Talk:Regions of Denmark

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Regions of Denmark. 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/20051121181544/http://www.im.dk/publikationer/strukturaftale/index.html to http://www.im.dk/publikationer/strukturaftale/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812094140/http://www.indenrigsministeriet.dk/im/site.aspx?p=34 to http://www.indenrigsministeriet.dk/im/site.aspx?p=34
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213153917/http://www.ks.no/upload/57389/Forskning_reform_selstad2.ppt to http://www.ks.no/upload/57389/Forskning_reform_selstad2.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011050224/http://kommune.eniro.dk/danmarkskort/ to http://kommune.eniro.dk/danmarkskort/

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) 05:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of reform

Bornsommer, your changes of the date are wrong. The reform came into force from 1 January 2007. You mistake the effective date of the reform itself with the effective date of the law that specifies the reform. The law stipulates in § 1:

Den 1. januar 2007 nedlægges amtskommunerne, Hovedstadens Udviklingsråd og Hovedstadens Sygehusfællesskab.
Den 1. januar 2007 inddeles landet i fem regioner ...

§ 85 stipulates when the law comes into force:

Loven træder i kraft dagen efter bekendtgørelsen i Lovtidende.

(If you look in the upper right corner, you'll see that the law was published 25-06-2005 and thus came into force the next day.) Because of the § 1 clause, it has no significance that the law itself came into force on 26 June 2005 – only that the various preparation measures would of course begin in 2005. Similar in this law:

§ 1. Indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren bemyndiges til i overensstemmelse med reglerne i denne lov at gennemføre en revision af den kommunale inddeling ved dannelsen af nye kommuner med virkning fra den 1. januar 2007.

Stk. 2. Indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren udfærdiger senest den 1. juli 2005 en fortegnelse over de ændringer i den kommunale inddeling, som gennemføres i medfør af stk. 1.

(The minister for the interior ... shall have the power to ... effect a revision of the municipal subdivision through the formation of new municipalities with effect from 1 Jan 2007. Section 2: The minister for the interior ... shall no later than 1 July 2005 make a list of those changes of the municipal subdivision that are effected by means of sentence 1.)

For example, the municipal councils of the new, larger municipalities were elected already at the municipal elections of 15 November 2005. These councils were officially sammenlægningsudvalg (merging board) from 1 Jan 2006 through 31 Dec 2006. During that year, there task was solely that of preparing the mergers, they did not rule any municipalities. On 1 Jan 2007 these boards were renamed municipal councils and now ruling the new municipalities – without new elections taking place. The councils of the older, smaller municipalities, as well as the old municipalities themselves, were fully in force until the end of 2006. They were elected in November 2001 and would normally have been in power for a 4 year period, from 1 Jan 2002 until 31 Dec 2005, but their mandate was simply prolonged by one year. There were also 32 municipalities that weren't affected by the reform, for example Copenhagen, several of its suburban municipalities and some islands. In these municipalities the upcoming municipal board was also elected on 15 November 2005, but did not take their seats until 1 January 2007 and took their seats from 1 January 2006. The equivalent name for the upcoming regional councils were forberedelsesudvalg (preparatory board) and these were likewise elected on 15 Nov 2005. The amtsråd (county councils) of the old counties had their mandate prolonged by a year and existed parallel to the preparatory boards during 2006. You mention several times that the whole public sector administration was affected. I think that is evident and not necessarily to point out, but it is not entirely correct, because the state-administered part of the public sector was not affected. --Sasper (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. The laws, etc. become effective the day after publication in da:Lovtidende.--Bornsommer (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)