Talk:Øresund Region

Population density map

Added translation to the Population density map
--Red w 08:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Oresund"?

Is "Oresund" with an "O" really the official English name of this region, like the official English name of Göteborg is Gothenburg, or is it just written without diacritics, like "Jyvaskyla" for Jyväskylä? JIP | Talk 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's not the official name, then there is the problem of whether it should be spelled Öresund or Øresund. Both spellings are equally valid. Perhaps "Oresund" would have to be a simple, but awkward compromise. JIP | Talk 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The English version of the official webpage spells it as "The Øresund Region" [1]. Väsk 19:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The name was a polical decision, but it ended with "Øresund" after a study showed that foreigners thought that looked more exotic and interesting. 129.142.143.67 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well then. Time to change the name of the article. Øresund it is! -- Henriok (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What I think is strangest is that the name of the article is Oresund Region and at the same time the article begins with: Properly spelled with diacritics. So according to the article, the name of the article is a misspelling, if I interpret it correctly. A compromise sometimes used is a Danish ø and a Swedish ö combined, an o with both the line and the dots. I think this is mostly for marketing reasons though and not an official spelling, but it could be mentioned anyway. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Oresund is an OK version that don't have to chose between the Danish Øresund and the Swedish Öresund. That local authorities agree on a common writing form in marketing texts is one thing (sometimes ending in horrible hybrids like Øresundsbron - neither Swedish Öresundsbron nor Danish Øresundsbroen), but there is no unfortunately no common way to write the name of this water on the two sides of it. Although I see the article Oresund is found at Øresund. Tomas e (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can agree that Oresund is a correct spelling in English I see no problem with that. I just thought it was strange that the article claims that Oresund isn't correct and at the same time having the article named "Oresund Region". /Jiiimbooh (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change the word properly to either usually, often, sometimes, or officially: "Often spelled with diacritics". /Jiiimbooh (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Urban Area

The article referes to an OECD-report, which states that the "Copenhagen-Malmö-axis is the biggest and the most densely populated urban area in Scandinavia with approximately 2 million inhabitants". First of all: It must be said in the article HOW OECD defines an urban area. According to Statistics Sweden and Statistics Denmark, an urban area is defined as a countuously built up area, where the maximum distance between residences is 200 meters. This means that according to the Danish and Swedish national definitions this cannot be one single urban area since the strait over oresund is several kilometers wide. The OECD-definition is indeed not the same. Suppose that we use the Scandinavian definition and just fusion the Copenhagen urban area (hovedstadsområdet) and the Malmö urban area, the population would just be 1.400.000 inhabitants - not even close to the 2 million figur mentioned. This made me suspect that they mean metropolitan area (i.e. not urban area). But the metropolitan area of Malmö-Copenhagen population is more closer (a little more than) 2,4 million rather than 2 million (1,8 m + 0,6 M). I have once seen another definition called "larger urban area", which is something inn between the urban area and metropolitan area. Is this, what OECD referes to? Maybe this should be checked up. Malmö and Copenhagen are indeed urban, but is it really a SINGLE urban area? The nordisk statistikbok states that the whole area of Scania, Sealand, Lolland, Falster, Møn and Bornholm is one single urban area (pop 3,6). This only reveal the fact that the authors don't know what an urban area is. Do the OECD authors know what an urban area is? If not: Should the source be cited at all? I don't think so. Nirro (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Numbers presented by a "nordisk statistikbok" "only reveal the fact that the authors don't know what an urban area is. Do the OECD authors know what an urban area is? [...] I don't think so." He, he. That's really funny. Finally we have a the world's first real authority on this issue..and a Wikipedia user no less, teaching those dummies at OECD, UN and the Nordic Council.

