Talk:Visby

power supply?

power supply? an odd heading no?

Who cares, a person looking up visby is not looking for that kind of information. --TheBigD 13:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I care. The mentioned power supply was the first windpark connected to a High Voltage Direct Current and thereby interesting. It even has its own page. Fred-Chess

it's very peripheral information. People who look up Visby in general don't expect to find information about the electrical grid. If it got its own page let's keep it that way. --TheBigD 22:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is full of peripheral information. But if you seriously think you have improved the article by removing the information, then I'm fine with it. --Fred-Chess 10:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I do. --TheBigD 14:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the line, and expect not to see it removed again. Deletion of valid information is very rarely permissible on WP, generally accepted only for redundant material or very ephemeral bits, such as phone numbers and home addresses. The power system however is quite a bit more important, and very much worth mentioning. Stan 18:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"Near Visby there is the static inverter plant"? it's not even in visby! You want to list everything in the vicinity? And who looks up an entry of a city if they want to find information about the electic grid structure of an entire island? Is this place a tourist attraction? If it is I've not heard about it while living there. --TheBigD 20:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Then WP has helped you to learn about the world around you, eh? We do aspire to be more than a travel guide. If you live in Visby, you ought to be able to add quite a bit of local info that is not just tourist stuff. Stan 19:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that WP is not a travel guide. It just seem to be so irrelevant for the topic. I guess, what I'm asking is, where do you draw the line? Popular restaurants in the vicinity, a three page essay of the battle that demolished part of the wall, the danish influence on the gotlandic dialect...? In any case it seems to me that any information about the power grid should be in the Gotland article instead since it serves the whole island and not just the city of Visby.--TheBigD 01:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes to all those, although restaurants tend to be ephemeral, so one would prefer restaurants that have been around for a long time or have some other notability. If the inverter plant is more relevant to Gotland than to Visby, then moving the info about it is reasonable, sure. Visby is an interesting place, its article could easily be 20K in length. Stan 05:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Visby class corvette

Do we really, really, really need to have a link to Visby class corvette up at the top? I think we could have it at the bottom instead, under See also. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The way the article about the corvette is worded, it seems people often refer to it as simply "Visby" and so that might well be wikilinked. In such cases it is standard to have a note in the top of the article, it makes people who click on such a link easily find the article they are looking for - they can not really be expected to find the note if it is placed at the bottom of the page. For someone who knows nothing about that boat it looks a bit silly, agreed, but I still think it serves a purpose. Probably this is described on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, or some page that links from there. // Habj 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Town - distinction

The two sentences Some affectionately call Visby the "city of roses and ruins" and natives to the island often just say "town". Whether it lives up to that distinction among other old Swedish cities is debatable. are confusing to me. I am not sure if the second sentence refers to "rosornas och ruinernas stad" - a well-known slogan - or referring to the town as "stan" (town). People call their local town "town" everywhere, it has nothing to do with Visby being more of a town than others. // Habj 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Word. Delete the second part of the first sentence and the second sentence? Are you from around here (Visby/Gotland) by the way? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just average Swede. :) // Habj 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the part of the sentence about "town". It is un-encyclopedic, un-referenced and not specific to Visby. It is just slang for the nearest major settlement in any part of Sweden. Locals may also refer to another locality such as Slite or Hemse depending on where they live. - W.carter (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor stuff

"Gotland was again conquered by Sweden in 1645 at the Treaty of Brömsebro, after 300 years of Danish occupation." - Occupation sounds like a strange word for an area that has (as far as I know) legally been part of a nation for a time as extensive as 300 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.184.167 (talk) 22:16:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

sacrificial?

might "sanctified" or "consecrated" place be a better translation of "Vi", than "sacrifical"? 4.242.174.83 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Transcription

It's pronounced in Swedish as viz-bu (sort of like in bureau or Buchanan). Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The pronunciation of "Visby" is already in the article, in the way of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), [ˈviːsbʏ], which is much more accurate than the description you provided. w.carter-Talk 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1645 events

I just revised wording in the article to say that Gotland was ceded in 1645 to Sweden, by the Second Treaty of Brömsebro (1645) without saying it was "conquered". Using the word "conquered" would seem to imply that there was fighting on Gotland within the Torstenson War, but I think there was not. If Gotland was conquered in battle, then the Torstenson War article should be revised, too. Hope someone more expert here can review this. I can't directly read the Tacitus.Nu source that was cited at the end of the sentence that i revised. --doncram 00:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree that the wording is better. As far as I can tell no battles related to that were fought on Gotland during that time. w.carter-Talk 09:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Two maps?

