare spørgsmål fra andre. Hvis du vil skrive en besked til en anden bruger, skal du skrive den på brugerens diskussionsside. Afslut altid dine indlæg på diskussionssider med ~~~~. Du kan også trykke på signérknappen (se billedet). Begge dele underskriver med dit brugernavn og et tidsstempel. Ved at klikke på "Gem side" bliver dit indlæg gemt.

Med venlig hilsen Simeondahl (diskussion) 13. apr 2015, 07:19 (CEST)

Gotisk og Romansk stil[rediger kildetekst]

Hej Ulamm

(I hope you are able to read Danish - I notice that most of your comments are in English, but since some are not, and you are editing in Danish and referring to Danish sources, I assume you are at least bilingual).

Jeg kan se at du i et par forskellige kirkeartikler har rettet stilart fra (sen)romansk til (ung)gotisk, og/eller rettet opførelsesår. Mht stilarten: Jeg har checket de af kilderne der ligger online, og i nogle tilfælde kan jeg kun finde kilder der siger romansk, i andre tilfælde er kilderne uenige. For nogles vedkommende er der slet ingen stil angivet. I dine redigeringskommentarer henviser du så vidt jeg kan se til din egen vurdering af kirkernes arkitektur - først og fremmest buernes form.

Mht opførelsesåret har der, for dem hvor jeg har kunnet finde årstal, ikke været belæg for dine ændringer. I nogle tilfælde har kilderne været uenige, men de har sjældent haft så sent opførelsesår som du angiver.

Hvis du har kilder til dine ændringer, må du meget gerne sætte dem ind. Hvis ikke, vil jeg foreslå at vi lader artiklen indeholde det som der er kildebelæg for.

Her en gennemgang af hvor jeg synes at du har lavet problematiske rettelser.

  • Hårby Kirke: Du har rettet opførelsesår fra o. 1100 (som svarer til Kort til Kirken) til "<1300". Kirkens hjemmeside angiver 1150-1250. Mit forslag: Ret til 1150-1250
  • Slemminge Kirke: Du har (over et par rettelser) rettet "ca 1100" til "1200-tallet" og " Kor og kirkeskib er i romansk stil, mens kirketårnet er fra gotisk tid." til "Kor og kirkeskib er i romanisk og unggotisk stil, mens kirketårnet er fra sengotisk tid.". Byggeåret har jeg set angivet til "o 1100" og "ca 1130". Jeg har ikke kunnet finde kilder til at kor og skib skulle være klassificeret som unggotisk.
  • Ønslev Kirke: Du indsætter "Kor og skib er unggotisk (se Nordenskirker)" - og det står der ganske rigtigt i den kilde.. http://danmarkskirker.natmus.dk/kirkedata/maribo/oenslev_kirke/ har dog "senromansk". En googling af "unggotisk" og "senromansk" antyder, at en bygning godt kan betegnes som begge dele, eller at der er overgangs- og mellemformer. Mht opførelsesåret: De kilder jeg kan finde skriver "o 1100" og "c 1130" og "påbegyndt opført i 1200-tallet". Jeg mener at vi må angive den usikkerhed, der fremgår af kilderne.

Jeg retter de 4 ovenstående artikler, så de er i overenstemmelse med min forståelse af de tilgængelige kilder. Hvis du er uenig, så skriv på diskussionssiderne. NisJørgensen (diskussion) 7. apr 2018, 21:01 (CEST)

PS: Jeg vil opfordre dig til at melde dig under fanerne i WikiProjekt Kirker

Hi Nis!
Writing in Danish is an adventure for me, so I answer in English.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 bulding or building part (choir or nave or …), this bulding 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.
  • References of single articles (I had read them both before my edits):
My edits in Danish architectural articles are connected to my work on en:List of Gothic brick buildings.
For this work, I have read (partly detailed) informations on hundreds of buildings. And from tim to time I phone to the building investigator Jens Christian Holst, who has examined a lot of buildings in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark. I have also repeated contacts to Dirk Schumann, whose main region of research is the delstat Brandenburg.
Best regards, Ulamm (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 13:14 (CEST)
  • References of single articles (I had read them both before my edits):

Schumann, whose main region of research is the delstat Brandenburg.

Best regards, Ulamm (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 13:14 (CEST)

Best regards, Ulamm (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 13:14 (CEST)