About the source cited: It is an OECD report written as a peer review by international experts (i.e. with expertise in urban studies and/or geography and urban economics), namely Peter Karl Kresl, Charles P. Vaughan Chair in Economics and Professor of International Relations at Bucknell University, visiting professor/researcher at McGill University, The University of Vermont, The Norwegian School of Economics and the Lund University, with a Ph.D. in economics and whose expertise includes urban competitiveness, culture polity and international economic policy, an author of many peer reviewed published articles in journals such as Urban Studies, International Organisation, The Journal of European Integration and Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, and of books with titles such as The Urban Economy and Regional Trade Liberalisation, The Urban Response to Internationalisation and The Cities Take Charge. Co-author of the source is Peter Vaessen, contract researcher at the Radboud University Nijmegen, with a doctoral degree in the field of Economic Geography. The peer review involves data put together for a regional self-evaluation report by a working group consisting of among others Gunnar Törnqvist, Professor, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Lund University, and Christian Wichmann Matthiessen, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Copenhagen. On what basis is the claim made that the authors of the OECD peer report and the professors in geography in the Oresund region can't be cited because they "don't know what an urban area is"? Lord have mercy! Sophiasghost (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all... I did state that the authors didn't respect the common Danish-Swedish definition of an urban area. I also asked myself if they used another definition than the one used in Scandinavia.

In Denmark and Sweden, an urban area is defined as an contimuously built up area where buildings aren't generally further apart than 200 meters. By this definition the axis Copenahgen-Malmo can never be regarded as a singel urban area since the Oresund strait is about 13 km broad between Malmo and Copenhagen. According to http://dst.dk and http://scb.se the urban area of Copenhagen (byområde) has about 1,145,000 inhabitant and Malmo (tätort) has some 275,000. Together this is 1,420,000 (I don't think they lie). We can draw the comclusion that OECD doesn't make use of the common Danish and Swedish definition of an urban area. There is a discrepancy between these figures and the official nordic figures presented by the scb and dst. Therefore, I suggest that the "nordisk statistikbok" shouldn't be used as a source (we cite a source that cite the facts we write). Instead it would be better to cite the OECD report instead. Hopefully this report explains their definition of an urban area. If this change of definition isn't explained many Scandinavian readers would be more than confused. Nirro (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

existence

Is this thing real or is it an EU creation? Regions aren't usually international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regions frequently are international: linguistic regions (France, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg), economic regions (EU, EEC), cultural regions (Basque Country), etc. I think the Øresund case is a combination of marketing and "real-life", if you will. There is no denying the fact that Danes live in Scania, and Scanians work in Copenhagen. The trains are coordinated in the area. There is a higher degree of mutual bilinguality in the two main cities, when compared to say Århus and Stockholm. ConorBrady^.ie (caint) 19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Øresund which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Øresund Region. 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/20000304085313/http://www.oresundskomiteen.dk/ to http://www.oresundskomiteen.dk/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oresundnetwork.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed move to "Greater Copenhagen"

I have reverted an undiscussed move of the article made earlier this year, back to the old name "Øresund Region", since that's what the geographical region is still known as, and a geographical region is all there is, not a political region. And there will with all probability never be a political region, both because of it covering parts of two different countries and because of the total lack of interest in such a project shown by the Swedish government. Other names, including "Copenhagen Malmö Region" and "Greater Copenhagen", have been or are used for marketing purposes only by the Danish and Swedish regions and municipalities that are part of the geographical region, but that should be covered in a separate article about the marketing committee that has been formed by those regions and municipalities. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for putting facts before marketing. RhinoMind (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Øresund Region vs. Greater Copenhagen Region=

@User:FrinkMan: Please don't revert recent updates in this extremely poorly updated article without discussing them first on this talk page. What is you basis for claiming that the Øresund Region is the "real name" of this region and that Greater Copenhagen is only used for marketing purposes? This region is an official transnational collaboration and Greater Copenhagen (Region) is now the official name of it. Wihtout the official collaboration, it wouldn't satisfy the need for notability. This situation is no different from what is the case with other similar regions, cf. for instance the Hamburg Metropolitan Region . It makes no sense to insist using an abandoned name,no matter how you personally feel about the name change. Here on Wikipedia we go with official names and the ones most commonly used.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ramblersen2: You went against the established consensus without discussing on the talk page first. See the discussion above between @Thomas.W: and @RhinoMind:.

You can hardly call a six years old discussion between three people that did not agree an "established consensus". The article and the associated one on the "Greater Copenhagen and Malmö Committee" had basically not been updated since then. And the one about the committee talked about it in the past sense as if it no longer existed. That was what prompted me to start updating the articles in the first place.Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say that this article concerns the geographical transnational and metropolitan region Øresund Region. Then there's the matter of the Greater Copenhagen Committee. That committee is without a doubt no longer called the Øresund Committee. So basically this article concerns the geographical transnational and metropolitan region called the Øresund Region, also known as Greater Copenhagen for marketing purposes. The most commonly used english name for the region was and still is the Øresund Region. The situation in Denmark might be different.

