Talk:Lisbjerg

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

On Archaeology

Hello! Its great to see some archaeological information up on this page. It reflects the many new finds and the high level of achaeological activitiy in this part of Denmark recently. But I have a small plea.

I find the information too detailed for a wikipedia article on Lisbjerg. Is it not possible to sum up the results in a much more simple text, and then link to external websites, hosting all the interesting details?

I myself, have supplied archaeological information in relation to Egå Engsø close by. Look there to see an example of what I mean and try to get across. Cheers.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I agree that the depth of archaeological information in this page is beyond what Wikipedia would usually have for such a site. This depth was mainly dictated by the fact that I wrote the article as part of my Old Norse summer study program in the area - the depth was a requirement of the assignment rather than Wikipedia. The information could certainly be simplified, but referring to external websites for further information is a problem: as you might see from my list of sources, most of the information comes from Danish archaeological journal Kuml which does not make its articles openly available on the Internet. Furthermore, most of the information in these sources is in Danish (Kuml has short English summaries which give some of the information). Anyone is of course welcome to make the simplification nevertheless (I am not willing to make the time commitment).

As for your current changes, I removed a comma you added since it changed the meaning of the sentence. It is the possible crossing point of the stream that is located just south of the village, rather than the moat (as your sentence would have it). Indeed, it is just south of the village that the moat has a gap, making the crossing possible. If you think my punctuation is unclear, you are of course welcome to change it while making sure the meaning of the sentence remains what it ought to.

I greatly appreciate your input and interest in the article!

--Erastik (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]