Talk:Stockholm: Difference between revisions

From the old /Todo page:

History: A LOT of work to be done. 750 years worth, on or about.

---

Nice places to visit is "us video" one of scandinavias best video stores

and

There`s a very nice gay community in stockholm. Most of the guys meet in a boat called "Patricia" in the sundays just to have a good meal or o good time.

seem to me not useful additions. I took them (or something similar) out earlier today, but they've found their way back in in slightly different forms. The first statement is at best completely un-NPOV and the second also looks very dodgy. Something like "Stockholm has a vibrant gay community" or whatever would be OK if true, but I don't know if it is true, so can't really edit the above. So I'm taking it out again. --Camembert

---

I selected the Random Page link, which brought up the article on Stockholm. I am a new user and hope you do not mind my comments. I have not been to Stockholm, but the gay aspect interested me, given the comment that was inserted and deleted. I reviewed the attached Stockholm Visitors Board (http://www.stockholmtown.com/) - The official visitors' guide, which is a link on the page. It has a section on gays, which is informative on the subject. Under cafes it does list the Patricia.

Sorry, didn't know it would not enter my member name automatically - rickeyjay.

Mixed up article

This article is in general very nice. One problem though is that it is an article both on the municipality of stockholm and the metropolitan area of stockholm. Some examples :

• The Karolinska Institute is situated in the Solna Municipality, not in Stockholm
• The University College of South Stockholm is situated in the municipalitys of Huddinge, Haninge and Södertälje, not in Stockholm
• The football team AIK is based in the Solna Municipality.

I suggest that things related to other municipalitys are placed under each municipalitys own article OR to the article Metropolitan Stockholm. Jordgubbe 20:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) (citizen of Nacka Municipality)

The municipalities of Solna, Huddinge, Haninge and parts of Nacka are located in the population centre (Swedish: tätort) of Stockholm. Therefore I don’t see the problem by calling AIK a Stockholm based team etc.
The University College of South Stockholm however is no longer located in Södertälje (that is not even located in the Greater Stockholm Area). 213.66.42.53 14:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for giving you opinions. This is a common problem for many municipalities. To solve this, the Swedish Wikipedia has split all municipalities into a city part and a municipality part. Here on this wikipedia, we have not done so because there is often very little material about the municipality other than about the seat.

A possibility is to explain the distinction in the intro of the article, and then include everything in one article -- if the material then grows, the material about other municipalities can be moved to the appropriate municipality.

The same problem exists in Malmö article, which I have been working a little on.

Anyways, if anyone feels strongly about this, they are free to move around material, as long as they don't ruin anything or introduce obvious errors.

--Fred-Chess 18:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I corrected the IPA a tad. The "h" in Stockholm is really never pronounced unless you're actually spelling the name out. It gets lost with the "k" and instead creates a long consonant. You can hear it in the recording quite clearly, and that is as far as I know how most people pronounce "Stockholm" in Sweden.

I disagree, I think the H in Stockholm is quite audible. It's not dominant, but definitely not silent.--Radisshu 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to properly denote accent 1 and 2 in Swedish in IPA, please let me know. karmosin 00:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is typical Stockholm-accent dominance. Naturally, the way it is pronounce in Stockholm is the way it should be pronounced in the Swedish language?

As far as I know myself, I pronounce the "h", but maybe you think I am wrong in this?

--Fred-Chess 05:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I was born in Stockholm ,and I too believe myself to pronounce the 'h'. I respectfully suggest that the transcription should be changed to include the 'h', for the following three reasons: 1. There is no rule in Swedish that prescribes aitch-dropping. The general rule is that aitches should be pronounced. 2. When making a phonetic transcription, you should write the word as it sounds when pronounced carefully, not when it is slurred over in rapid speech. For instance, you would not give the pronunciation of the English word 'them' as 'em', even though it is sometimes pronounced that way. 3. There is no drawback to the full sound - no confusion, no risk of misunderstanding, just added clarity. --Obl 10:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Good good. I have to explain that I bashed Stockholm a little because I know Karmosin is from Stockholm.

Now that we have reached a consensus, you can change it yourself, if you want, Obl. I agree with alkl your statements. Thanks for contributing.

--Fred-Chess 18:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Just listen to local broadcasts of SR. Even most Scanians are pronouncing it without the [h]. Some have a lot more aspiration than I do, though, making it more like [stok^h:olm].

