Jump to content

Danish Cultural Heritage / Swedish Cultural Heritage


Recommended Posts

In the last few weeks I started thinking about one or probably two categories that maintain the Scandinavian cultural heritage in Denmark and Sweden. Both countries are rich with cultural heritage sites:

 

  • from the time of the vaning ice age - for example the rock carvings in Tanum (Sweden)
  • over the time of the Vikings - i.e. Fyrkat near Hobro (Denmark) or Trelleborg in southern Sweden -
  • and the middle ages - as the danish towns of Tønder and Ribe can tell
  • to the modern times in the last two centuries (like the old town of Karlshamn or Eksjö in Sweden).

 

Denmark and Sweden collect their cultural heritage in official databases:

 

 

The category would be similar to the other cultural heritage categories (like "Deutsche Denkmallisten", "Australian Heritage Sites", "Belgium Monument Registers", "Spanish Heritage", "Norway Historical Sites", ... to name a few). I would like to first get an idea on how the proposed category is received by you before I give it any more thought.

 

Also I don't know if I should make these two separate categories (here some advice from the experienced ones in that matter would be appreciated).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, elyob said:

Here's a different idea.  Since Norway Historical Sites is no longer a functional category, what if your new category includes Norway heritage?

 

Better plan! Open enrollment is ON. Join, talk with our Wayfroggie about becoming leader. Throw out the deadwood. Invite some active Scandinavians to the group (there are a few here). Have one of them take it over, as a Scandinavian is a better choice as leader than a Canadian.

Keith

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

I'm actually wondering if Norway Historical Sites should be left to die; create a new heritage category to cover Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.  Creating a new category should take less time and energy than would be required to clean up Norway Historical Sites.

 

I fear that our game's future must include letting some categories die, rather than burdening wayfrog so much.

Edited by elyob
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

In the last few weeks I started thinking about one or probably two categories that maintain the Scandinavian cultural heritage in Denmark and Sweden. Both countries are rich with cultural heritage sites:

 

  • from the time of the vaning ice age - for example the rock carvings in Tanum (Sweden)
  • over the time of the Vikings - i.e. Fyrkat near Hobro (Denmark) or Trelleborg in southern Sweden -
  • and the middle ages - as the danish towns of Tønder and Ribe can tell
  • to the modern times in the last two centuries (like the old town of Karlshamn or Eksjö in Sweden).

 

Denmark and Sweden collect their cultural heritage in official databases:

 

 

The category would be similar to the other cultural heritage categories (like "Deutsche Denkmallisten", "Australian Heritage Sites", "Belgium Monument Registers", "Spanish Heritage", "Norway Historical Sites", ... to name a few). I would like to first get an idea on how the proposed category is received by you before I give it any more thought.

 

Also I don't know if I should make these two separate categories (here some advice from the experienced ones in that matter would be appreciated).

 

First, Erik, my experience has been that a "conjoined" category is preferred hereabouts. I did it in both Atlantic Canada Heritage Properties and Western Canadian Heritage, taking previous categories and expanding them to cover a larger, associated and contiguous area. Mine were both essentially about "Heritage Registers" and inclusion within.

 

Overall, I think that, if Scandinavia does not yet have such a category, it's ABOUT TIME. Good on you, Erik, for being the one to finally realize what's missing here!

 

I agree that Iceland should be included, but let's NOT exclude Finland, which to date has no such categories. Were that to happen my good cousin Kai (Smurfajja) (SP?) would be, or at least should be, greatly offended.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Should you choose to pursue this further, Erik, here would be my first step, were I doing it:

I would search out all the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Finns to be found and try to recruit them to the group. To my knowledge there are no Icelanders here, sadly. Then I would, if at all possible, stock my officership with one from each country, as each country has its own language, heritage register, etc. With an officer from each country, reviewing Waymarks from each country would be much easier, eliminating language barriers, lack of knowledge of various databases, etc.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, elyob said:

I fear that our game's future must include letting some categories die, rather than burdening wayfrog so much.

