Talk:Stockholm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edits

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. - 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)

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. / up◦land 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)

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)

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)

New category for the nordic/scandinavian capitals?

I would like to suggest a new category for the capital cities of Scandinavia/the Nordic, including Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, Reykjavik and Stockholm. (I've posted this message on the talk page for each city.) Comments, anyone? /M.O (u) (t) 15:22, 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)

Fred, you are basically right. However Wikipedia practice so far seems to interpret the laws in such a matter that it is allowed to make a tracing or a new image closely inspired by the old one. (e.g. I believe Image:Greenland coat of arms.svg is in the clear although it resembles Image:Greenland coat of arms.png - they are not identical btw, try placing the two images on top of each other). Likewise, there is no law forbidding anyone to draw an image of a crowned head, draw a shield-shaped line around it and colourize the result. Nor is it forbidden to draw three crowned lions, draw a shield around them, sprinkle the result with nine hearts and add a dash of colour. The result might resemble a well-known image, but is not the official version. For comparison, see: Image:Odense coa.png (I can easily see at least two errors here, Saint Canute normally has open eyes and he doesn't frown). Other examples are the coats of arms used on the articles on the Danish counties. So in this case, the image Sterik.gif is probably not free. But the image on this page [1] wasn't drawn in Sweden but in Russia and is free to use since vector-images has allowed Wikipedia to use its raster images. If you wish, I can easily upload the image from Vector-images.com properly (convert it to .png and tag it properly.) You can see what I mean on the Odense image. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- Resetting indent. I've so far not heard any massive protests, so I've uploaded the image in question to Commons as Image:Stockholm coa.png, and updated the article to use it. Feel free to change it if anybody prefers a different image. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is the Wikipedia practice, then the Wikipedia practice has a distorted understanding of copyrights. The copyright is based on the creative originality, and making a copy of a copyrighted work does not make it free anymore than if I created a traced copy of Image:McDonald's Logo.svg. For a free version to be created, it must be created independant of a copyrighted one. I've been trying to find a debate on this on Wikipedia, but haven't succeeded yet.

If the original artist of Image:Stockholm coa.png came along, he could forbid Wikipedia to use his creation.

It must thus be the best practice to upload the image as "fair use".

Fred-Chess 05:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that an artists always exist (and in many cases, the person is still alive). However, I don't believe that this person holds any copyrights to the image. The "design" ("1x crowned male head, colours blue and golden") has no copyright in itself. However, the insignia of an official entity (Stockholm municipality) is based on this idea thus imposing restraints on all others wishing to use a similar image due to the risk of confusion. For practical reasons, Stockholm uses only one particular visualization of this idea for official purposes, but I believe that all images based on (insert entity's name here)'s official blazon / description of a coat of arms should use the {{Insignia}} template, since some people would only know the description / blazon of a coat of arms but not the official version of it. So a two hundred year old image might still be covered by this part of the law. However, if somebody goes to a heraldic artist and asks him / her to draw an image of coat of arms, surely the rights to the image produced now belongs to the person purchasing it? This is the only position that makes sense to me in a heraldic tradition. Btw, I don't believe that the artist drawing the McDonald's logo has any rights to "his" logo should McDonald's stop using it tomorrow. Likewise, if McDonald's forgets to register its logo in e.g. French Guiana, surely the artist can't use the "I drew this image" argument and set up a chain of burger stores there using it. As I see it, whenever somebody has been paid to produce a logo or something similar (which is the case here), the rights to the image must belong to the customer (otherwise, why pay in the first place? If the artist still held any rights, the customer would be paying without receiving anything in return). Or consider a company producing a map. X-Corp produces and prints a map, but surely the persons involved in this process hold no copyrights by themselves. Otherwise, if just one person involved still held any legal rights, he / she could later block the finished product from publication or demand already printed copies withdrawn from the market citing "creative rights". I don't believe that Aage Wulff holds any personal copyright to Denmark's national insignia either, since licensing one image as *the* sole image to be used by the Kingdom of Denmark for official purposes would make no sense if the original craftsman still held any rights to it. Suppose he changed his mind tomorrow? Likewise, if a person is paid to produce a website or an advertisement for a company, he / she must logically cease to hold any rights to it upon receiving payment, otherwise he / she would be able to close down an entire company's line of marketing citing "creative rights". Waivering these rights is essentially what he / she was paid for. However, if this is your position, in that case, all images from vector-images.com should be listed for deletion (the are quite a lot of those) (as well as the images of the Norwegian, and Danish coats of arms, btw.) I don't like the image of many of the images of the municipal Danish coats, btw, since they've clearly been copied directly from official websites. When another user asked Odense municipality for permission to display the arms of the city on Wikipedia (and later uploaded the official version of this image) - now obsolete by the vector-images.com image - he was told that "the copyright belongs to Odense municipality." They did not mention any artist and I believe they were right in this interpretation. Btw, on Commons, the "insignia" template describes that legal restrictions may apply to use of an image (most notably that neither of us may pretend to represent the official entity "Stockholm"), but AFAIK, the insignia template may only be used in combination with a copyright tag, not by itself (on the English Wikipedia as such, the position seems to be more fluent). I've been looking for the same type of discussion and what I've found is in connection with the Norwegian arms and in connection with the vector-images.com template. Just my thoughts (and sorry, this became a pretty long post). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Btw, I was surprised that in this case, the vector-images.com image looks so much like the official version. Most of their images clearly show that they've drawn them on their own (but heavily inspired by the official versions) and the entire company is based on them drawing their own images, so I believe this is the case here as well. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very well possible that even image:Sterik.gif came from vector-images.com. The coat of arms of the Stockholm website obviously looks different. Since they differ so much, I have no objection... / Fred-Chess 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'll delete image:Sterik.gif now. / Fred-Chess 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, if anybody disagrees with the choice of this image, please feel free to change it. I suspect that Sterik.gif also came from vector-images.com but we clearly don't need this version now. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:24, 24 August 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.

