Wikipedia

Talk:Stockholm/Archive 2

< Talk:Stockholm
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Stockholm is not the biggest in Nordic

Latest comment: 14 years ago35 comments11 people in discussion

Stockholm is not bigger than Copenhagen, only pr definition that Stockholm count almost 3 time as much area as Copenhagen do. If Copenhagen is counted same area size it would maybe twice as big as Stockholm. Copenhagen doesnt even count Frederiksberg in (witch is very close to center) Stockholm:

  • Population City: 765 044, 4091 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 187 km2
  • Population Urban Area: 1 212 196, 3230 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 375 km2
  • Population Metro Area: 1 872 900, 289 inhabitants/km2 Area Size: 6 490 km2

Copenhagen:

  • Population City: 502 362, 5709 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 88 km2
  • Population Urban Area: 1 085 813. ?? inhabitants/km2, ?? Area Size:
  • Population Metro Area: 1 827 239, 638 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 2 862 km2

Note this is a little out of date stats. But Copenhagen is no doubt bigger. --Comanche cph 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You confuse population size with population density. That's two different things. Or would you have us believe that Germany is bigger than the United States, just because it has a significantly higher population density? /M.O (u) (t) 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about. It's the way you count city size at. Area size is anorther thing. If Copenhagen counted the same area size as Stockholm it would be no doubt bigger. --Comanche cph 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are more inhabitants per square kilometer in Copenhagen - that may perhaps give it the title of Most Densly Populated Capital in Scandinavia, but I fail to see how that invalidates the claim that Stockholm is the largest? Compared to Copenhagen it is larger in City, Urban and Metro is it not? Mceder 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Am I not making myself clear enough? This is not about population density, it is about population SIZE! And Stockholm has - in every respect - a larger population than Copenhagen. Yes, Stockholm has a greater area than Copenhagen (since a great part of the total area are water), and you might not like it, but that doesn't matter. In this case, we take the population size into account, and according to that, Stockholm is bigger than Copenhagen. Period. /M.O (u) (t) 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Woah man. I'm with you, but no need to sound like that.. It's all good. This would be an awfully silly thing to get into a revert war on.... Mceder 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, those extra marks made me go bold instead of italic, I guess I sounded angrier than I actually was. It just seems like I'm not reaching all the way through, since I already explained the difference between population density and population size. /M.O (u) (t) 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Forget the density then, it was just some extra. It's just the way you count city size at. You don't count it with area size of the "kommune" -did't know the English word. If you should count it with area size, you should count same area on both. --Comanche cph 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't. And lets leave it at that. It's also a matter of what the area actually consists of, you see. A great part of the area that Stockholm occupies isn't actually land that you can build or live on, but water. I don't think anyone has disputed the fact/claim that Copenhagen is the most densely populated city in Scandinavia, but Stockholm has a greater population. /M.O (u) (t) 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's very wrong to claim that Stockholm is bigger than Copenhagen. You don't count city size with the size of area they claim to it. As city Copenhagen is bigger. If Copenhagen just added small 200 m2 to Copenhagen. They would even be bigger. --Comanche cph 21:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

According to your view on things, that might be the case. But in this context it is not. Don't mess up the article, please. /M.O (u) (t) 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you wanna have Stockholm to be bigger than Copenhagen. But that just simple not the case. You don't count city with area size. Stockholm count almost 3 times as much area size. please get over it. --Comanche cph 21:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you understand what is written right in front of your nose? This is about population size, not population density. Stockholm has a greater population, period. Do you realize that you might be violating the NPOV guideline? /M.O (u) (t) 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny how ignorant you can be, or maybe you just still don't get how you count city size. This is about population size, not AREA size. Stockholm count almost 3 times as much area as Copenhagen. --Comanche cph 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So, according to you, Denmark is a bigger country than Sweden, since is has a more dense population, despite the facts that Sweden has a bigger population? Honestly, and not meaning to offend, but to discuss things with you is a bit like arguing with a stubborn 14-year old kid. /M.O (u) (t) 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't count countries size the same as cityies So acording to you Nuuk should have a 1.0000000000km2 Area size?? It's not about dense! --Comanche cph 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't count cities that way either. You count population size, regardless of area. Just suck it up. /M.O (u) (t) 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do. It's very wrong to say Stockholm is bigger because the count more area size to it. It's not the way to count city and claim stockholm is the biggest city because its not. --Comanche cph 22:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, once again: Yes, that IS how we count city size. This is not open for debate, that is how it is, period! Did you understand what I just wrote? If you for some reason or another aren't capable of (or inclined to) understanding or otherwise unwilling to accept that, I'm afraid I can't help you. But I hope that you will at least refrain from editing this article - or other articles where city sizes are mentioned - in the future. Cool? /M.O (u) (t) 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah... as someone who came in to see what the problem was and went "Um... huh?!" at this bizarre little diversion, I'd like to suggest that perhaps a good way to sort this out is to indicate in that first paragraph that it has the highest population of the Nordic cities, rather than saying it's the largest city. Population density, surface area, etc., are thus removed from the equation, and it's a bit clearer. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you understand it better this way:

  • Stockholm is the largest municipality in this region.
  • Copenhagen is the largest city in this region.

--Comanche cph 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Comanche has asked me to place any comments to this page, so I'll do that. The Danish wikipedia (da:København) gives these numbers for Copenhagen: Copenhagen municipality: 501,000, Greater Copenhagen: 1,086,000 (da:Hovedstadsområdet) vs. en:Stockholm: (Stockholm municipality: 776,545, Greater Stockholm: 1,729,000) No matter how I look at these numbers, I can only draw the conclusion that Stockholm has more citizens than Copenhagen (or Oslo or Helsinki for that matter). Oslo municipality has 541,000 and Greater Oslo has 825,000, Helsinki has 563,000. Based on these data, I can only conclude that Stockholm is larger than the other cities, nomatter if we only count the municipality or if we count the entire metropolitan region. When people talk about the "largest city" in (something) that means the one with the biggest population. It seems pretty certain to me that Stockholm leads here, and that this is how city "size" is normally measured. But by all means rephrase the sentence to the "most populous city in the Nordic countries" if people feel it is necessary. Copenhagen no doubt has a higher population density than Stockholm, but that is another matter. Just my 2 cents. Valentinian (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. The way you count tho municipality area and metropolitan region area on is very different. Stockholm count allot more area, so Stockholm can claim they are sticly bigger than Copenhagen. It would be the same if Copenhagen counted Roskilde and north Zealand. As city, Copenhagen is no doubt bigger than Stockholm. --Comanche cph 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Copenhagen doesn't include Roskilde or north Zeeland, it doesn't count. That's the way it is. You'll just have to accept that. /M.O (u) (t) 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've left a message on both of there talkpages and I think it might be time for arbitration or protection. ForestH2 t/c 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't that difficult. Standard references don't count that way, and neither should Wikipedia. / Fred-Chess 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes because it's simple wrong to claim Stockholm is larger, because counting 3 time as much area as Copenhagen. As city Copenhagen is the largest city. Saying Stockholm is the most populated in this region should therefore be saying more precisely. :o) --Comanche cph 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, it isn't the "biggest city", but the most populated municipality. / Fred-Chess 09:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No more edit warring about this please