 

Though I don't know what remedy that might be at this moment, I'm sure there must be a better way.

Besides, If our Wayfroggie were as "Burdened" as you portray him to be, mebbe, just mebbe, he would do something to alleviate the "burden".

For example, he has been approached by at least one active Waymarker with offers to be made officer in DEAD categories with the intent of bringing them back to life, with little to no response. Thereby, It would  seem that he doesn't consider himself "burdened" by his duties.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, ScroogieII said:

 

Though I don't know what remedy that might be at this moment, I'm sure there must be a better way.

Besides, If our Wayfroggie were as "Burdened" as you portray him to be, mebbe, just mebbe, he would do something to alleviate the "burden".

For example, he has been approached by at least one active Waymarker with offers to be made officer in DEAD categories with the intent of bringing them back to life, with little to no response. Thereby, It would  seem that he doesn't consider himself "burdened" by his duties.

Keith


Hear, hear.

Link to comment

I am sorry to stray from original post.  You are likely correct that I exaggerate wayfrog’s burden.  However, there is still something wrong.  Active waymarkers are active reviewers but then one single individual has the responsibility to do all that we cannot.  That much responsibility on one person is not good for our game’s survival.

 

You are definitely correct about volunteers to lead dead categories and alleviate that burden.  In the smallest category similar to the OP, I would love to be in a position to help bring it back to life.  

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, elyob said:

I am sorry to stray from original post.  You are likely correct that I exaggerate wayfrog’s burden.  However, there is still something wrong.  Active waymarkers are active reviewers but then one single individual has the responsibility to do all that we cannot.  That much responsibility on one person is not good for our game’s survival.

 

You are definitely correct about volunteers to lead dead categories and alleviate that burden.  In the smallest category similar to the OP, I would love to be in a position to help bring it back to life.  

 

Well, then do it. Contact our Wayfroggie concerning any categories you find in need of active officers.

As for "then one single individual has the responsibility to do all" - If I read that correctly, a single Waymarker may join, or become leader, BUT then may invite/recruit helpers.

Or were you still referring to our Wayfroggie?

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

Please keep this thread alive, Erik. It's about one of the very few "Still Needed" categories and could lead to filling a noticeable void in the "Heritage and Historic Places of the World" category list.

 

As I search and peruse the category list I find nothing more than Norway Historical Sites, meaning that pretty much the entirety of Scandinavia has, to date, been ignored, a situation I agree that requires redressing.

I am quite willing to aid in the construction of a Scandinavian historical AND/OR heritage category, though I believe that the two categories are quite disparate and separate and should occupy two separate categories. Though my nearly complete lack of knowledge of Scandinavian heritage would preclude my being an appropriate and effective leader, possibly even an officer (though I'm certainly willing to give the latter a try), in either of the proposed categories, my willingness to offer a hand may at least get us rolling. What do you think, Erik?

 

Besides, I have a Scandinavian background from one side, mebbe even both sides of my family, for all I know.

 

Next a Question: Do we have any Scandinavians out there willing to join in a quest to provide you with Historical and/or Heritage categories of your own?

I'm not saying that you need become category officers, should that not be to your taste, only that you may be able to aid in tracking down the websites of various federal, municipal and local Scandinavian heritage registers, as well as other related information.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

As first step I created a group for that: Scandinavian Heritage Managers:

"Mission of this group should be the creation and maintenance of a "Scandinavian heritage" category for the scandinavian countries Denmark, Finnland, Iceland, Sweden, Greenland and the Åland isles. Also probably Norway (even though there is already a category on historic waymarks). Scandinavia is rich with cultural heritage sites from the time of the vaning ice age (i.e. the rock carvings in Tanum and Alta) over the vikings (i.e. Fyrkat near Hobro) and the middle ages (i.e. the danish towns of Tønder and Ribe) to the modern times. Denmark and Sweden collect their cultural heritage in some official database: the Danish kulturarv / Kulturstyrelsen (https://www.kulturarv.dk) and the Swedish Riksantikvarieämbetet (https://www.raa.se/). We look for waymarks that describe the cultural heritage sites in these countries."