Obl, when making a phonetic notation, it is very important to write it down the way it actually sounds, not the way 'you want it to sound. Going by what is considered "proper" pronunciation is about diction, not phonetics. Everyday speech is what is supposed to be focused on here. If you really don't like it, though, then at least make the notation phonemic. (Slashes, not brackets.)

Peter ^Isotalo 11:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The transcription is now phonemic.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nackasändaren

Somebody anon. added Nackasändaren among sites of interest. It is really just a couple of steel radio masts in the middle of the forest. If you're into that kind of thing, I suppose it might be of some interest, but it hardly justifies a place in this list. Kaknästornet is a TV tower of little interest in itself, but it has a good view of Stockholm from the top. / Tupsharru 13:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sthlm city

If there is a reason not to call it Stockholm City, just change it back...

--Fred-Chess 14:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities does not say much on the subject. However, for countries, the WikiProject Countries rule is that the full name in the local language(s) should be used as caption for the infobox. There seems to be a tendency to do the same for cities. Paris has "Ville de Paris", Oslo has "Oslo kommune", Helsinki has "Helsingin kaupunki/Helsingfors stad" and Lisbon has "Cidade de Lisboa". (On the other hand Warsaw has "Warsaw" and Copenhagen has "Copenhagen, Denmark", but I wouldn't read that much into that.) I've changed it back. / Alarm 16:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be bordering to conformity-hell.

Why we should use a name probably no English speaker would ever use is beyond my understanding. If a Wikiproject has decided so, they must know..?

--Fred-Chess 19:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think encyclopedias are intended to reflect only official administrative terminology. Most people living outside of the actual municipality of Stockholm still consider residents of Stockholm. I know I do eventhough I live all the way up in Järfälla, and not just because of lingering inner-city snobbery. The only exceptions might be de-facto suburbs like Sundbyberg and Solna, that still insist on calling themselves småstäder ("towns"), but that seems more like a way to make a point of an independent local gov't than an actual identity statement.

I think the more general article about "the greater Stockholm region" and its history should be located here, while Stockholm Municipality could cover the finer points of administration and politics if needed.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A possible solution would be to make this article refer to "Stockholm urban area" and designate the municipality, politics, etc, into "Stockholm Municipality".

: Naturally we have to agree the scope of an article before starting to write. I will make a little informal poll called:

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- What Should Stockholm Be About. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Please add your name under that which you support. No opposed votes here.

This article should be about Stockholm urban area

1. Alarm 23:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (as per my comment below)
2. Tsaddik Dervish 07:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (there's a reason all other encyclopaedias (I've read) identify "Stockholm" with the urban area)

This article should be about Stockholm Municipality

Comments

Pro: I will just present some arguments that you can think about. The infobox is designated for municipalities. It displays the current municipal population and area. All municipal articles does this.

Against: Stockholm is, unlike other municipalities, known under the form of urban area. The municipal borders are purely administrative.

Finally, a look at sv:Stockholm or de:Stockholm might be of interest for comparisment. Fred-Chess 21:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I want to clarify that my note above (referring to WikiProject Cities etc) is in relation to the text of the header for the infobox only. It was a response to a change of the text there and was not intended as a statement of my opinion about what the name of the article ought to be.

My opinion about the name of city and municipality articles is that

• All municipalities should have an article about the municipality - named, for conformity, "X Municipality" as in "Stockholm Municipality" and ""Växjö Municipality" - mainly concerning itself with (a) demographic data pertaining to the municipality as such, and (b) the present-day political situation in the municipality, such as the number of seats every party has in kommunfullmäktige and any relevant info about politics at the municipality level.
• All cities (or at least the major ones) should have a separate article about the urban area, or, to put it simply, the city (no reference to any administrative term, old or new, intended here) - named just "X" as in "Stockholm" and "Växjö" - concerning itself with the general history of the city and the buildings and events in the urban area generally referred to by the city name.

This would reflect what people associate with the two terms. / Alarm 23:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

---

If no consensus is agreed, then I will make the article in alignment with the Infobox, which only displays the municipal facts.

If a change is wanted, then the notion of "municipality" (in infobox, bottom template, etc) will be removed and moved to Stockholm Municipality.