Please check the Municipal Commissioner article, and the "Burgomaster" part of the Municipalities of Sweden article.

"As Sweden does not use the swedish title of Mayor (Burgomaster) (Swedish: Borgmästare) anymore, Commissioner is often translated as Mayor, referring to the chairman of the executive committee. The title of burgomaster is nearly always used when referring to municipal leaders outside of Sweden, making the use of the title similar with the terminology around the President of the People's Republic of China. "

Gamle Bailey 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox City

I'd like to implement {{Infobox City}} here. This template is used on well over 1000 articles and it provides a standardized summary of the key City facts. Alan.ca 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. I think the Infobox City is really good. / Fred-Chess 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm Nightlife?

Since I'm guessing there are quite the lot of tourists that visit a city on wikipedia before going there, I'd like to see something about the Swedish nightlife in the article, preferably written by someone with access to the most famous places. Adwicko 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Information about the nighlife would probably be relevant if summarized properly, but if it's aimed at tourists. If they come here for travel information, they've misunderstood the purpose of encyclopedias.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The population of Stockholm

I noticed the population of Stockholm is listed at 782 000 for the city. This is not quite accurate. In Sweden the legal concept of city was abolished in the 1970's (1976 if I remember correctly). Since then, communes ("municipalities") have been free to call themselves cities if they like. The figure 782 000 refers to the population of the Stockholm commune, and has nothing to do with the population of what is called Stockholm "city" (in it's english meaning, in swedish the word "city" refers to the "downtown" areas of a town). It would be more accurate if the info-box was changed to call it population by commune, or perhaps you could call it municipality to make it more understandable in english(if somewhat inaccurate, as municipalities was abolished a long time ago in Sweden in favour of communes). Muneyama 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing confusing about it. Stockholms municipally is officially namned Stockholms Stad in Swedish and City of Stockholm in english. The urban area population consist of the population of the "actual" city, even if it crossed multiple municipalities. --Krm500 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Many people in Stockholm certainly view it that way, but to people outside of Stockholm it seems very strange to say that Stockholm has 782 000 citizens in the city. It is true that Stockholm commune calls itself city, but it is not the city in any legal sense. The word city is in Stockholm often taken to reffer to the commune as the commune calls itself that way, but those who do not live in Stockholm it is not logical, especially as the commune of Stockholm contains certain Suburbs (Akalla, for instance) that are more remote and separated from its centre then those who are in other communes (like Solna). Muneyama 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say but I have never heard of a "inner city" population statistic. The definition of an urban area vary between countries, but in Sweden the urban area is quite accurate of the population in the actual city. I do not live in Stockholm so I can't say for sure that this is the case but this is how it works in Gothenburg; Göteborgs Stad (municipality) population is 487,488 people. The municipality consists of the "city" area and Hisingen, the municipality borders Mölndals municipality in the south and Partille in the east. The population of Gothenburg's urban area is 510,491. The Gothenburg urban area stretches over most part of Partille and Mölndal, so many people living in the Gothenburg municipality do not live in the urban area. --Krm500 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation for museum visits in Stockholm

