Talk:Gamla stan

The photo with the caption "Panorama from City Hall" and file name "Old_Town_from_Stockholm_City_Hall.png" actually depicts Kungsholmen and not Gamla Stan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.75.2 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says: "...Gamla stan is a UNESCO World Heritage site". I don't think so. There has been a dicussion whether it should be a UNESCO World Heritage site or not, but I don't think it really is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Let's hope Gamla stan becomes a UNESCO World Heritage!!

You're right (as evidenced by this list), thanks for noticing! I'm removing the statement. / Alarm 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Move

I'm suggesting a move of this page to either: Stockholm Old Town or Old Town, Stockholm, both being English names. Please give your opinions! // Fred-Chess 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree since Old Town is probably more known as such to the foreign tourists.. However, this brings up other questions, I noticed some Stockholm borough's have essentially two articles, compare Maria-Gamla_Stan_borough with Gamla_Stan, and Kungsholmen_borough with Kungsholmen. Should they be two separate articles? The Swedish Wikipedia has a similar division, but the quality of the articles here varies greatly. Any help or input is appreciated, they all need to be expanded and updated! Mceder 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles on boroughs - as administrative entities - should definitely be kept separate from articles about geographical entities, especially since they rarely follow the same boundaries. For example, the new Södermalm borough covers areas outside Södermalm proper, such as Gamla Stan and Långholmen. As for moving this page, I'm not sure that "Old Town" is actually more used in an English language context. If it is, I support a move, but note that English-language articles such as this travel article in New York Times uses "Gamla Stan", as does this one (and this shorter one) in the Guardian. This Washington Post piece uses both, but puts "Gamla Stan" first. Lonely Planet uses "Old Town" once but then "Gamla Stan" three times on its Stockholm page, Fodor's seems to use Old Town when stressing to the English-language reader that it is the *old* part of town but to prefer "Gamla Stan" as the name in other cases, and Rough Guides mainly uses "Gamla Stan". Alarm 13:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about that. A google search on pages only in English language yields lots of hits for "Gamla stan". [1] I suggest it stays here (I created redirects from "Stockholm Old Town" and "Old Town, Stockholm"). // Habj 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add, that search finds also lots of pages that acually are not in English - but still a large part of the currently 235 000 hits are. // Habj 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look here: [[2]]. Sweden is the only country that uses the Swedish name for 'Old Town'. I suggest the article to be moved in accordance with the global majority. BMW Z3 00:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I hope I made clear with the section Origin of the name, the old town of Stockholm is, to my knowledge, the only place on earth officially named Gamla stan. However, there is a second problem lurking here: This name is also colloquially used for other historical city centres elsewhere in Sweden, but in Stockholm it is colloquially being used exclusively for the island Stadsholmen, while the remaining islands (officially included in Gamla stan) are typically referred to using their respective names. So, moving this article to 'Old Town, Stockholm' wont entirely solve the disambiguation problem. I suggest keeping Gamla stan.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Extent

"The surrounding islets: Riddarholmen, Helgeandsholmen, and Strömsborg are technically not included in Gamla stan."

Not? Indeed they are, IMO. As should be apparent from the "Origin of the name" section (which I created) these islets are "technically" (whatever this means) included in the official name. Even though we are using different editions of the same source, I'm sure "Gatunamn" do not confirm the statement above in any edition.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote the intro part and removed both the line and the ref.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gamla stan. 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/20071001151302/http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298&a=413578 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298&a=413578

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) 16:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)