It's also important to avoid confusion with Greater Copenhagen (Folketing constituency) and Urban area of Copenhagen (Greater Copenhagen redirects to that article).

Also, @Danielsltt: replied to you on his talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danielsltt&oldid=1221214292 FrinkMan (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:FrinkMan: You are still missing the point that without the officially defined collaboration there is no such thing as an "Øresund Region" that satisfy the need for notability. Copenhagen-Malmö is not recognized as one metropolitan area by the EU, OECD or other international, statistical bureaus. You can come up with a vast number of more or less home-made "regions" that everyone has there own personal definition of. They need to have some sort of official definition or recognition.That was my point with the comparison to the Hamburg Metropolitan Region: You could define it in plenty of other ways, including more or less land, depending on you personal preferences and motifs, but here on Wikipedia we go with the official definition. So do you have any definition of an "Øresund Region" in reliable sources that is not derrived from the official collaboration? You claim that the name "Øresund Region is still the name most commonly used, what are your sources? I agree that the name Greater Copenhagen is problematic since it can also have other meanings but it doesn't change the fact that it is now the official name and the one consistently used in reports, press releases etc (not just in marketing). And that is the way it is with official names. It is also weird that the Region of Central Denmark (in Danish: Region Midtjylland = Central Jutland Region) comprises areas that are in no way centrally located in Denmark (such as Ringkøbing). And that Region Zealand comprises Lolland-Falster]] but not the northeastern part of the island (Capital Region). But it is officialy defined regions with official names. It makes no sense to start questioning there scope or name. Ramblersen2 (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2024

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Øresund Region → Greater Copenhagen Region – The Øresund Region was created as a transnational Danish-Swedish collaboration in 1993. The official name of the region was changed to the Greater Copenhagen Region in 2018. See also the already on-going discussion in the previous section on this talk page for further details. See for instance this source from Nordregion (an international research centre for regional development and planning). As mentioned above, I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between the official collaboration and a "real" Øresund Region. See also this official white paper for the use of the name. Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - If we are to believe this is an "official" name change it would be good to see sources from the Danish and Swedish governments using "Greater Copenhagen Region". A quick search finds "Øresund Region" is still commonly in use post 2018 and I am yet to be convinced any change would be an improvement. Tammbeck^talk 17:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tammbeck

I am not sure how you can question that the official name has been changed considering that the new name features on all publications etc from the region:

• "Produktivitetsgevinster for Greater Copenhagen ved nedbrydning af grænsehindringer på tværs af Øresund"
• Sweden's Halland Region joins Greater Copenhagen
• Annual Report 2022