I've tried to track the "over 9 million visitors" number down. There is a definite claim for that at Stockholmsmuseer.com. However, that is a site operated by the Stockholm museum information coalition. Some further support, indication that it's not a completely bogus number can be found Kulturrådet, Frientreutredningen, p. 15, where the museums with free entrance clocked up around 4.7 million visitors in 2005 (quite a few still require an entrance fee). Unfortunately, Statistiska Centralbyrån are referring to Kulturrådet and I can't find anything conclusive there (the closest would be a total of 20.1 million visitors in 2005, Museistatistik, second section, first paragraph -- Vatine 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Venice of...

I've never heard the phrase "Venice of Scandinavia", though I've heard "Venice of the north" plenty.

Some google stats:
"venice of scandinavia" stockholm          96
"venice of the north" stockholm        18,000
"venice of the north" st. petersburg   33,600
"venice of the north" amsterdam        32,500

Having now found List of city nicknames, I see many have laid claim to the title. I understand that by specifying Scandinavia, Stockholm can lay unique claim to the title "Venice of Scandinavia", but that's not a good case for that specification if it's not used!

I propose the following change:

Stockholm is often referred to as "the Venice of Scandinavia" because of its many water channels.

to:

Stockholm is often referred to as "the Venice of the north" because of its many water channels.

I thought I'd try and get some feedback on this, though if I recieve no response, I'll simply be bold. Cheers, jugander (t) 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Venice of the North" sounds, methinks, like something from a tourist brochure... if one wants to say that Stockholm has waterways, then it is better to just say that it has waterways... / Fred-Chess 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

'Sometimes' instead of 'often'... --Jaakko Sivonen 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that nickname, besides Copenhagen gives Stockholm a run for that title IMO. Better to just explain about all the waterways.--Krm500 01:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jaakko: Both "sometimes" and "often" are so called weasel words and it is inaccurate to use Google hits as reference. (See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) / Fred-Chess 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Google as reference, didn't mean to cite it as an authority on public opinion, I just trying to get the discussion started and should have been clearer about that. I also realized after the fact that referencing wikipedia itself is also a no-no, in bringing up List of city nicknames. In the end, I can agree that the sentance does have an air of PR, and the encyclopedia article is better without it. jugander (t) 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have definitely heard (and used) the phrase "Nordens Venedig" as a nickname for Stockholm. "Venice of the North", "Venice of Scandinavia" and/or "Venice of the Nordic" may be suitable translations to Enmglish, but I have personally only heard 8and used) the phrase in Swedish. Vatine 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this "Venice of..." thing in more detail at History of Stockholm#Origin of the name. Help yourselves!

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using www.stockholmtown.com as source

This is not neutral information, and the homepage is made to attract tourists, not to provide accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.84.18 (talk) July 2007

You are probably right, but please don't just remove sourced information without providing good sources (or add unsourced information like you did in Copenhagen). I reverted you edits in Stockholm. / Mats Halldin (talk)

Congestion fees

During the test period in 2006 cars were allowed to pass the checkpoint at the Lidingö bridge without paying, if they left the city within a certain amount of time (30 minutes or so I think). This was because the bridge to Stockholm is the only way to get from Lidingö to the mainland. I am not sure if it still works that way after 2007-08-01, but it wouldn't surprise me. Maybe worth mentioning? I have no sources, unfortunately. 213.100.20.29 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stockholm vs. Copenhagen

A slow and quite silly edit war on which of the two capitals is the largest is going on. At least in part this has to do with difficulties in comparing the corresponding municipalities/metropolitan areas/etc in the two countries to each other. Until some more international definition is found and applied (maybe this will be done by a non-Scandinavian editor - not surprisingly dawiki and svwiki have rather different opinions on this :-) I think we had better leave out the comparision, at least from the beginning of the article. /SvNH 12:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GA delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.

• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
• References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known.
• Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose.
• The Transport section contains stubby subsections.