Hello Ulamm
As I kind of expected, you know (a lot) more about this subject than do I. I was just patrolling "recent edits", came upon your changes, and saw that some of them did not correspond to the sources listed.
I mostly feel like deferring to your judgement in these cases - including when to ignore sources making unreliable or nonsensical claims. For one thing, it seems clear that the dates given at korttilkirken.dk (which gets its dates from http://www.reitoft.dk/kirker.html) are not very reliable - especially the earliest of them.
For one of the sources you mention, http://danmarkskirker.natmus.dk/kirkedata/maribo/oenslev-kirke/, it states "Kirken består af senromansk kor og skib samt gotisk tårn og våbenhus, alt af munkesten i munkeforbandt". It seems like this is one of the most reliable sources available, so I believe that contradicting it requires either a good source or a strong argument. It does go on to say "Østgavlen har et trekoblet, spidsbuet vindue med smig false både ind- og udvendig.". Apparently the author sees no contradiction here between "senromansk" and "spidsbuet". This makes me wonder if they are using "senromansk" purely as meaning the time period, not as a description of style.
I will probably not interfere with any of your further edits of this kind (except perhaps to check spelling). I will have a look at the four articles I mention above, to try to find the best course of action for each. NisJørgensen (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 15:15 (CEST)
Thank you for your answer!
"Senromansk period" may have been ment, but it is a difficult term, as "senromansk" tells something like "built in Romanesque style, while in other regions or even neighbouring places Gothic buildings were being erected".
Some builders even preferred Romanesque forms but used innovative Gothic techniques. Most parts of Osnabrück cathedral were built with Romanesque walls & windows but Gothic rib vaults with pointed arches at the same time. I think I have seen similar combinations in fotos of Danish churches.
An extreme example is de:Alexanderkirche in Wildeshausen. On a definitely Romanesque base of granite, after a collaps of the building in 1219/1224, the tower of brick was begun (sooner or later) in Gothic style and finished by a mixture of Romanesque and few Gothic elements. (The western window framing of sandstone stenhuggerværk is a later addition). fil:Alexanderkirche_in_Wildeshausen_(Vorderansicht).JPG
--Ulamm (diskussion) 8. apr 2018, 16:01 (CEST)

Listen med links til Trap[rediger kildetekst]

Hej jeg har ændret din liste til en redirect til Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Trap Danmark, hvor den lå i forvejen; Sådanne lister med eksterne henvisninger hører mere hjemme under et projekt end i artikelnavnerummet, hvor vi ikke lægger eksterne henvisninger direkte i teksten. Jeg beklager det spildte arbejde. - Nico (diskussion) 23. dec 2019, 15:28 (CET)

It is a good idea to integrate my list in Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Trap Danmark.
Runeberg Trap Danmark should be seen like a public database. Contents of such databases can be linked without footnotes.
Runeberg provides only inventary links to page numbers, but inventary links to the sogns with their names.
I had produced that list for my own use, as some of these sogne informations are not found via Google.
It is better, if it is available for all.--Ulamm (diskussion) 23. dec 2019, 15:46 (CET)

Please write articles in correct Danish, or don't write articles[rediger kildetekst]

Thank you for contributing. However please don't make articles if you cannot write in Danish. The language in article Korsbrødregården is so bad that it is very hard to understand. It will take a total rewrite to make an acceptable article from it. Regards, Kartebolle (Dipsacus fullonum) (diskussion) 26. dec 2019, 02:27 (CET)

It is not my mistake that this article had not yet been written.
Show me my mistakes of style and grammer, please, and I shall learn to write better, in Danish.--Ulamm (diskussion) 26. dec 2019, 03:24 (CET)
You cannot use Wikipedia as a means to learn the language. Please learn first, and then come back. But I will show you 4 sentences with errors. Two of them really makes no sense:
  • "Korsbrødregården i Korsbrødregade næst Nyborgs blev opført omkring 1400." - "næst" make no sense here. Maybe you mean "i".
    • It should be "Korsbrødregården i Korsbrødregade næst Nyborgs Vor frue Kirke blev opført omkring 1400."
  • "Bosættelsen af Johanniterordenen var filialen af Antvorskov ordenshuset." - Here I must really guess as you place words beside each other in a way that makes no sense. Maybe you mean something like "Huset var en filial af Johanniterordenens ordenshus i Antvorskov."
  • "Det gotisk teglstenbygning blev ombygget i renaissancestil efter 1613." - "Bygning" is common gender and adjectives follow the gender of substantives, so use "Den gotiske"
  • "Både trapgavlene før Vor Frue Kirkens tårnet er af Korsbrødregården" - Makes no sense at all. Maybe you mean: "Huset med trappe op til gavlen foran Vor Fru Kirke er Korsbrødregården."
    • The firewall has the shape of a stepped gable. That setting is well known in Germany and Switzerland, but a good term is missing also there.
Again, please don't disturb Wikipedia by writing in a language you don't master. --Kartebolle (Dipsacus fullonum) (diskussion) 26. dec 2019, 03:59 (CET)
I am reading a lot of Danish descriptions of Danish buildings. Meanwhile, I understand them without difficulties, but I have still problems to reproduce the grammar.--Ulamm (diskussion) 26. dec 2019, 11:49 (CET)
A lot of the "danish" I've seen you write, looks like machine translations. Personally I suspect you are using machine translations both ways (danish <-> german), which inevitably will lead to misunderstandings. --Hjart (diskussion) 26. dec 2019, 12:05 (CET)
They are no machine translations.
Perhaps it is like the local special ties of Flensborg tysk. That language sometimes sounds like a machine translation from Danish to German:) --Ulamm (diskussion) 26. dec 2019, 12:21 (CET)

Copying text from Runeberg[rediger kildetekst]

If you copy text from Runeberg or similar works, please make clear that it's copied from there. --Hjart (diskussion) 5. jul 2020, 22:17 (CEST)