@Wikid77: Why on earth do you think two maps are necessary for this article? That is not common practice for towns or cities. I see that you have placed it in the "History" section, and it might be warranted if borders, names or other geographical features were different from modern days but here they are the same. I think this second map is redundant and should be removed. cart-Talk 10:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The second map is a regional context map. For more than 10 years, many town articles have shown 2 or 3 maps in an article. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: I see now from your latest edit that you are treating this article as if it was an article in a book or on a static website, and in such case a second map would have some merit. However, this kind of internet articles work a bit differently. People are much more likely to click on links such as Linköping to obtain information about location and far more things than visible on the map. That's what links are for; you keep information in just one place and access it by links.

Further: Since this is a site with Responsive web design, you can't write something like "in map above". The text shifts and adjusts to the size of the screen or platform (mobile phone, tablet, computer) it is viewed on, the maps and pictures shift with it too. So while the map may be above the text on the device you are using, it is in totally different places for other users. When I look at this article on my widescreen computer, the map ends up far below the text. It is in fact pushed down as far as to the "Geography" and "Climate" sections where it makes no sense at all. This is another reason why this redundant map should be removed, which I have now done. I hope I've given sufficient explanation for doing so. cart-Talk 09:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about crapware browsers that display pages in mega-peculiar, overwide sizes. The proper response is to narrow the default browser window to a more-reasonable page width, or also contact the browser manufacturer to explain the world of standard page sizes as default width for browser operation. Meanwhile, in the literature, for decades, the phrase "see above" has been in customary use regardless of actual pagination; however, I can reword the map-reference phrase without deleting the map and all. I hope those explanations have clarified the issues and the use of multiple maps in town articles during the past two decades. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: Thanks for the rewording. I still don't agree with you about with you about the map, it just adds clutter to the page. But since I can see how determined you are in getting your way and I never engage in edit wars, I will drop the subject for now. As for browsers (I use several to check articles) and screen sizes, we are way past "standard page sizes" in that department and I think it's more important to make articles work in the next two decades. --cart-Talk 10:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: Follow-up question and suggestion. Since you say that it is common to have such maps in articles about towns, I've had a look at US articles and so far I haven't seen any similar such maps in any of the articles. I think we should test putting maps like this in the articles about say towns in Texas that are about the same size as Visby, like Big Springs, Kingsville or Lufkin. The map would be helpful in showing the region of the US and it could be captioned with the towns' location in relation to major cities like Washington, Chicago and San Francisco. If other editors find those maps helpful and keep them in the articles, I will of course be happy to keep a similar map in Visby, if they are removed you should reconsider how valid the second map is. Deal? cart-Talk 09:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Regional-map use sourced to City-data.com: The practice of showing regional-area maps for a town can be sourced to website City-data.com for thousands of towns (see regional map Lufkin, TX: [1], or Abilene: [2]). This regional-map concept is not my original idea (wp:OR), but rather the use of regional maps has been ongoing for more than 10 years. Ideally, a town would have 3 maps: a local-area dot map, a city plan roadmap, and a regional-area map such as U.S. state or national region of nearby states. I think the multi-state map might be too wide, such as Lufkin compared to Wichita, Kansas, but that level is done by city-data.com. Be wary of consensus decisions as group opinion (even supra-majority), but rather seek consensus with major sources, such as city-data.com. For example the Template:Convert has remained incorrect by group consensus, showing {convert|28|-|29|oz|lb} as nonsense range 28–29 ounces (1.8–1.8 lb), both "1.8" rather than 2 correct amounts 1.75-1.81 lb, as precise calculation sourced to NIST, where conversion precision increases by +1 decimal digit for lower first digit. Similarly, use of regional maps should be sourced to major references, rather than appeal to group consensus which is often incorrect compared to wp:RS reliable sources. Perhaps many regional maps have been deleted by POV-warrior users who delete hundreds or thousands, to disguise widespread usage as "few". Wikid77 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)