Regards, Epbr123 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stockholms status as largest city and largest metropolitan area is disputed

Some would argue that the first notion is questionable, and the second possibly outright wrong :-) Copenhagen may be roughly the same size as Stockholm. I dont know where the belief comes from, that Stockholm should be the biggest metropolitan area in the nordic countries, but as far as I am concerned it is wrong. --Rasmus81 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We've previously had controversial comments or tables about which city was bigger, both here, on Copenhagen, Nordic Countries and Scandinavia. If you can find a source from somewhere reputable - a traditional encyclopedia, the Nordic Council, the EU or something similar - about the size and populations of the metropolitan regions of the Nordic Countries this would be great. I have a bad feeling that the different national statistics agencies don't treat this issue the same way all way round, but we could get rid of this problem if we could dig up a list compiled by somebody reputable, dealing with all the affected countries, rather than just one country. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, I'd say they are equal in size but it is true Stockholm regularly claims to be the biggest city in Northern Europe. According to Wikipedia content, Stockholm urban area has a population of 1.252.000, Metropolitan Stockholm 1,735,047, and the municipality 786,509. Same figures for Copenhagen would be Region Hovedstaden 1,636,749, Metropolitan Copenhagen 1,116,979, and municipality 503,699 inhabitants. So, it all depends on definition - Copenhagen can probably be thought of as more dense and therefore more urban in character.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are various statistics giving various numbers. I think it is very difficult to find numbers that can be compared fairly. The danish municipalities of Greve and Køge are for instance part of Copenhagen city-area and Roskilde is only 30 km away but they are not counted in the statistics of Region Hovedstaden, whereas the island of Bornholm placed in østersøen is??? If we by the way should interpret the definition of Metropolitan area as they do in other countries, then the Danish-Swedish Øresundsregionen would count as one, and be bigger than the one in Stockholm. This controversy is in my opion unsolvable, my recommendation would then be wholly to avoid remarks like This makes Stockholm both largest city and metropolitan area in the whole Nordic Countries., alternatively make a more mild statement. We should not end up with Copenhagen and Stockholm-articles stating petty details in their respective intros, for instance that Copenhagen GDP is bigger than the one in Stockholm. Just kidding :-) mvh --Rasmus81 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I had absolutely nothing to do, I have now calculated what I would regard as the Copenhagen metropolitan area since no statisticians have done it. It consists of Region Hovedstaden, except Bornholm, and the municipalities of Køge, Greve, Solrød and Roskilde in Region Sjælland. The numbers in en:Wiki are not all correct, since the municipalities have changed due to a municipality reform in January 2007. The total number of inhabitants in this area are 1.799.829 and the size of the area is 2541 km2, compared with Stockholms 1.735.047 in an area of 3.472.25. Hokus-Pokus as we say in Denmark, This makes Copenhagen the largest metropolitan area in the whole Nordic Countries. :-) regards --Rasmus81 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've softened up the intro section. Neither city is large by any standard, so I don't see the point of pushing this very far. Please use the occasion to soften the Copenhagen article as well, I think the question should be explained in, say, Scandinavia or whatever other article.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tack så mycket. I couldnt find controversial sections in Copenhagen, but please let me now if i have missed them. I dont know if a rather petty discussion between Stockholm and Copenhagen deserves mention anywhere, at least i think we should spare our neighbouring nordic countries for the trouble in the Scandinavia-article. But at some point there invariably will come a list of the biggest cities in Scandinavia, the question will then be, which list to choose: Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union or Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) in the European Union :-) As long as there is no reason for it, i am of the opinion that we should leave this stupid discussion unmentioned. --Rasmus81 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ikke noget at tale om! There will probably be more discussions about this in the future, but let's leave it there for now.

However, I find this discussion interesting as (according to my personal experience) Stockholm with its 'isolated' location in the middle of Sweden rarely relates itself to Denmark or Copenhagen (we don't hear more from Denmark than do people in, say, London, Paris, or Berlin). In contrast, Danes (always near Sweden) tend to bother much more about its northern neighbour. Of historical reasons, Finns tend to behave similarly (regarding Sweden). It might be interesting for the article (maybe the culture section?) to explain this - after all, Stockholm's only official raison d'être is to be the capital of Sweden, but, locally, there is sort of a subculture trying to develop an identity independent from this. For example, Stockholm tend to be obsessed by its own local history (sv:Stockholmiana) and one of the most striking thing that occur to tourists must be the historical pretensions of the city, notwithstanding most façades (with their beige plaster) are in fact much younger than buildings in an average European city. Its symptomatic the new Moderna Museet was well-received in Stockholm because it merged with the neighbourhood whilst a new museum in Copenhagen is celebrated if it gets international attention (i.e. Arken).