Fred-Chess 21:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen much point in keeping all this administrationcruft in the form of separate articles for municipalities or other administrational units. I frankly don't see any upside to having articles that focus only on very specific local governance. The article should be about Stockholm as both entitites, because that's what's encyclopedically relevant. The only thing that needs to be kept separate is Stockholm County.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of arguments can be raised against that position. As long as a city/municipality article is really short, and the municipality covers the whole urban area in question, I agree that there is no urgent need to split the article. But in the case of Stockholm, the city name generally refers to an area much larger than the municipality - which is why the article mentions things like Södertörn University College, the Drottningholm Palace and AIK, all geographically located outside Stockholm municipality, but certainly relevant to this article (a position Peter seems to share).

But to include specific info on Stockholm Municipality as well would be rather confusing (a point raised by another user above, under "Mixed up article", at a time when this was the case). We have separate articles about the municipalities of Solna and Sundbyberg, although they are part of the Stockholm conurbation - should they be merged into the Stockholm article as well? That would make the article unnecessarily complicated.

Also, calling information about Stockholm Municipality "administrationcruft" is, to say the least, a curious standpoint. Although the current Stockholm Municipality article is rather short, your statement above seem to imply that you regard even its potential content as "very specific local governance". I can't agree with that at all. After all, we're talking about a political entity with direct elections involving a population larger than two of the EU member states, and an employer with more Swedes on its payroll than any private company in the nation. To me, it is bleedin' obvious that the municipality deserves its own article - preferrably with more "administrationcruft" rather than less. / Alarm 17:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Support of recent merge

The article Stockholm was recently merged with Stockholm Municipality. Although I wouldn't do this myself (considerring our vote and all), I do not object to those changes. // Fred-Chess 07:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse my late response, as I've haven't been checking these articles for quite some time, but I strongly object to the merge, which was done by an anon user without prior discussion, ignoring both the vote Fred mentions and the concerns I have raised against this (directly above this section). Also, in the merge, some information in the Stockholm Municipality article was deleted without being inserted here. I have now recreated the municipality article and removed the duplicate information from the Stockholm article. If there is now consensus in support of dealing with Stockholm Municipality (including local government) in the general Stockholm article, I will of course respect that, but I'd like to be convinced that this is the case. Also, I would recommend to first discuss how to solve the major logical problems that will arise as a result of such a policy before making any changes. / Alarm 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back Alarm. I'd love to chat about this and that, but I won't right now because of the late hour. I think you are overreacting a little. Neither of us own the articles on Wikipedia, and I think the presented solution was not unreasonable. But both solution are okay. / Fred-Chess 01:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim to own any Wikipedia article, and certainly not this one. I very much welcome edits to this article and others I've been involved in - in fact, coming back from a long hiatus, I had hoped to see them having been edited more. Also, I'm not ruling out a restructuring of information - I'm eager to hear arguments for other solutions. However, I just tend to get slightly irritated when someone singlehandedly decides to ignore all previous discussion and change the information stucture without leaving so much as an edit summary, deleting relevant information along the way. (I can't really bring myself to call that a "presented solution".) If you know how to create a redirect, you also know what talk pages are - and should be expected to take part in the discussion there.

In this particular case, I won't reiterate my specific concerns (which are all clearly stated above). I'd like to emphasize that I very much respect Fred's laissez-faire approach, but personally I think it's generally a wise idea to revert sudden, unexplained changes that go against consensus and/or de facto policy, until something else is agreed in discussion. / Alarm 00:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Transport?

Where is all the transportation? Prehapts you could add such a thing... Alphalife 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Public transport in Stockholm? –Gustavb 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kurdish inhabited region

There might be a sizable population of Kurds and other minorities in Stockholm, but this is not what that category is for. That category could similarly be added to a large number of cities worldwide while saying little about Kurds. --BillC 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

then could you explain me what this category is for? Metb82 00:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It, in common with the other ethnic group-oriented categories, is to indicate regions historically and culturally associated with that group. There are many cities worldwide that have Kurdish immigrant populations -- London, Montreal and Melbourne, for example. Stockholm has no particular claim here. Furthermore, many cities, including Stockhom and the others, have large populations of other ethnic minorities, from Albanian to Zimbabwean. If each city was to include each of these, its category list would become unmanageably large. London for example, claims to speak 700 languages (and therefore arguably has 700 ethnic groups). Looking at the other articles in Category:Kurdish inhabited region, Stockholm would stick out: the other articles there are places that do have historic Kurdish connections, such as Muş Province and Hasankeyf, Turkey; and Ilam, Iran. --BillC 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This would appear to be another attempt to disrupt efforts at categorising The Land of The Kurds and would seem to indicate that Category:Kurdistan may be more appropriate. --Moby 07:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Category:Kurdish inhabited region has been moved to Category:Kurdish inhabited regions --Moby 13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Improvements?