Here's a list of some diffs I've been digging up Comanche cph

(the above is 3rr blockable if you ask me but let's try a different approach for now...) Magore

Valentinian

Fred Chess

All of you please talk through this, come to consensus on what is correct, without making any more edits to the page in this area until there's consensus or I will be handing out blocks for edit warring (blockable in its own right regardless of 3rr), rather indiscriminately, with only the lengths being set based on my relative assessments. Oh and this is a candidate for WP:LAME by the way. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your concern, but I have not support to block for general edit warring Wikipedia:Bans_and_blocks#Excessive_reverts says "As a rule of thumb, this [edit war block] happens when an editor reverts for the fourth time in a 24-hour period".
I must also humbly correct the description of Magores second revert being incivil. / Fred-Chess 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"Suck it up" is borderline incivil in my view... but that was at talk:Copenhagen on this talk page ([1]) and was a talk comment, not the edit summary for the second revert, so oops!!! Corrected. And that edit war quote is a rule of thumb. My thinking on edit warring is rather more stringent, I know it when I see it and I see it here, and I believe I'd get supported if I handed out some blocks. However to hand out blocks is not my goal, blocks are preventative not punitive, I want you all to realise this is serious, and to work out your differences and stop reverting. See also the entry at LAME ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I applaud the will to compromise which is evident in the current edit, saying that Stockholm is the most populous municipality in the Nordic countries. However, I think it is unnecessary. This is just a complicated way of saying that it is the largest city in the Nordic countries - which is what the article should say. This whole edit war has arisen because of 1 - one - users destructive edits, and the whole wikipedia-community should not be forced to make the article worse than it was as the result of one destructive user. I say the article should still say that Stockholm is the largest city - this is much better English, and more readable and understandable than "most populous municipality. --Barend 14:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Lar might be refering to what I've written on this talk page - I admit that I (theoretically) could have been more civil in some cases, although I'm not sure about it, since I haven't made any deliberate insults or accusations. I've kept a fairly neutral tone in what I've written, but as with all written messages, we loose the flavour of intonations and stuff, and that makes it easier to interpret what I've written as more negative and aggressive than intended. And to discuss things with Comanche cph can be really tiresome, and I do my best to keep calm and not run out of patience. Especially since I would prefer wikipedia to remain as a more or less reliable source for information on the web, thus I find it very trying to debate the same thing over and over with teenagers - or people who behave and argue like teenagers - just because the facts come into conflict with their personal views and opinions. If the facts support one claim, that is what we should stick to, regardless of what other individuals have found out on their own, since that would violate the NPOV and NOR guidelines. /M.O (u) (t) 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Barend: I actually think that "most populous municipality" is more accurate than "biggest city", because the definitions of "city" are diffuse, and even more so because the Swedish definition of "stad" (City) is non-intuitive for most people. You can compare the lead section with that of Toronto, who write it in the way I did.
M.O.: I support you -- I likewise do not regret my part in this so called edit war. What other way is there to resolv disputes with people who don't want to discuss?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred Chess (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My point here is that discussion WAS going on on the talk page. Leave it set to the wrong version while the discussion was going on and once consensus is clear (heck I think it just about is already) the reverts can be tagged "as per clear consensus on the talk page" instead of "see talk page". More powerful. I may be coming down too hard here, sorry but I think having it wrong for a short while is not the end of the world, it wastes less valuable editor time than revert warring. It also makes the case for blocking the contenious editor more clear cut than if the revert war and the discussion are going on at the same time. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The standard phrase normally used about any region's "settlement with the numerically largest population" would be "largest city" in plain English. I still think this should be the outcome, but if necessary, I'll buy "Stockholm is the most populous city in the Nordic countries" (to avoid the term "municipality"). And I agree this issue qualifies for WP:LAME. Cheers. Valentinian (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, we have reached a concensus, it was already reached before this little edit war started. And at this point there is only one editor who tries to buldoze his way through the consensus we reached this time. Frankly, I've had enough of this POV-pushing, same thing with the article about Copenhagen, where the same editor talks about "dirty PR tricks" including "counting too much area" in order to make Stockholm appear bigger than it actually is. My personal view on this is that it is impossible to make a good comparison between Stockholm and Copenhagen, as these cities are so different from each other. Copenhagen is a typical european metropolitan built around a typical "grid" of city streets, while Stockholm is built on a cluster of densely populated islands, connected to each other with tunnels and bridges, like Venice on steroids or something. And in that case, we can only compare these two cities by counting population, and Stockholm has a greater population, although Copenhagen is - even in my opinion, although I'm a native of Stockholm - a lot more urban. /M.O (u) (t) 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Venice on steroids ???? This might qualify as original research, and Carlsberg will probably object, but I'll take this as definitive proof that humour exists in Sweden despite of Spritbolaget. :) . Btw, I like Barend's version. Valentinian (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the most correct version to avoid any confusion in claiming Stockholm is the largest city, since as a city Copenhagen is largest: this also makes it the largest city of the Nordic countries, but in considering counting more land area than Copenhagen. --Comanche cph 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Barend's suggestion seems OK to me. And, for the record, Comanche cph have started over with his revert war, this time in the article about Copenhagen, which should otherwise correspond to statements made in this article, and the other way around. Maybe it is time to start a formal DR, in order to put an end to this conflict? This POV-pushing is getting old, IMHO. /M.O (u) (t) 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes they seems ok because you wanna fake claim that Stockholm is largest when it's not, as it's easly seen in these stats. What's wrong in the article of Copenhagen? Don't you like the facts that Copenhagen is larger, in the considering of area space, that IS writed? --Comanche cph 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is clear

I was asked about how to proceed on my talk page. After I requested that we work for consensus for changes, Comanche_cph (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)} nevertheless reinserted controversial facts, against the generally accepted consensus. That he did so on Copenhagen instead of here is irrelevant, in my view, the two articles should remain congruent.