 

The enrollment is open. As officers I'd prefer someone living in one of the countries named above - but anyone is welcome to give it's input to create a category that will be accepted by the community.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Walking Boots said:

The Scandinavian countries are only Denmark, Sweden and Norway. But the Nordic countries are Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland and the Åland Islands

 

Good point, from someone who should know. I doubt Erik would have an issue with a title such as Nordic Heritage instead of Scandinavian Heritage.

Link to comment

Finally back at home after a weekend with a metal concert yesterday and a day with the family today.

 

I have no issues with renaming the category to Nordic Heritage, in fact I will change the title of the group and also add the Faroe islands to the list of countries right after this message. I'm currently working on a first draft for the category description and requirements.

 

BTW: Smurffaaja      you are welcome to join the club - I'll send you an invitation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
18 hours ago, T0SHEA said:

 Am I understanding you correctly that this a NEW proposal, and not an expansion of Norway Historical Sites?

To be honest - I'm confused now: I had the impression that the posters here were thinking that taking over of the "Norway Historical Sites" category would take too much time and I should start thinking about details for the new category. Now you are yelling at me that I shouldn't create a new category and try to convince the leader and then a group of (as it seems inactive) officers to adopt changes to their category, which they probably do not want.

 

Fine - I'll do it the hard way then.

 

I'll write to the leader of the category and ask for his opinion on the topic - hopefully he will answer to my request.

 

So this topic is on hold until he answers - or until 10 days have passed and I could contact wayfrog then.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 24.11.2022 at 00:03, elyob said:


Ser man på officerslisten, har ingen været aktive siden juli.

You can make your profile private so no one can see when you have visited the page.
Incidentally, I have looked at the officer list in Norway Historical Sites...the leader has not been active since 2018, but 7 of the officers have been active in November 2022

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, T0SHEA said:

Excuse me, no need to be rude just because I see an alternative to a new category.

Using a font size one category larger than normal, along with a bold font weight, means you want to get your point across. In a face-to-face conversation, you would raise your voice at this point – which I would then perceive as being shouted at. It wasn't my intention to be rude to you.

 

However, I feel very unsure about how to proceed. In order to keep all options open for now, I will wait until the answer to the message I sent to the category leader. The following options would result from the answer:

  •  Conversion of the category "Norway historical sites":
  1. change the category description to "Nordic Cultural Heritage" with the category leader
  2. the leader doesn't like it anymore and appoints me as his successor - then I would rearrange the category accordingly without his help (but maybe with that of others).
  3. the leader doesn't answer and I ask Wayfrog if he can appoint me as category leader.
  • Creation of the category "Nordic Cultural Heritage"
  1. the manager expresses the opposite - ideally here in the forum - then I would create a new category (and then explicitly exclude Norway)
  2. the manager makes a survey of his officers and they express their negative opinion -> see point 2 above

In the meantime, I'll probably have to do some research on some open topics and additionally try to incorporate the requirements of the "Norway Historical Sites" - those who are interested may have a look my first draft on my web space at " https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage.html ". Constructive criticism and ideas for improvement are welcome.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Walking Boots said:

You can make your profile private so no one can see when you have visited the page.
Incidentally, I have looked at the officer list in Norway Historical Sites...the leader has not been active since 2018, but 7 of the officers have been active in November 2022

Incidentally, I have just made a waymark in the category..it didn't take 5 minutes before it was approved :D

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Walking Boots said:

Incidentally, I have just made a waymark in the category..it didn't take 5 minutes before it was approved :D

 

5 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

The following options would result from the answer:

Regarding that we can also have a fourth option :
3a. Wayfrog promotes some other officer (perhaps the active one) and I have to talk again to the new leader.

 

Or we could make it completely different and create a single category for each of the seven remaining countries (but for that option I would like to have a poll with at least two-thirds majority in favor for the split) ...

