Talk:Kungälv
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Article mentioned in media, 26 April 2013
editA reason to look through this again: http://www.nrk.no/fordypning/gjorde-vikinger-til-muslimer-1.10982115 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.129.246 (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Information about the crusades deleted today was deleted because it was irrelevant for the article. Besides that it is also suspected to be a contribution made by Anders Behring Breivik see Norwegian Wikipedia. Regards --Stallo (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Should we add one of those "this article has been mentioned in media" things? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that was a good idea, so I did it. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The change I made was reverted. In addition to being irrelevant, the sources to the information is not reliable and does not cover the theme. Snorre can be a source, but only after being evaluated by reliable historians. I rather think it is not advisable to draw further attention to an article which now is flawed. I recommend looking at the sources of the information. If anybody can find reliable information about this and do some rewriting some might be ok. I will however not delete these parts of the text again. Regards --Stallo (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't adding the "media attention" template to promote this article in any way. I did it simply to document the fact that the article was mentioned in media. I agree with you, that the disputed entry is not properly sourced. The sagas are primary sources, and they are known for not being accurate. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The information does look properly sourced to me, but if there are sourcing issues, it should probably be tagged rather than removed. Nymf talk to me 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- A professor in history claims some inaccuracy on the content (eg. not the first royalty there), and his comments also convinces me that the accurate parts belongs in Kungahälla. Ainali (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- But he does end the article with " i stora drag är det väl korrekt" ("it is largely correct"). We should expand the article with the added information by the professor, rather than removing the section. If we read Kungahälla, it says "In the later Middle Ages the town's importance further declined. It burned down in 1612, and was afterwards moved to a location near Bohus and renamed Kungälv." Nymf talk to me 08:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no. I would say that this article should mainly consist of events from 1612 and forward and that Kunghälla mainly should consist of events before that. The connection between them should be obvious to a reader of both articles but we should not have the same text in both places. Ainali (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is not duplicated content, but rather a summarization of what came to be modern day Kungälv. Nymf talk to me 09:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no. I would say that this article should mainly consist of events from 1612 and forward and that Kunghälla mainly should consist of events before that. The connection between them should be obvious to a reader of both articles but we should not have the same text in both places. Ainali (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- But he does end the article with " i stora drag är det väl korrekt" ("it is largely correct"). We should expand the article with the added information by the professor, rather than removing the section. If we read Kungahälla, it says "In the later Middle Ages the town's importance further declined. It burned down in 1612, and was afterwards moved to a location near Bohus and renamed Kungälv." Nymf talk to me 08:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- A professor in history claims some inaccuracy on the content (eg. not the first royalty there), and his comments also convinces me that the accurate parts belongs in Kungahälla. Ainali (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- The information does look properly sourced to me, but if there are sourcing issues, it should probably be tagged rather than removed. Nymf talk to me 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't adding the "media attention" template to promote this article in any way. I did it simply to document the fact that the article was mentioned in media. I agree with you, that the disputed entry is not properly sourced. The sagas are primary sources, and they are known for not being accurate. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The change I made was reverted. In addition to being irrelevant, the sources to the information is not reliable and does not cover the theme. Snorre can be a source, but only after being evaluated by reliable historians. I rather think it is not advisable to draw further attention to an article which now is flawed. I recommend looking at the sources of the information. If anybody can find reliable information about this and do some rewriting some might be ok. I will however not delete these parts of the text again. Regards --Stallo (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Candy store!?
editI think the use of the term "Candy store Bräckeboden" is a little misleading. The making and selling biscuits at the biscuit factory Göteborgs kex but do we equalize biscuits with candy? --Civilspanaren (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Should it be mentioned at all?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be a shop with the purpose of selling damaged goods. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Reading this news article, they make it pretty clear that they intend to "clean up" this page. Just a heads up for anyone else who is watching this article. Nymf talk to me 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kungälv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604032553/http://www.utgangspunkten.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePageWide.aspx?id=3556 to http://www.utgangspunkten.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePageWide.aspx?id=3556
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)