Consensus is not unanimity, for if it were, one editor could block all progress. It is my view that consensus is clear here, and the articles should be restored as those in consensus see fit (with a reference in the edit summary to returning to the consensus version), for Comanche cph (now blocked) has shown he is unwilling to work with the rest of you. At least for now he is, one would hope maybe he will change. Please do not let his dissent hold you back from making changes. If, when he returns from his block, he resumes edit warring about this or other subjects and I don't notice it, please let me know. Hope that helps, and happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is consensus? I thought by the Copenhagen talk page, consensus was to not claim either city to be bigger. It's only a difference of 40000 people even by official number, but I see Stockholm reasserting its POV now. Btw. If there is a usefull censensus, then remove this awful useless discussion on the talk page. Carewolf 11:30 13 November 2006

I'm not sure that's a useful comment, actually. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article suggesting that Stockholms is the largest city in Scandinavia? Is wikipedia a forum for wrong information?/Arial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.149.138 (talk)

No, it isn't. And it's not a forum for POV-pushing or original research either. As long as the official sources claim Stockholm to be the largest city in Scandinavia, the articles on Stockholm and Copenhagen should say so - If we decide to include comparisons of that kind in them. Oh, by the way, I find it interesting to see that all of a sudden two new users appears, both of them backing up and defending the POV-pushing (by Comance cph) that we had to deal with a few months ago. And you express yourself in about the same way as Comanche cph. A coincidence? /M.O (u) (t) 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of you sure have a way of speculating, such as with Stockholm's imaginary population? Unsigned or not, I agree with Comanche, that's all. It's very clear, Stockholm can hardly be concidered the largest city in this region /Arial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.149.138 (talk)
The official sources in Stockholm claims Stockholm is the largest city. The official sources in Copenhagen claims Copenhagen is the largest. So what makes it possible for wikipedia to choose one claim over the other based on biased numbers? carewolf 9:08 16 November

Please sign up for an account, and use ~~~~ when you make posts, so we know who you are. As to the question itself, consensus, in my view, remains clear on what the right way to approach this is, regardless of who turns up later. Magore has it right in my view. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the official numbers seem to be that the two countries count in different ways - In the swedish version, city is limited by municipalities, official borders, while the danish version counts the city until natural borders such as agricultural land, sea or forests. This makes the swedish numbers naturally higher, counting in areas which in Denmark would be seperate cities. Ive been living in Solna, Stockholm as well as Nørrebro, Copenhagen and know both cities very well, and a example would be Flemmingsberg vs Taastrup. Both are independent towns in the capitol areas. But while F'berg is part of Botkyrka Municipality it counts in, while Taastrup, separated from Copenhagen by 300 meters of motorway is not a part of the official numbers. It has 30.000 inhabitants, and there are lots of likewise towns, eg Ishøj, Rungsted, Værløse, Greve, Lillerød, Allerød, Dragør and many more. Thats the reason for the difference in the offcial numbers of both density and size.


The Copenhagen urban definition: "An urban area is defined as a built-up area with at least 200 inhabitants. In a built-up area the distance between the buildings is not more than 200 metres, unless the interruption is due to public facilities, parks, cemeteries, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.102.175 (talk)

I am tired of seeing this one go on here and on the page about the Nordic Countries. If we can't find ONE very good and neutral source (the UN e.g.) concerning both countries, then what's the use of such comparisons? Nobody seems to agree on a definition. Stockholm can be said to include large chunks of central Sweden and Copenhagen can be said to include 1/3 of Zealand. Or both can be said to be limited to the two municipalities of the same name. We know for a fact that Copenhagen is the largest city in Denmark and Stockholm the largest in Sweden. Let's be content with that. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
@87.49.102.175 - that's not true - the Swedish definition of "Urban Area" (tätort) is exactly the same as those you written for Copenhagen. So if your numbers are correct, Stockholm should have a bigger urban area, using the same form of comparison for both cities. And Flemingsberg is in Huddinge, not Botkyrka ;) /80.217.169.240 22:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please - the 1.086.000 is modified by DST to split Copenhagen into various areas. This is made as a service for firms, as it is now easier to figure the size of the suburbs. No trick, no magic - Copenhagen is still the same 1,4 as in '98, but the statistics is made different. Therefore, Copenhagen is the largest city of scandinavia. mvh Anders SK

If we use the same metrics (mentioned above) to measure the urban areas, Copenhagen has about 1 085 000 citizens and Stockholm has 1 252 020 citizens. Some editors want to make the Copenhagen-figure higher since a municipality is separated with 300 meters instead of 200 meters from Cph-Urban area. Considering the Stockholm figure. There are four municipalities that are very close (a few hundreds of meters seperate them from Urban Stockholm), these are Lidingö, Upplands Väsby, Täby and Upplands Väsby. If we include them in the Stockholm Urban area, its total population would be more than 1 472 000 citizens. So it doesn't matter how you count, Stockholm is larger in every respect (with and without magic). The article should say that Stockholm is the largest city within city limits and the largest urban area in Scandinavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirro (talk • contribs) 19:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Though you probably refer to Lidingö, Upplands Väsby, Täby and Vallentuna. Ursa Magnus (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what comanche was trying to prove by showing us that stockholm has bigger population in the metro, city, and urban areas respectively, AND is bigger in area size, that copenhagen would somehow be bigger? as many has allready pointed out: desnity is not of interest here. someone is just being stubborn. That example somone made about germany being bigger than the US sums it up nicely. why isn´t this getting through? it´s really simple83.255.169.48 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Boy with the Leaking Boot statue - in Stockholm?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hallo, unreliable sources say that the The Boy with the Leaking Boot statue presented to Cleethorpes in England in 1915 was a copy of one which stood at the Hasselbacken Restaurant in Stockholm, and also that a copy of the statue currently stands in Stockholm. Can anyone shed any light on either claim? I'd like to the the article up to GA, but the sourcing is a bit difficult. PamD (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

35,000 or 24,000 islands in the Stockholm archipelago?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article says 35,000 (under the picture in the geography section). It links to Stockholm archipelago, which says 24,000. 81.131.40.225 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation (2)

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think the pronunciation in Stockholm page ([ˈstɔkː.ˈɔlm]) is wrong. It should be [ˈstɔk.ˈhɔlm] plus the tones.--Carnby (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Basing myself on the sound file I'd say it looks fairly OK (except for the tones); I clearly hear the gemination and no [h], but I do notice some aspiration. --JorisvS (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this type of assimilation is common (there might not be too many /kh/ combos around in Swedish), but since initial /k/ is always aspirated in Swedish, it's hardly surprising that the /h/ disappears completely. That it's accent 2 is probably significant. If anyone wants to verify the pronunciation, I recommend listening to newscasts from SVT or Sveriges Radio.
Peter Isotalo 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Green city with a national urban park?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the article the followin is written:

"Founded in 1995, the Royal National City Park is the world’s first legally protected "national urban park".

First: The park is not a "national park". The space is owned by the "Kungliga Djurgårdens Förvaltning", ie Royal administration of Djurgården. It is not "state-owned" and therefore not a national park. In Sweden it is well distinguished from the real national parks.

Second: If it is just an ordinary park (but a little bit larger) it is said to be the first one protected by the law. All the parks in Stockholm are somewhat protected by law, at least according to city plans (they gain law-power, "vinner laga kraft").