 

Or something else that the community wants - just say it here. (This may include the (in my eyes really bad) idea to not have any new categories any more - but I think that should require a  full approval with at least 95% of all waymarkers in favor ... And then we should close this recruiting part of the forum ... :blink: ).

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 11/28/2022 at 9:08 AM, FamilieFrohne said:

To be honest - I'm confused now: I had the impression that the posters here were thinking that taking over of the "Norway Historical Sites" category would take too much time and I should start thinking about details for the new category. Now you are yelling at me that I shouldn't create a new category and try to convince the leader and then a group of (as it seems inactive) officers to adopt changes to their category, which they probably do not want.

 

Fine - I'll do it the hard way then.

 

I'll write to the leader of the category and ask for his opinion on the topic - hopefully he will answer to my request.

 

So this topic is on hold until he answers - or until 10 days have passed and I could contact wayfrog then.

 

Actually, Erik, I thought you were doing just fine and on the right track with the all inclusive new category. 

However, I'm still unsure of the direction you intend to take. Will it be registered heritage sites, historical markers, or both?

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 11/29/2022 at 6:09 AM, elyob said:

http://www.rky.fi/read/asp/r_mkl_list.aspx

 

This link is a database for nationally significant built heritage in Finland.  Apparently, it is available in the Finnish and Swedish languages.

 

That is good site for Finland. Same goverment paid agency has also this search engine; https://www.kyppi.fi/palveluikkuna/portti/read/asp/default.aspx

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

Will it be registered heritage sites, historical markers, or both?

Now you got me thinking on a specific point. I was thinking more along the line of registered heritage only (like the categories for "Rijksmonument" for the Netherlands or the "Deutsche Denkmalliste"). If we would accept also historical markers (which would include something like "at this place famous person XXX was born/lived/died") I fear the category would become overfilled.

 

I have seen that in the "Norwegian historical sites" are many markers on historical events - that could lead to this possible solution: rework the "Norwegian historical sites" to a category that includes the "Nordic historical sites" for any other historical markers in the nordic countries and continue to create a new category for the "Nordic cultural heritage". Any other ideas?

Link to comment

The Signs of History category once was created with the intention to serve as a catch-all category for all areas that do not yet have a historical marker category, and for those markers where the local category is quite strict about the issuing agency of their markers.

 

Of course, this is a mess, because many officers don't know what countries and states do have a marker category and allow about anything, but in theory we don't need another category for markers.

 

I would strictly go for listed sites. This can be already quite extensive. I don't know about the Nordic countries, but some countries I know have a lot of different categories for their listed sites that can go down to municipally administered levels. If you include them all, there is a lot to waymark...

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I agree.  Let any "signs" of history in the Nordic countries fall in the existing Signs of History or Norway Historical Sites categories.  The heritage places and things described by such "signs" belong in this proposed category.

Edited by elyob
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I wasn't thinking of Signs of History when I wrote the above. Hence I agree with elyob and the fi guy that registered heritage sites is the way to go, with Signs of History taking care of historical markers.

Oh, and don't forget to recruit Kai (Smurffaaja) as an officer. I expect he'd make a good one! 

Keith

Link to comment

The above discussion strengthens my first consideration to take only the registered heritage. So I added the markers as an exclusion with the hint that they should go into the "Signs of History". Also the notion, that there may be more than one official source was added to the description.

 

20 minutes ago, ScroogieII said:

Oh, and don't forget to recruit Kai (Smurffaaja) as an officer. I expect he'd make a good one!

Sure. Smurffaaja (Finland) and Walking Boots (Denmark) are the officers I had in mind when I started thinking on the topic and I would like to have them for that category, also kallehaugerne (also Denmark) and dvddragon (Sweden) if they want to participate.

 

Sadly I don't know if we have active waymarkers from Iceland that could support us to do the job properly.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

will it also encompass monuments or registered heritage properties in places outside of those countries, as long as those places and registered properties reflect Nordic culture from immigration, for example? 

