Talk:Danish Asiatic Company

Moved discussion
Duscussion moved from my talk page:Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC).

I have just been looking at Danish Asia Company and notice the references in the Danish Wiki article have not transferred. I can work through the list of ships and give references to Orlogmuseet database where available, but it might be better to pull your references to Klem through to the English article. Any thoughts on this? mvH Viking1808 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Viking1808: Feel free to go with whatevery solution you find best yourself. I will just be delighted to see any improvement of the article or its references. It is one of many articles/stubs that I have been wanting to go back to for ages but never really gotten round to.Ramblersen2 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will see what I can do over the next week or two. Viking1808 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ramblerson More from me I'm afraid! Do you have access to the book that appears to be the source for the list of ships viz The pdf article by Klem that does have a link does not have any ships listed, but looks a good 30-page article to study. I came across a list of ships on-line this morning, but realised (and an administrator has pointed out) that it was a circular reference so not useable. I suggest this discussion will better sit on the talk page of the English wikiarticle Danish Asia Company. Once on firmer ground, I have some material to give more details on these ships.
 * Knud Klem: Skibsbyggeriet i Danmark og Hertugdømmerne i 1700-årene; Bind I, København 1985; ISBN 87-88646-14-9 to confirm the listed references in the Danish version of this article.

Thanks for the revert on this reference to Danish Asia Company. Any advice/help welcome Viking1808 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm affraid I haven't got access to that book either but you can find a useful list with quite a bit of information here.Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There is now no doubt in my mind that the book above (in bold) is the putative reference work. The text is not available online, but a limited search facility exists on Google Books for single key word and a minimal entry. Some of these ships are linked to the Asia Company, others mentioned but not clearly so linked.  Access to the full book appears to be possible at four German libraries viz.

Perhaps some editor living in Kiel/Hamburg can come up with a definitive list? We live in hope! Viking1808 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum, Bibliothek Bremerhafen
 * Universitätsbibliothek Kiel, Zentralbibliothek
 * Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesbibliothek, Kiel
 * Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky

Article name
Is there a reason why the article is at "Danish Asia Company", when the name in English (as with the original in Danish) in the Lead is "Danish Asiatic company"? Davidships (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Danish Asia Company → Danish Asiatic Company – Per common usage in peer-review sources, eg. Tim Velschow (1972) Voyages of the Danish Asiatic Company to India and China 1772–1792. Scandinavian Economic History Review 20:2, pp. 133-152 or lamann, Kristof (1960) "The Danish Asiatic Company, 1732–1772". Scandinavian Economic History Review. 8 (2): 109–149. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Not even close. Should be uncontroversial. Srnec (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)