So the problem is what to write here. It is said that it is a national park, but it isn't. The concept "nationalstadspark" is used exclusively in Sweden and Finland. Its definition doesn't differ very much from that of an ordinary urban park, apart from the fact, that they are larger than most other urban parks. Is there such a concept in English or should we rewrite the section in order to clarify, that it is all about a Fenno-Swedish concept?

Nirro (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Segregation within an area?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the history section it is written that:

"Between 1965 and 1974 the city expanded very quickly with the creation of additional suburban districts such as Rinkeby and Tensta as a part of the Million Programme. Many of these areas have been criticized for being "concrete suburbs", dull, grey, low-status areas built mainly out of concrete slabs. The most common complaints are about the high crime rate and the high racial and social segregation in these areas."

The last sentence is of interest. It is possibly true that these areas have been criticized for being socially and ethnically segregated. My question is whether or not this criticism deals with these areas in isolation or in comparison with other suburbs. In the latter case they would be at least as segregated as the "concrete suburbs". It is true that within these "concrete suburbs", there is a multitude of ethnic groups, which would suggest that the areas themselves are less segregated, but the suburbia as a whole, very segregated. Nirro (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point, yes the gentrification of areas such Bromma and Djursholm are in some ways more segregated or homogeneous than Tensta or Fitja. The critique is that the planning, the massive scale and the similarity in pricing of so many homes in one pretty large area is partly to blame for the problems that have arisen from them (crime rate, less tendency to strive for a higher education etc), if there were a bigger mix of building types and layouts and standards and build quality and year built etc we'd probably see a much less homogeneous group of people on low salaries or benefits in these areas. The segregation isn't as much as a problem for the rich as it is for the poor, I'd probably go so far as to say as the rich prefer it, at least some do, just see to the prevalence of gated communities. So yes this might be a problem with city planning on a whole, not just for these areas but a problem for most suburban areas which do tend to become very homogeneous based on the lack of variety in their requirements of the areas. And thus that the critique might be somewhat misdirected of only a part of a much bigger problem. --Salle81 09:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salle81 (talk • contribs)

Automated Peer Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20mm, use 20 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20&nbsp;mm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbour (B) (American: harbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), grey (B) (American: gray), program (A) (British: programme).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Better Images

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can such a beautiful city be allowed to have such a borring looking article due to lack of good, nice, beautiful, cool pictures...? Bronks 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How come Victoria Tower ended up in the prime spot? Shouldn't that be reserved for a building with a more historical value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.144.3 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sthlm - Explanation needed here or redirect should be dropped

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article contains the following dab header:

"Sthlm" redirects here. For Swedish TV series, see Sthlm (TV series).

and it is quite correct. Sthlm does indeed redirect to Stockholm.

Unfortunately nobody has thought to explain what these five letters have to do with Stockholm, apart from appearing in the name in the same order. Apart from the above dab header, the article Stockholm makes no reference to Sthlm; nor does the equivalent article on Swedish WP. It doesn't seem to be the name of Stockholm in the obvious foreign language (as best I can see, Stockholm in Swedish is Stockholm). It isn't an ICAO or IATA code because it is too long. I'm left wondering if it is just some rogue editor's pet name for the city.

Giving a chance for anybody who knows the answer to those questions to deal with it, before I wade in and start listing things for deletion. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sthlm is just an unspecified abrreviationof the name Stockholm used in some contexts. An even shorter is Sth. Most people in Sweden understand them. --Muniswede (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I haven't heard or used Sth, but Sthlm is ubiquitous - it is how Stockholm is abbreviated in Swedish. It is easy to find many uses of "Sthlm" online, but I'll see if I can find an actual reference in a RS to the abbreviation. (btw, the journal sold by homeless people in Stockholm is called Situation Sthlm) --bonadea contributions talk 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fennoscandia - and largest city (yet again)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In various ways some editors want to describe Stockholm as the largest city in the Nordic countries. This is supported by statistics made in Sweden and in Denmark (Copenhagen is its "rival" in this issue). But as long as the exact same principles not are used for determine city inhabitation, is it not suitable to suggest that Stockholm is larger than Copenhagen. It all comes down to how eager statistical and geographical staff are to include remote suburbs. The Stockholm metropolitan area is more than twice as large as Copenhagen metropolitan area, the same applies also to the municipal area. And it's for instance possible to argue that the Stockholm city core only counts around 300.000 inhabitants, "Innerstan". On that point Copenhagen is easilly far larger. But I only state that we cannot suggest to the readers that Stockholm is the largest city in Fennoscandia (whatever that is) or in the Nordic countries. Boeing720 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Extreme temperatures

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Some data in the table is evident wrong (i.e. -67 on January as a record low and 79 on July as a high), but I can find the original source to correct them. Can anyone do that? Tanonero (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done Tanonero (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism to the climate section

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IP number 92.244.23.103 and recently 88.104.0.188 and 5.66.87.122 has been messing up the climate section by changing the numbers concerning the temperature. FYI 92.244.23.103 user has messed up this article many times and nobody has reacted. I have no tools to change it back since the vandal has made the changes in many edits.

Could someone (admin) please block these vandals and change it back to the correct version, which is from between 22 july and 7 august.

Nirro (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done It took me a while to find the new link to the NOAA source but finally, I have restored the sourced data (I removed the WMO source because it rounds temperatures to the nearest degree instead of the nearest tenth of the degree in the HKO source. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Venice of the North" again

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The old "Venice of the North" advertising phrase keeps creeping into the lead section, this time sourced to CNN.com/travel. If you read the text of the source, not just the headline, you'll see where the CNN reporter gets the phrase: from his/her guidebook. A guidebook isn't a reliable source, not even if a CNN reporter is quoting it.[2] It's true that the Stockholm tourist industry and the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps — not sure about that — also Stadshuset would like Stockholm to be "sometimes referred to" as the Venice of the North, but that doesn't make it so. "Sometimes"? It's only referred to as the Venice of the North in travel brochures, guidebooks, and other texts that promote commercial interests. It's far from being a genuine nickname. All Swedes have heard the phrase? (Several people state that they've heard the phrase plenty of times in a 2006 thread above.[3] But the point is, who have they heard it from? A tourist guide, right?) It's all over the internet? Yes, of course. There's a whole universe of commercial promotion all over the internet, as well as lodged inside our heads. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be decorated with that kind of bling. I've removed it. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, I first encountered it in an adventure book from the 1950s :-) It is used now and then (not in English, but in Swedish - Nordens Venedig), but I would not say that it's a frequent enough nickname that it belongs in the Wikipedia article. Good removal. --bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A majority of the Swedish people have heard about this slogan. There is though no canals at all in the city (not of the kind that exists in Venice, Amsterdam - and in smaller versions in Gothenburgh, Malmö and Copenhagen) - the slogan referred to the water ways (actually Riddarfjärden and also Saltsjön are an outlet from lake Mälaren, and as such they can be seen as a river. Not long, but still. All water in the city center are fresh water. On the other hand, the new slogan "Capital of Scandinavia" has caused harm in both Copenhagen and Oslo. Stockholm has defended its new slogan by "it's the largest city in the Nordic countries". But also this is debatable. The real city has actually only around 300.000 inhabitants, all others lives in Solna or typical suburbs. Greater Stockholm comprices 2.16 mio inhanitants at an land area of 6500 km2, While the city center of Copenhagen has around 700.000 inhabitants.

