Talk:Regions of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Denmark Portal Regions of Denmark falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Insignia after 2007 2 Odense? 3 Date format 4 naming convention

[edit] Insignia after 2007

Hello folks. Does anyone have information on the effects of the administrative reorganization on the use of official emblems such as the coats of arms currently used by municipalities and counties alike? Will enlarged municipalities that inherit the name of an existing municipality also retain the logo of the original titular municipality, or will new arms have to be adopted? // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a description of the situation on Talk:Subdivisions of Denmark Valentinian ^(talk) 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odense?

Odense is not marked on the map, yet it's the capital of South Denmark according to the article. Grusl 04:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a typo. Thanks for noticing! It was ultimately decided that the region seat should be Vejle (a minor town) and not Denmark's third largest city (Odense). Valentinian ^(talk) 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit wrong there. According to the edit history some anon editor apparently felt it was fun to make a little vandalism. Grrrr. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't check that. I've never even been to Denmark yet. Local government (almost anywhere) is an area of interest to me. Best of luck with your pages. Grusl 07:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Valentinian ^(talk) 09:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

As Denmark uses day-month-year International Dating format and not month-day-year U.S. Dating, the Manual of Style applies. I quote:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

I cannot see any reason for US format to apply to this article, but I welcome inventive arguments. --Pete 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that Denmark only uses the DMY format, and I originally used this exclusively. The result was that non-Danish editors began changing articles to the other format citing the MoS. I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with this if people just did it thoroughly, but often only a few paragraphs had been changed, leaving the articles in question inconsistent. I don't like the MDY format myself, but the standard I use at the moment (MDY with the comma) works with the "preferences" function and this is the only reason I use it. I have my own settings set for the DMY format. Well, it probably can't be helped that the material ends up with being inconsistent. Pardon my French, but there are too many Americans around that like changing "errors" like this, so I think this battle is lost. Many articles using British English face a similar problem. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia readers aren't registered and therefore don't have date preferences set. AS for U.S. editors choosing the incorrect date format, just point them to the MoS. The key point is that the article topic determines the date format. Wikipedia has a strong commitment to internationalism, and this guideline is well established, and the result of a lot of discussion. Sorry for coming across too strongly - I thought you were one of those ignorant Americans who sees everything but MD,Y as being an error. --Pete 18:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :) And I agree completely that this is an international, not an American project. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would favour international ISO 8601 ;-) . Sweden uses it, right? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of dissenting on this one :) I'm no expert on the situation hinsidan, but I thought Sweden used the same system as Denmark: DD-MM-YYYY (or DD/MM-YYYY). Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] naming convention

How about using "X Region" instead of "Region X" also for Denmark? IIRC all others subdivision article use that word order, except for the counties of Ireland. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I've kept them at the Danish names is that it is near impossible to translate Midtjylland, Hovedstaden and Syddanmark properly, so I simply abandoned that idea. But I did in fact read some of the Irish material shortly before starting on this one, so that might also have played a role. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have two issues: one is translation and the other the word order. IIRC for the translation thing there is no big standard in WP. Arab subdivisions come to my mind here, which are sometimes translated sometimes not. But for the word order WP is quite consistent. Interestingly, even in Ireland the word order seems to have changed to more modern english: looks as if it is Dublin Region not "Region Dublin". For the possible translation we could maybe research a little how it is done for other non-english speaking countries. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the current names but I can live with this suggestion. On the other hand, I'd really like to avoid having to try to invent meaningful translations of "Syddanmark" and the others.

Come to think of it; in Danish the regions' official names use "Region" first, but with most other entities it was/is the other way around; e.g. "Birkende Sogn", "Slogs Herred", "Isted Syssel", "Holsteinborg Birk", "Hindsgavl Len", "Kerteminde Kommune", and "Fyns Amt" but "Region Syddanmark", "Hertugdømmet Holsten", "Grevskabet Schackenborg", "Baroniet Frijsenborg". Perhaps Danish uses some kind of distinction between very large entities versus smaller ones. I don't know, never really thought about it till now. Again, I can live with swapping the two words, but it might be an idea to make a post to WP:Denmark and the Danish notice board just in case somebody feels strongly about this. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)