Ok, what can be improved? I had a check with Nationalencyklopedin and we have roughly the same coverage as them.

Suggestions?? What is missing??

Fred-Chess 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Better Images

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)

Size

Stockholm is NOT the biggest city in Skandinavia. thats Copenhagen. its true.. Do you even know how meany people there is in Copenhagen? or stockholm?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeBlink (talk • contribs)

1.954,158. Removed the reference. Thanks for pointing it out. Don't forget to sign your comment using ~~~~. Nevermind. Mceder 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve article, references

I think adding references is a big thing to move this article towards FA. Compare the around 50 or so in the FA Seattle, Washington to the 14 here. I will try to add some. Mceder 03:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that too. I think it should be focused on English-language sources though, and as I don't have much of that available I'll have to stand-by for now. If you have the possibility to assemble proper English-language sources, by all means do. / Fred-Chess 10:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mayor" of Stockholm

The official title of the political "leader" of a municipality would not necessarily be the equivalent of a mayor. Mayor, in swedish, translates to "Borgmästare". The use of a Mayor/Borgmästare, however, lost all its political power in 1956, and was removed in its entirety 1971 (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgm%C3%A4stare). The current title of the "Mayor" of stockholm would be Finansborgarråd, but it is debatable whether or not this is just a matter of semantics.

Stockholm is not the biggest in Nordic

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70424456 (points to discussion) 16:12, 18 August 2006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70464409 (incivil edit summ) 16:35, 18 August 2006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70472421 (gets at substance a different way) 17:17, 18 August 2006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70476410 (and again, gets at substance differently) 04:05, 19 August 2006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70560204 (and again) 05:12, 19 August 2006

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

Magore

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70460962 16:30, 18 August 2006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70465376 16:54, 18 August 2006

Valentinian

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70473447 17:33, 18 August 2006

Fred Chess

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70555433 05:06, 19 August 2006
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&diff=next&oldid=70560686 05:28, 19 August 2006

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)

Coat of arms

Coats of arms have design copyrights. On Wikipedia, free material should be used when possible. For this reason, I have created a free coat of arms to illustrates the blazon (heraldic arms description). I have now reinserted it. I urge you to either create a free one yourselves, or leave the one as it is.

You can perhaps chose this one Image:Stockholm City Arms.png which may be public domain. It is a little older. However, I'm not confident about the true source, because it never had one, and the original uploader has vanished.

Fred-Chess 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the City of Stokholm released a few of those into the public domain, to be used for purposes like this? Perhaps you could find something useful on the website of Stockholm? Anyway, that coat of arms looks OK to me. /M.O (u) (t) 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be possible, but this can not be assumed. I haven't seen such a claim on their website.

Image:Stockholm City Arms.png will probably be deleted in some future (no source).

Fred-Chess 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about this page, if it can be used to identify the one on Wikipedia, or if one of the downloadables can be used: Stockholm.se /M.O (u) (t) 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice find.

The page you link to calls it coat of arms for a "logotype". Now, I have been dealing extensively with Swedish coat of arms, having created several dozins, and the interesting bit is that the ancient art of heraldry is subjected to strict rules; logotypes can be made in any way. Now, a coat of arms of Stockholm is a heraldic creation, I have made a free one and uploaded it to Commons. However, the logotype can only look in one way, and it is copyrighted. Should Wikipedia show the logotype or the coat of arms? Perhaps it should show both?

Fred-Chess 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, we should show both (the logotype is a more modern version of the coat of arms), but in case with the old coat of arms, I think it is the reproductions that might be copyrighted. Not the coat of arms in itself, so basicly a digital photograph of the coat of arms (displayed on various buildings around town) could be used, or what do you think? /M.O (u) (t) 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am still undecided how to do this. The arms of Stockholm isn't that old -- a hundred years ago it looked very different. here is for example the arms in Nordisk familjebok. All modern creations must be assumed to be copyrighted. If a modern illustrations is to be used, it must therefore be under fair use and template:Symbol should be used. If we decide on this option, Image:Sterik.gif is the best to use. / Fred-Chess 14:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)