(Most of Copenhagen municipality including its exclave of Frederiksberg and the eastern part of Gentofte municipllity, Hellerup). And Greater Copenhagen counts 1.96 million inhabitants, but at a land surface of only 2850 km2. So there are problems also with also with the new slogan (which by the way - unlike the previous one - only exits in English which seem a bit orchid, at least to me. Boeing720 (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fiber optic network

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This part is very out of place, I don't see what it's doing there. Should it be removed? No sources, little relevance and it reads like an advert. -213.112.243.88 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's an ad. 69.123.60.255 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not of any encyclopedical value in this article, but could possibly be an article of its own. Else was becomme next - the precice drawings of the cloak system ? Every postal areacode etc ? Especially if, the article want's to be a feutered article such crap must be avoided. Boeing720 (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The bright summer nights

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's actually a phenomenon worth mention, but not as the dull "daylight hours". The term "Bright Scandinavian Nights" is well-known amomg tourists that has visited the city during 1.June until 15 July (approx). For anyone coming from below the 55th latitude, this phenomenon isn't known to this degree. Even if it gets even brighter further north, but that has isn't related to Stockholm as such. Of Capital cities this phenomenon only is really notable also in Oslo, Helsinky, Tallin and Reykjavik (and perhaps Riga). Boeing720 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

However

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Stockholm is an important global city, placed in the "alpha-" category by the GaWC,[6] and ranked 27th in the world, 12th in Europe and first in Scandinavia by the Global Cities Index in 2012.[7] " is mostly rubbish. There are 100's of institutes and indexes with fancy names that ranks cities. Generally they are unreliable, subjective, unclear and unstabile. For instance the article London only "It is one of the world's leading financial centres[14][15][16]" is communicated, no financial ranking at all. And for Paris follwing is stated "Today it is one of the world's leading business and cultural centres, and its influence in politics, education, entertainment, media, science, fashion and the arts all contribute to its status as one of the world's major cities. The city has one of the largest GDPs in the world, €607 billion (US$845 billion) as of 2011, and as a result of its high concentration of national and international political, cultural and scientific institutions is one of the world's leading tourist destinations. The Paris Region hosts the world headquarters of 30 of the Fortune Global 500 companies[6] in several business districts, notably La Défense, the largest dedicated business district in Europe.[7]". I urge You to rephrase the text in that direction, and remove f.i. "alpha-category of GaWC". It's not of encyclopedical value, and sooner than describing the city, one gets the impression that the article deals with some kind of competion. Boeing720 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kista in northern Stocholm ?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Stating "Kista in northern Stocholm" is like stating "Watford in north-eastern London", so shouldn't it rather be "Kista, a bit north of Stocholm" ? I've looked at Google Maps, and think it's a clear suburb, rather than a part of the city. I also wonder why Kista is given so much space. It's hardly a well known tourist attraction or of any perticular interest. Boeing720 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at? I can't see how it is "given so much space." It's hardly mentioned more than Farsta or Rinkeby. Kista is a part of Stockholm Municipality or City of Stockholm (Swedish: Stockholms kommun or Stockholms stad), and also the Stockholm Urban area. So under all qualifying aspects, it's a part of Stockholm -- the city. Gavleson (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

So about the latest edit... It's very common to compare Scandinavian or Nordic countries when it comes to other things -- we share a geographical, cultural, historical and linguistic region after all. So why shouldn't it be allowed here, and since when is stating a fact a "contest" all of a sudden? I have read the lead sections of other cities, and guess what? It's not unusual to rank cities. I can concede that things could be rephrased or maybe shortened, but the facts that just got erased are worth keeping, and they should be in the lead section. Reverting. If you want to have a discussion about how to rephrase things, go ahead. Gavleson (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. This article has previously had the status of "good reading", which f.i. Copenhagen still has. The green little circle with a cross inside indicates if an article is concidered "good reading". (And a star indicates a "feutured article"). Secondly I'm talking about the lead section only. Do You really think that a "good reading" article begins with lots of financial ratings ? Or to state that this city is larger than a few other cities ? A matter which also is pretty unclear. For instance, all comparable areas are much smaller regarding Copenhagen. If comparing municipalities Copenhagen covers less than half the surface of Stockholm's municipality. And concidering metropolitan areas Copenhagen reaches (very close to) 2 million at a far smaller area than Stockholm does. So it depends of how one both define and meassure the size of cities. Infact the metropolitan area of Stockholm has notably lesser population density (320) than the entire Netherlands (>400), which does not apply to the corresponding area of Copenhagen (>700) ! To be worth mention, the difference must be larger than 2.15 million inhabitants at 6500 km2 compared to 1.98 million at 2800 km2. Do You really self think that the most interesting issues about Stockholm is what rating a financial institute gives the city and a doubtful comparison with other capitals ? What about founding, history, culture and perhaps that it's one of only seven remaining Royal capital cities left in Europe ? Or You don't want to rise the status of the article back to "worth reading" ? (Above You can see lots of other reasons to why the article was downgraded). Regarding Kista, I've even spoke to a Stockholmer I've known for decades. He said Kista is a typical suburb north of Stockholm, and I think that part could be cut down, since it's nothing special about it from a global perspective. All my changes has been in order to attempt restoring the "read worthy" standard of the article. Boeing720 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. But in your last "change" you just removed a bunch of relevant information...
It's been said by others before me, and I'll say it again: The definition of "urban area" is the same in all Nordic countries. Stockholm is the most populous municipality and urban area in the Nordic region. The metropolitan area is also the most populous. No matter how you count, it's the most populous city in the region, and that's a fact worth mentioning in the lead section. And yeah, I'm fully aware that the "most populous city" is not the same as "most densely settled city". (But I got to wonder if you know the difference...) You still haven't given us a good reason for removing it. The fact that it annoys some people living in Copenhagen doesn't really matter.
Also, about Kista, I still don't get what you are on about. It's a district of the City of Stockholm. So again, it really doesn't matter if you "looked at some satellite images on Google", or that your "friend said something", as we're supposed to go by established definitions here.
The global cities rankings... You know that's based on financial factors, right? Mentioning the economy or financial rankings of a city is absolutely relevant in the lead section. Why shouldn't it be? It's done for a tonne of other cities on Wikipedia. You gave Paris and London as an example yourself!
Can it be done better than what we had? Sure. That's why I've now edited it. But removing it altogether? Nope. I don't agree with that. Gavleson (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You still don't get it. It's a matter of the lost status of this article. Other articles about capital cities ("read worthy" or "feutured") doesn't contain stuff about financial indexes - not in the lead atleast. There are hundereds of such different indexes. They are not of any greater encyclopedical value. Further the lead shall cover a brief summary of the entire article and nothing else. You do not seem to appriciate common fundaments of Wikipedia.
And how do You think Wikipedia would end up like, if our articles about cities like London, Paris and Moscow begins to compete with each other over which city that is the larger. As I've stated, there is not much encyclopedical value in stating Stockholm as the largest in Scandinavia, especially not when the matter is unsourcered. You would need a single comparing source for making such claimbs, but still - all stuff in the lead must reflect the article thereafter. I.o.w. You must first write something about Scandinavian capital cities, all well sourcered in the article. First then You may make a lead mentioning of those facts.
To my knowledge Swedish cities are directly defined by the statistical instistute SCB. While the Danish equivalent, DST, only present the facts afterwards. The actual city limits in Denmark are decided by Geodatastyrelsen at the Danish Ministry of the Environment. http://www.gst.dk/emner/landkort-topografi/bynavne-og-bypolygoner/ Unfortunately this part seems to not been translated into English, but perhaps You do understand written Danish ?. So it's a lie to state there is a common definition of cities whithin Scandinavia. Boeing720 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it because I don't agree with you, is that it? Let's examine the current lead section on the article on London -- a featured article -- and compare with the current lead on Stockholm...
London lead, on the population (114 words and 563 characters):