I would have to think a little bit more about it. First thought when reading this was that it would make the category to complicated - second thought was that it might be possible - but requires a thorough examination by the officers then. But I'm not sure here if we should include these. What do the others think?

Link to comment

 

31 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:
1 hour ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

will it also encompass monuments or registered heritage properties in places outside of those countries, as long as those places and registered properties reflect Nordic culture from immigration, for example? 

I would have to think a little bit more about it. First thought when reading this was that it would make the category to complicated - second thought was that it might be possible - but requires a thorough examination by the officers then. But I'm not sure here if we should include these. What do the others think?

 

When it is listed as a heritage site in an official register of one of the Nordic countries, then of course it should be included. I don't know if this is the case, but it is not impossible. The Vikings and other Nordic people traveled a lot and had quite some influence as far as Sicily, Ukraine or Newfoundland in the early Middle Ages, just to name three. (Remember, there is a US NRHP entry in Morocco.)

 

But I would never accept something just somehow related to Nordic countries that is only listed in a otherwise unrelated country (or not even listed there, just old).

Link to comment

1. For the Nordic countries with a public database (Denmark, Sweden, Finland), the database will determine if waymarks are accepted outside Denmark, Sweden, or Finland.

 

2. For the Nordic countries which use a heritage marker at the site or on the object, the category description must fully describe requirements.

 

3. For the Nordic countries with no heritage markers and no public database (possibly Greenland, Iceland, Faroe, Åland), there will be a different set of requirements.  Will those countries include waymarks beyond their borders but the database countries do not?

 

Things are going to get complicated with different requirements for different countries within the same category.  Complicated is not good for officer-reviewers.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 11/30/2022 at 2:42 AM, FamilieFrohne said:

If we would accept also historical markers (which would include something like "at this place famous person XXX was born/lived/died") I fear the category would become overfilled.

 

Agree, Erik.

Another consideration would be that when creating a Registered Heritage Sites category it's pretty much mandatory that a REQUIRED variable for a link to the site's register entry be included. Unfortunately, the site of a historical marker may well not be associated with such a link.

 

I'll admit that, in expanding the Western Canadian Heritage category, I did allow for the inclusion of historical markers, though ONLY for the Canadian Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories & Nunavut), as none had such a category. Sadly, however, the Signs of History category was far from the forefront of my mind at the time, so I now consider that a mistake.

 

I don't believe that a great many historical markers in The Territories have been submitted, so it may not be a bad idea for me to readdress the category and clean up after myself.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
18 hours ago, elyob said:

1. For the Nordic countries with a public database (Denmark, Sweden, Finland), the database will determine if waymarks are accepted outside Denmark, Sweden, or Finland.

 

2. For the Nordic countries which use a heritage marker at the site or on the object, the category description must fully describe requirements.

 

3. For the Nordic countries with no heritage markers and no public database (possibly Greenland, Iceland, Faroe, Åland), there will be a different set of requirements.  Will those countries include waymarks beyond their borders but the database countries do not?

 

Things are going to get complicated with different requirements for different countries within the same category.  Complicated is not good for officer-reviewers.

 

 

Case 1 should be clearly acceptable. Although I doubt that there are many (if any) entries outside the mentioned countries.

 

Case 2 (and 3): I agree that we have missing information here and that an approval might be getting complicated. I don't know how many cases we might have in the end - and how to get a reliable proof for these. But I alsoagree to fi67's comment:

Quote

"But I would never accept something just somehow related to Nordic countries that is only listed in a otherwise unrelated country (or not even listed there, just old)."

 

I added some of my expansions/thoughts/questions to the document (https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage.html).

Link to comment

I took a closer look at the database from Finland and found out that they also have entries that include the Åland isles (just as I suspected - if I remember right Åland is still a part of Finland with extended rights since the 1920ies). I don't know if there were all entries added, but I'll add a hint to the description that the Finnish database may contain some usable input.

 

Still searching for the other open countries.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...