Talk:Grünerløkka

Main picture of Grünerløkka

Older comment -> hmmm I think one could try to find a better picture of Grünerløkka... -- A-ixemy 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now included a picture of the park at Olaf Ryes plass. With the other picture, this represents a few various "faces" of Grünerløkka better than before, in my honest opinion. --A-ixemy 21:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first picture is how it looks. And it's much better than it was, say, 20 years ago. --Leifern 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots more to be said

Grünerløkka is among the more interesting areas of Oslo historically, and lots more could be said about it. I believe this article could have a lot more added to it. - - And now I have added some of it - some paragraphs which I directly translated from the norwegian wikipedia.--A-ixemy 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Grünerløkka and Grünerløkka

This article mix up two entirely different things:

The neighbourhood Grünerløkka, and the adminstrative unity ("borough") of the same name. These are far from identical.

Yes, that's correct. This is especially true after the changes made to the "bydel"/boroughs of Oslo around 2004/05(?) if I remember correctly. Grünerløkka borough became a much larger borough with the reform. Some changes should probably be made to the article, but I believe much of what's there now could be kept, file it under 'historical neighbourhood' or something, and a new section for the administrative borough Grünerløkka as well. -- A-ixemy 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, changes have now been made to rectify this error? At least it seems that way, by the other article that's about the borough. If you're still unhappy about the setup of the article, be sure to let me know and I'll try to do something about it. Nimloth250 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Nimloth250

Fair use rationale for Image:Oslo coat.png

Image:Oslo coat.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Bunds"

Not sure if the Jan. 19th removal by 217.14.8.121 of the "bunds" section was really warranted as getting a "removal of vandalism" tag - but thanks very much to the person who did it. I've been wanting to remove that section for ages, as it's unprofessional, unencyclopedic and just plain stupid - trying to give credit to some "notorious" gang that I haven't even heard of.

So I hated the section I'm glad it's been removed (I never had the guts to, myself) - but I'm not quite sure it was "encyclopedically" correct - was this really vandalism or is this gang phenomenon real?

Thoughts, anyone?

Nimloth250 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Nimloth250