It is the most populous city in the United Kingdom, with a metropolitan area of over 13 million inhabitants. London had an official population of 8,308,369 in 2012, making it the most populous municipality in the European Union, and accounting for 12.5% of the UK population. The Greater London Urban Area is the second-largest in the EU with a population of 9,787,426 according to the 2011 census. The London metropolitan area is the largest in the EU with a total population of 13,614,409, while the Greater London Authority puts the population of London metropolitan region at 21 million. London had the largest population of any city in the world from around 1831 to 1925.

Stockholm lead, on the population (37 words and 191 characters):

Stockholm is the most populous city in Sweden and the Nordic region, with 901,698 people living in the municipality, approximately 1,4 million in urban area, and a total population close to 2,2 million in the metropolitan area.

London lead, on the economy (54 words and 334 characters):

London is a leading global city, with strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism and transport all contributing to its prominence. It is one of the world's leading financial centres and has the fifth-or sixth-largest metropolitan area GDP in the world depending on measurement.

Stockholm lead, on the economy (54 words and 262 characters):

Stockholm is the cultural, media, political, and economic centre of Sweden. The region alone accounts for over a third of the country's GDP, and is among the top 10 regions in Europe with the highest GDP per capita. It's an important global city, and the main centre for corporate headquarters in the Nordic region.

Do you want me to give more examples? The current wording on the economy and population of Stockholm is reasonable, well sourced, and to the point. Don't try to act like this is preventing the article on Stockholm to be featured. Gavleson (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to improve this article

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here's what needs to be improved, IMO:

  1. To many pictures scattered across the article. A reduction and a better selection is needed. The Gallery section should be erased, as per WP:Gallery.
  2. "History" -- Attribution could be better.
  3. "Economy" -- Needs an update, better attribution, expansion.
  4. "Politics and government" -- Needs a rewrite. It's not pretty having a list of the current distribution of seats in Stockholm city council, linking to that information should suffice. I'd prefer a more general explanation about how the city is run. FIXED!
  5. "Fibre Optic Network" -- Not sure about this section, it's huge and not sourced. Could be incorporated in a section on Infrastructure (where the sections under Transport would be other subsections).
  6. "Education" -- Better attribution is needed. Provincial complaints about student housing feels unnecessary -- housing problems is very common in all major cities, all over the world.
  7. "Demographics" -- Needs an update, and maybe a better worded paragraph on immigration.
  8. "Literature" -- No mention of more current world-famous Swedish authors, like Stieg Larsson, who made Stockholm more famous than ever.
  9. "Architecture" -- Some of the stuff is not noteworthy, like the hostel. It's a bit long-winded compared to other articles, and not that well sourced. Again, to many pictures. It should possibly be broken up into several subsections. Could make sense to organizing this under a new section titled Cityscape and move the pano there (see the article on Paris, for example).
  10. "Museums" -- All the top 3 visited museums in Sweden are located in Stockholm, according to "Riksförbundet Sveriges museer": Skansen, Moderna museet and Vasa Museum needs to be better described.
  11. "Media" -- More unattributed claims. I know a lot of it is true, but we need sources.
  12. "Sports" -- Unattributed claims and needs a rewrite.
  13. "Suburbs" -- Misplaced and not needed.
  14. "Amusement Park" -- Get rid of this section and incorporate it elsewhere under Culture. Dedicating a whole section to "Gröna Lund" is excessive.
  15. "Cuisine" -- Unattributed claim on ethnic food. All major cities have ethnic food, it's unremarkable. Makes sense to go into more detail on the most notable restaurants featured in Michelin Guide.
  16. "Yearly events" -- Superfluous, lots of not noteworthy stuff. Anything noteworthy should be incorporated elsewhere, such as the sections on Sports or Culture.
  17. "The City Line Project" -- Don't think it's a good idea to mention projects under construction. Where do you draw the line? Should "Förbifart Stockholm" be mentioned also?
  18. "Inter-city trains" -- Unnecessary.
  19. "Congestion charges" -- Doesn't need to go into such detail about referendums and such.
  20. "Rankings" -- This should be removed and incorporated in the main text as far as possible, IMO. Possibly while rewriting the sections on the economy, culture and environment.

I could definitely help with this, but there's a lot of stuff to do, so this could take a while... Gavleson (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I have not studied everything in detail, I think the edits You propose are improvements. In general atleast. However if You want to acchieve a better status for the article (good reading, as a first step), You really need to rewright much of the lead. Like I've stated before, in long articles the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. All references must be given in the article, and not in the lead. I've never seen any exception from this in any article marked as good reading. It may be different at Swedish Wikipedia, I don't know. But atleast here the quality requirements are fairly high. I assume You do want this article to be labeled as "good reading", and if so there is no other way around it than follow WP practice also regarding leads. Boeing720 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Value of sources that impair, and encyclopedical value of comparisons

