Talk:Lund
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The article on Lund is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
There was a picture of a church on the Helgalund page. I think it is acutally in Lund, so I've moved it here, but I'd like a check from anyone who can tell for sure.
- After looking around I think it is allhelgona kyrka on Hven. Here is a url http://www.sydsverige.dk/?pageID=37 .
- It is however problematic that the image does not have a source. --Fred-Chess 09:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Foundation
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the city was founded around 1020 by the Danish king Canute; and later became the seat of a bishopric in 1060 and the seat of the archbishop of all Scandinavia in 1103. This doesn't comporate with what is said in the Wiki article. Someone more knowledgeable in the subject should fix this. --Anittas 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Check out an earlier revision, I think it explains it: [1]. / Fred-Chess 11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what this line means: "when the village of Uppåkra was moved to Lund's location, by King Sweyn I Forkbeard". Does it mean that the village of Uppåkra was abandoned and the settlement was moved to what is now, Lund, or does it mean that the village was Uppåkra is identified as the predecessor of Lund? --Anittas 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Treaty of Roskilde
- In 1658, all Scanian counties except the islands Bornholm and Anholt, were ceded by Denmark to Sweden by the Treaty of Roskilde.
If I am correct, Bornholm was ceded to Sweden in 1658, even though it was reclaimed by Denmark in the Treaty of Copenhagen in 1660. I will go ahead and edit it. --Warfvinge 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IPA
I've never heard anyone from Lund pronounce the name of their town like the current IPA suggests. Not being from town myself I'm not going to change it, but it would be nice if somebody who lives there could comment and possibly correct it. JdeJ 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The language in the text is horrible.
[edit] University of Lund
It's not just "one of the largest", in fact, it is the largest university of Scandinavia with more than 40,000 students.//Arial --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.149.138 (talk) 2006-11-15T10:16:43 (CET)
- Well, it changes every year and sometimes the title of being the largest university is attributed to Gothenburg, sometimes to Stockholm. It also depends on how you count the number of students in each city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.116.31 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Natives
What is the definition of "native"? I wonder because while Carolus Linnaeus spent some time in Lund, he was born in the province of Småland (some 150 km north of Lund), and did most of his work attached to the university of Uppsala. StaffanBaloo 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] automatic red dot in the map ([2])
I think, this method has the big advantage, that it is automatic, so that we do not need to make a new map image for every location, which doesnt suck... The equirectangular projection is nothing bad, too... --Homer Landskirty 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
glort
[edit] Long introductions
Some articles have to long introductions. In this case the historical facts mentioned there are more or less repeated in the History section just below. Confer whith other cities such as Växjö, Uppsala or Västerås. The introduction should IMO be very short and concise and just contain some very basic facts. I have tried to change that in tghis article, but it seems impossible. Could the "reverters" please tell me why so much info should be mentioned twice in the articles. --Muniswede 09:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Concerning your statement "Some articles have to long introductions": Please forward your ideas about what is too long for leads at the proper place (suggest starting with the discussion page for Wikipedia:Guide to layout). The current style manual reads: "the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any." The word summary means that the same info will appear twice, once in a short summary form, once in a more detailed and expanded version lower in the article.
- Also: Please note that none of your examples above are considered good articles. As a matter of fact, they have all been rated "Start-class" on the quality scale (= "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added.") The Lund article appears to be under expansion at the moment (20 percent completed) and I assume the editors here are aiming for better than start-quality. For guidelines on length, why not check out articles like Darjeeling, San Francisco, California or any other city at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places instead to find out what has been considered great leads (introductions)? Pia 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