I still need to see a definition of the "Øresund Region" that is not derrived directly from the official collaboration. Is it referred to as a "region" in encyclopedia or other reliable sources prior to 1993 in a way that satisfies the need for notability? I would also like to see some proof that the name Øresund Region is still commonly used in official documents and by other reliable sources (compare the definition of Greater Copenhagen Region from Nordregio referred to above). And to make the current situation even worse, User:Danielsltt has even started to create Øresund Region-related categories based on his own eclectic definition of the Øresund Region. Unfortunately he is constantly blanking his talk page which makes it difficult to engage in discussions with him but I have moved my discussion with him to Category talk:Øresund Region. I think it is another proof that we really need to stick to official names and definitions.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm open to being convinced one way or the other. But it seems to me this "Greater Copenhagen Region" is branding being used by a cooperation of local authorities in Denmark and Sweden rather than an actual geographical region. I don't have a consistent definition for "Øresund Region" and don't think it's necessarily a problem that different sources might use different definitions. Readers are welcome to do their own googling - I'm not going to post a list of sources. Tammbeck^talk 21:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tammbeck: That was kind of my point: That this region is the result of a cooperation between local authorities. But that situation is not that different from the one with plenty of other regions. The article on the Hamburg Metropolitan Region states that "On 1 January 2006 the office of the Hamburg Metropolitan Region opened, as agreed in a state treaty of cooperation (Staatsvertrag über Zusammenarbeit) between Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein.". The region is thus not based on a "scientific" understanding of the size of a given city's metropolitan area (there is no proper definition of such an area), it is purely based on the state treaty. In Denmark, we have a Region of Central Denmark which is not located in central Denmark. In Danish, it is called the Central Jutland Region, so I guess you could say that the name was adopted for marketing reasons (Central Denmark sounds better than Central Jutland, I suppose), but it doesn't change the fact that it is what the region is officially called in English. And it is certainly not a pre-existing, geographical region (it was created in 2007, mainly to administrate local hospital services). Regardring the Øresund Region/Greater Copenhagen Region, I really don't get the point with insisting on using an old name, pretending that it has some pre-existing merit to it. And if we keep the old name, we still need to agree what the article is about. Is it about the official, politically defined region (that is now called something els? Or is it about a non-existing, geographical region that noone has a proper definition of? Halland is now officially part of the Greater Copenhagen Region (cf. the Nordregio definition and the article from The Local). Back when the region was referred to as the Øresund Region, it only comprised Scania on the Swedish side. And as already mentioned, User:Danielsltt insists on using his Øresund Region-based articles for an even smaller area than that (based on his own eclectic definition). I just want to determine what this article is about and a name that reflects it.Ramblersen2 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I wrote above: I would say that this article concerns the geographical transnational and metropolitan region Øresund Region. Then there's the matter of the Greater Copenhagen Committee. That committee is without a doubt no longer called the Øresund Committee. So basically this article concerns the geographical transnational and metropolitan region called the Øresund Region, also known as Greater Copenhagen for marketing purposes. The most commonly used english name for the region was and still is the Øresund Region. The situation in Denmark might be different. It's also important to avoid confusion with Greater Copenhagen (Folketing constituency) and Urban area of Copenhagen (Greater Copenhagen redirects to that article).

FrinkMan (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You claim that the article is about the geographical region but you still need to demonstrate that such a "geographical region" exists in a way that satisfies the need for notability. Is it mentioned in encyclopedia or other reliable sources prior to 1993? Do you have a definition of it? This region was created as a transnational cooperation between two countries and local authorities and it is therefore completely artificial to destinguish between the official cooperation and the "real geographical region", just to be able to keep the old name. You have also completely failed to demonstrate that the Øresund Region name is still the one most commonly used. I have produced multiple official documents, articles and a definition from Nordregio (and I will happily come up with many more). You have not produced a single reference to support your claim. I also think we need to consider what kind of information readers will expect to find in the article. I think most readers will expect to find information directly related to the official cooperation and especially its transnational aspects: Commuter patterns, cross-border initiatives, integration of labour markets etc. An article about a well-defined geographical region would normally cover long sections about history, geography, landmarks etc. IMO it will make no sense to cover such topics in this article, simply because this isn't a well-defined geographical region. It will just end up as endless repetitions of bits and peaces from other artivles.Ramblersen2 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The bottom line is that I don't believe that "Greater Copenhagen Region" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the transnational region around the Øresund. "Storkøbenhavn" (literally "greater Copenhagen) is a region wholly within Denmark and I'm not convinced that either Danes or Swedes commonly use "Greater Copenhagen Region" as the name of a region from the outskirts of Gothenburg in the north to the Fehmarn Belt in the south. While the origins and geographic extent of the term "Øresund Region" are debatable I do believe that its meaning is universally understood in Denmark and Sweden and it is therefore the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject of this article. Tammbeck^talk 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tammbeck: Sorry byt you asked me for more reliable sources and I provided extra links. I have demonstrated that Greater Copenhagen is in fact the official name of the transnational cooperation (amd have been so for years), that it is consistently used in official documents related to the region and also in other media coverage. I have also produced a definition from the research institute Nodregion while noone have been able )or willing) to teel me what area the term Øresund Region as used in this article is meant to cover. . All you have done is to conclude that you believe that another name is better, without providing a single recent example of its use from reliable sources. You are also ignoring the problem with the lack of a proper definition and that noone seems to know (let alone agree) what area the article and associated categories are meant to cover. As I have already pointed out, hte Øresund Region-based categories are right now based on a single editor's completely homemade understanding of what the region should have covered. I completely agree that the name Greater Copenhagen was a rather bad choice but it is still official and defined in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not ne used as am activist forum for people to surpress names and definitions that they don't like.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:wbm1058. Sorry about that - it was a copy-and-paste gone wrong.Tammbeck^talk 17:41, 10 May 2024 (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.