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
First - In general the value of different sources differ quite significantly, I think a wide majority of editors agree with this. And if two different sources impair significantly, by default one of them must be untrue, is misinterpreted or is unclear in definition. In this perticular case the Swedish statistc institute , SCB, must be concidered of higher value than the one from the Nordic council's webbpage. The Nordic council itself isn't involved, only a single editor. If SCB states that the metropolitan area of Stockholm has close to 2.2 million inhabitants - and the webbpage of the Nordic Council states 1.9 million, the latter must be regarded as unsafe. This becomes even more obvious when the webbpage is examined more closely. The figures appears in a general short text labeled as "Call for the metropolis". While the SCB figures are updated at an annual level and presented in precise numbers.
Secondly comparing Stockholm's 2.2 million inhabitants at a surface of 6500 km2 with Copenhagen's 2.0 million at a surface of 2800 km2, and upon those figures alone, state that it is of encyclopedical value to proclaim Stockholm as "the largest metropolitan area in the Nordic countries", isn't of global interest. For instance an incorporation of new Danish territories to the metropolitan area of Copenhagen (which today covers a far less area) might turn the positions around, without any real change in the populations. However to state that St Petersburg is the largest city at the Baltic Sea, is in that case of greater value, since that city is 3 times as populated than Stockholm or Copenhagen. So - in general, international comparisons must be obvious aswell as of encyclopedical value. There are many lists to use, if competing feels necessary. Boeing720 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion, but if it's not relevant then why is the Nordic council writing about it? We obviously disagree, and I've already tried to explain this to you once. (See above.) I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Again, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up city density. In absolute numbers, the number of inhabitants in the City Proper, Urban Area and the metropolitan area is larger in Stockholm. This is especially true if you compare the municipal area, of which there's an advantage to Stockholm of over 300,000 people -- which is a lot by Scandinavian standards. (It's a difference about the size of the 6th largest city in the Nordic countries, Tampere.) No offence, but it's honestly hard to tell if you are deliberately trying to obfuscate, or just not that bright.
These are the facts, and that should be the end of it. Yet you keep deleting relevant info, and have shown no interest in making any real contributions to this article. This is not how a reasonable person would act, and you have no right to do that either unless there's a consensus. Now, I might have respected your opinion if I could find some evidence of even-handedness, but I see that you've edited the page on Copenhagen, yet never once complained about sentences like this:

Copenhagen is not only the economic and financial centre of Denmark but is a major business centre for the entire Scandinavian-Baltic region.

That statement is completely unattributed, BTW. So again, the article on Copenhagen seems to "compare" itself with other Scandinavian cities -- something you say isn't of any encyclopaedic value. Interesting how there seems to be some lack of consistency on your part. Why is that? Are you harbouring some resentment towards Stockholm, for some reason?
Also, I'm not the one here who has received multiple warnings for engaging in edit wars. (I have in fact not gotten any warnings whatsoever.) Funny how you try to paint yourself as some kind of an expert on Wikipedia (especially considering you have less than 2k edits), yet fail to see that your actions are hurting Wikipedia a whole, and now this article in particular.
In the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't keep reversing my edits. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I was just about to drop an encouraging message at Your talk-page. Then I read this. And a centance like "No offence, but it's honestly hard to tell if you are deliberately trying to obfuscate, or just not that bright" is a personal offence. I won't take it ta any administrator this time though, but please do not continue to make unsubstiated and personal comments. And I have frankly not asked for anything else than what has been done (and I have nothing to do with the minor copyright issues) I'm fully prepared to discuss, but please stop all personal harassment and be focused at Your arguments instead. Please.
.
Answers Copenhagen municipality has much fewer inhabitants compared to Stockholm municipality, Yes. However is for instance Frederiksberg municipality (with 100.000+ inhabitants at 9 km2) is located as an enclave within Copenhagen municipality, it only borders to boroughs of Copenhagen (City/Indre by, Nørrebro, Vesterbro, Valby and Vanløse) and even lackes access to any open waters. No area has been incorporated to Copenhagen since 1902, and the land-surface is only 77 km2 (including the largely unusable enlargement from Øresund at western Amager). I do though agree that this (Your figures) it's noteworthy in listings.
.
You cannot hold me personally responsible for the entire article of Copenhagen ! This was what I could find in the lead of the Copenhagen article-
The city is the cultural, economic and governmental centre of Denmark and one of the major financial centres of Northern Europe with the Copenhagen Stock Exchange. In 2012, Copenhagen was third in the ranking of the richest cities in the world in terms of gross earnings, dropping from first place in 2009. Not my cup of tea, but without mentioning of a lot of rating institutes.
.
But fair enough in the main article have I changed Your quote to "Copenhagen is the economic and financial centre of Denmark but is also of international importance." (done hasty while wrighting this, there is more to do. I've also called for sources for the initial part of "economics"). I can also see that Kastrup Airport is mentioned in a comparisional manner. But here - in my opinion, and outside the lead - I find it to be of encyclopedical value though. As Kastrup has approximately 3 times as many international passengers as Oslo-Gardemoen (which actually is more busy than Arlanda, due to the domestic flights at Gardemoen)- and indeed as intercontinental airport. To my knowledge Kastrup is also the only of these airports thas has transfer check-in facilities. But of course my opinion can be questioned.
.
I wasn't aware of the fact that You had been involved in any warring.
.
I do not play to be any expert (nor am I), however I know a little about the requirements for "good reading" and "feutured articles". You, like I, seem to have started at Swedish Wikipedia, and I think I have found out many of the differencies. Like this - The use of talk-pages, as an example. The so called "depth", a kind of measuring of actual article stuff compared to talk-page amount, it is by far higher here. And in the end this ensures a higher quality in general. And as long as one do not get personal, the discussion tolerance is much better here (administrators does never abuse their potential "power") Boeing720 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia style , "Good Articles" and "Featured Articles"

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Gavleson - Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, which is the style guidelines we strive to follow on all of our content. These style rules are closely followed in Featured Articles and Good Articles, whereas other articles are more of a work in progress. Featured articles are independently reviewed by at least three people, and Good articles by at least one person. Some articles are too short to really need the repetition / summary that the style guideline calls for in the lead. But the Stockholm article is not a such short story. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for complete information on the lead section. Your source regarding sizes of Nordic countries' capital cities impair with what elsewise is stated in this article, and can hence not be concidered of any higher value. Did You get this, Gavleson ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How about addressing what I wrote above? If you want to add something about the "history, culture" and the fact that it's one the few "remaining Royal capitals" there's plenty of room to do that in the lead still. Again...
  • London (total length, lead section): 469 words, 2676 characters
  • Stockholm (total length, lead section): 372 words, 1940 characters
Don't act like you need to remove facts about the economy or population, that are extremely relevant to the article, from the lead section. That's BS, and you know it! Here's an idea: How about you start by telling us what you want to add?
Also, I don't think the lead section is the main problem with this article. (See the new section below, for what I think needs improvement.) So if you really are genuinely out to make a positive contribution here -- instead of making unhelpful comments, silly arguments and delete relevant information -- there's plenty of real problems to fix... Gavleson (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is the third time I now tell You, that I simply deal with the lead. And the reason is (and was) the formally poor status of the article. Even if the lead section now is improved, a lead of a longer article mainly shall reflect very basic facts of the article and references shall be put in the article , not the lead. Otherwise this article will never be rated as "good reading" again. It's not what You or I think that matters here, but common Wikipedia practice - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead. And for the second time, I urge You to remove the part You have copied from my personal page (not talk page) including the untrue conclutions You base on that perticular text. It borders to harassment, and may even have exceed that border. You may rephrase Your criticism though. Boeing720 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Whats wrong with you? Heelbood (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Stockholm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about climate classification

