Talk:Fredriksvern

Proposed Merge

As the originator of both articles, I’d suggest there is merit to retaining both because:

1. Combination of articles frequently submerges important minor topics in a welter of confusing, and for the average reader useless, data. One example of this can be found by looking for seter; you’ll discover it merged into the article on transhumance. I challenge the casual reader who is trying to figure out what a traditional Scandinavian seter is to know what the heck this article is about (& I spent some effort cleaning it up).
2. The Wikipedia is often mirrored on other sites (& Wikipedia encourages mirrors). When we delete an entry it does not get mirrored. Hence folks looking up words like seter, which will get you to transhumance on the Wikipedia by redirection, are less likely to be found when you Google it.
3. There is merit having a number of shorter articles on specific persons, places, things & ideas— all written in a short & easily accessible style. Both these articles fall mostly in this category.
4. But there is also merit to having thoughtful, scholarly articles that address the more subtle & obscure issues which may interest a more academically inclined reader. This would be an article that links the two into a well developed history of the area.
5. The dichotomy resulting from an encyclopedia’s objective to serve both audiences who are quickly looking a word or topic up as well as those want a scholarly discussion is not new. Encyclopædia Britannica attempted to address this issue by introducing the Micropedia (short accessible articles) in the first eight volumes and Macropedia (longer scholarly articles referenced from the short accessible articles) in the next 17 volumes. Although the timing was poor since internet sources (including the Wikipedia) have virtually destroyed hard-copy encyclopedia sales, the concept was recognition of a longstanding need; the concept still has value.

Best regards - Williamborg 01:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am against a merger. These are two different things. Inge 11:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi if you're here from the MILTHIST wikiproj: I'd love to hear wether or not to merge this articles, as I feel they could be merged, but Inge clearly disputes them as being different. Kevin_b_er 07:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

One article is about the military installation, the other is a town. The article as it stands now does however have a bit too much information better suited in the town article and certainly needs more information on the topic the article is supposed to describe.Inge 09:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now expanded both articles a bit. They should be worked on further, but I have at least illustrated that these are two different things (i hope). Inge 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fredriksvern. 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/20070311162125/http://www.riksarkivet.no/arkivverket/publikasjoner/nett/handbok-ra/forsvaret/sjo.html to http://www.riksarkivet.no/arkivverket/publikasjoner/nett/handbok-ra/forsvaret/sjo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928092529/http://www.den-norske-turguiden.com/nor/fylke/vestfold/kommune/larvik.htm to http://www.den-norske-turguiden.com/nor/fylke/vestfold/kommune/larvik.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)