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Using the -3 C cutoff for the coldest month of the year and the 22 C cutoff for the warmest month, Stockholm has a Cfb climate according to the table of monthly average temperatures in the article. If the 0 C cutoff is used instead for the coldest month, then the classification would change to Dfb. The article should note that and refer perhaps to Stockholm as being in an area of transition between a Cfb and a Dfb climate. 191.184.77.88 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Stockholm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stockholm. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Prehistory vs History

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To connect the stone age with any city is questionable. I suggest history to begin with first mentioning or any formal matters. The article scope should be limited to the city itself. The pre-history belonges elsewhere. Boeing720 (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick-names

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Among nick-names "Capital of Scandinavia" is included. This is NOT a nick-name but a marketing slogan from the Stockholm Tourist Board. That is hardly a neutral source. And it is highly contested by other major Scandinavian cities. Therefore, I remove it Eskil S (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Jeppiz (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree Boeing720 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The gallery section needs to be changed or removed, it currently is just a random mix of pictures, some not even of Stockholm (such as Utö church). I would suggest that is removed all together, since the article already has good pictures. What do you others say? Yakikaki (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Any pictures that are truly worthwhile could be incorporated better into the article. GetSomeUtah (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove it in the coming week unless someone objects. Yakikaki (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with user Yakikaki!.--AlfaRocket (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Me too. GetSomeUtah (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stockholm. 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:

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) 21:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Error from Culture down

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone, I am by no means an expert in wikipedia editing, but I noticed that the page suffers from incorrect formatting from the culture section onward. I am unsure how to fix it, so I figured I'd just go to the talk page for help. If the issue is not the page but my browser or something, then feel free to delete this. Here's what Im seeing.

 




And here is what it looks like with a firefox extension for black wikipedia.

 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SunsaintDC (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

IPA-pronunciation for "Stockholm"

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

@SergeWoodzing and IvanScrooge98: English-speakers have no problems pronouncing "Stockholm" in English, since it's very straight-forward, so the IPA-pronounciation of the name in the lead should of course be the Swedish pronounciation... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going to say that before.
Wikipedia’s policy clearly states:
  • “If [and only if I would say] a common English rendering of the foreign name exists […], its pronunciation, if necessary, should be indicated before the foreign one”
and below:
  • “When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations”
Nowhere it is openly said: “remove random IPA and audio files” or “avoid adding new foreign pronunciations”; instead, “pronunciation should be indicated sparingly” may also refer to English pronunciations, which is the case for Stockholm.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
We can remove the English IPA per MOS:LEADPRON. The Swedish pronunciation should stay, it doesn't take up any space and it's useful. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe the footnote solution is the best for the type of pronunciation guidance which is not generally useful to readers of English, such as how Swedes pronounce Stockholm. Who cares, outside of the Swedish-speaking world? So why clutter up the first line in the lead with trivia like that?
Wikipedia is not a language school. If it were, it would be more important for English Wikipedia to teach Swedes how to pronouce English than vice versa. A Swede who pronunces the name of his capital city in perfect English, when speaking English, will do well. A Swede who tries to force the Swedish pronunciation on people who really aren't that interested, or needy, will not do well. I've worked with all this stuff for over 50 years now, seen it all.
Anyway, I have taken rather seriously ill today, unfortunately, and will try to address this in a more comprehensive manner, perhaps by suggesting changes to guideline, when I feel better. We need consensus on a better guideline.
Meanwhile, please promise me not to add pronunciation re: how Swedes might say "Gothenburg" (Gååtännburj?) or Danes might say "Copenhagen" (DenKaapenädenlillehääägendäouh?)! Readers of English do not need to know any of that either. Deal? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
“Who cares, outside of the Swedish-speaking world?” Hello, people interested in Sweden (one of the possible reasons they are here for)?? This project is mainly intended for English-speaking people. Also,
  1. nobody is forcing readers to use the Swedish pronunciation in English;
  2. we are not talking about how non-native English speakers pronounce English-language names (such as Gothenburg).   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  14:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
People who take a general interest in Sweden are not normally interested in having language lessons thrown at them. In person, they might smile politely. There are plenty of other websites that provide that kind of information, i.e. appropriate forums for such interest & info.
  1. Don't misquote me please! Forcing someone to do something and forcing something on someone (such as cluttering the first line of many lead sections with trivia) are not the same thing.
  2. Stockholm has been a word in the English language for hundreds of years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it is clear (considering some of your recent edits) you and I have a profoundly different opinion regarding what is “trivia” and what is not, so it is pointless to keep arguing about that. On the other hand, what I mean is: while Gothenburg is English and should only be provided an English IPA (similarly, Göteborg is Swedish and should only be provided a Swedish IPA), Stockholm is both the English and native name of the city, so it should have both IPA transcriptions as they are both relevant to the topic.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  17:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Or possibly the Swedish one only, accordingly to what is argued above.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
As a foonote OK. I'm fine with that. Readers of English may need immediate help in trying to pronounce names like Storkyrkan (which they might ask Swedes how to find when in Stockholm, and many Stockholmers wouldn't know what the Great Church or Stockholm Cathedral was) but they do not need a relatively useless Swedish pronunciation of Stockholm thrown at them in the very first line of this article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, you are thus going to need to discuss the whole general thing in a more appropriate place; otherwise we will have articles like this with short notes and other articles with much longer strings of text in brackets.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So what are we gonna do? This talk has been fruitlessly going on here and there (and on my talk) for too long.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  12:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Footnote OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Climate section

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The climate section seems to be completely messed up (starting with an incomplete edit by Boeing720 31 october 2018). Could someone (with roll back access) please roll it back to the version prior to that?

--NiccoUrban (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

National urban park

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the introduction it is stated that "Stockholm is the only capital in the world with a national urban park.". This is true, since that concept (according to the article in Swdish wikipedia , nationalstadspark) only exists in Sweden and Finland. The capital of Finland lacks such a park. The sentence should therefore imo be changed to Stockholm is the only capital in Sweden-Finland with a national urban park. In the Helsinki article, it should also be stated that Helsinki is the only capital in Sweden-Finland without a national urban park.

Or as I would prefer the most: Let us skip the sentence completely. Please give some arguments in favor of keeping the sentence, or I will erase it.

NB: An National urban park is not a national park. It is just legislative defintion on land use and development.

--NiccoUrban (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Only islands or mainland as well?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first paragraph says, "The city stretches across fourteen islands where Lake Mälaren flows into the Baltic Sea." Is none of it on the mainland? Nurg (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockholm/Archive_2&oldid=1243384067"