Maybe just some spaced-out thoughts of mine.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We dont relate to Stockholm that much down here, we relate to the fact, that Copenhagen is full of swedes, and that more and more danes live in Skåne. From where i live on Amager it takes me 30 min to get to Malmö. Unfortunately i have only been once in Stockholm, but i think you could say, that Copenhagen because of its closeness to Europe and Sweden is a more international city. And dont mind the danes bothering, we bother over most things :-) Most of the time we complain about our own countrymen. Better stop (mis)using wiki for chatting now. --Rasmus81 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in school I've been thaught ever since grade 1 (I'm in grade 3, Gymnasium, now) that Stockholm is the largest city in Northen europe. Looking on numbers i think Stockholm is even in population compared to Copenhagen, but wins in economy, cultury and trade. And I also think that it is wrong to say that Malmö is a part of Copenhagen without asking us Swedes first ;( --Red w 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond doubt you have been lied to in school then.. Stockholm is growing fast and has only become comparable in size to Copenhagen within the last decade (growing almost 10% a year!). The economy, Stockholm has bigger companies and a much bigger stock exchange, with the weak SEK though, Copenhagen produces more GDP both total and per citizen. Culture, well Copenhagen has more art museums and excibits, this is probably because we have 3.5 million people living within an hours drive, even if 1.5 million of them are swedes. Sorry about Malmø, it is part of the workforce and consumer base of Copenhagen, not part of the city. Unfortunately the definition of a greater metropolitan area of a city, means the area that makes up the "workforce and consumer base of the city". In respect of the national boundaries though, we usually rename Copenhagen to Øresund region when counting the entire greater metropolitan area. Carewolf 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been in school for about a decade > anyhow so... And about the culture, it isn't measured in museums only. For an example, Stockholm is host of the Nobel prizes, water festival and much more. Stockholm alos got the bigest stock exchange in the north. I believe that Stockholm is the larges city --Red w 11:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it is just too bad, that the link (Largest urban areas of the European Union) which should serve as evidence for Stockholms status as the biggest city in Scandinavia lists Copenhagen higher. lol :-) In other words, skip the stupid comparisons. --217.61.54.194 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union_by_population_within_city_limits &
http://www.top500.de/g0030906.htm (economy) list Stockholm above Copenhagen. And besides, according to that link you gave me, Stockholm will pass Copenhagen in a few years (which only counts urban areas!). I'm sorry but even by comparing the cities populations in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen, Stockholm wins. --Red w 16:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Stockholm wins", very mature...:-) --Rasmus81 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr/Ms 217.61.54.194. The link you refer to (Largest urban areas of the European Union) contains a lot of strange "facts". First of all, it says that the population of urban Copenhagen and Stockholm is more than 1,4 million each, where Copenhagen has some 10,000 more inhabitants. According to the DST and SCB, urban Copenhagen has a population of about 1,085,000 and urban Stockholm, 1,252,000. Wikipedians who understand Danish can take a look at the discussion on the Copenhagen article on Danish wikipedia. They have explicitly asked the DST about the urban Copenhagen population. The fact that Copenhagen has 1,085,000 inhabitants was confirmed. The 1,4+ M figure seemes to count in areas that just/well fall outside the 200 meter definition and is a result of some wikipedianmaking measurements on the yellow pages (or google earth). I wonder from where both the 1,4 M figures for Stockholm and Copenhagen come. They are both incorrect. I think it is better to trust the DST and SCB than this list.

What we can conclude is that (if we insist on making comparisons), Stockholm is the most populous municipality in Scandinavia (around 780,000). Stockholm has the largest urban area in Scandinavia (around 1,252,000). Copenhagen-Malmö has the the largest metropolitan area in Scandinavia (depending on definition 2,2-2,5 Million). If we want to rank the cities by other statistics than population it is going to be very hard, since different aspects cannot be compared that easely. A city is large in the way that it has a big population, not that the fact that it is beautiful or has a high standard of living or a big stock exchange or culture. Cheers /Nirro Nirro 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Nirro, I didnt link to Largest urban areas of the European Union, the intro in the article Stockholm does. And secondly, I do not insist on making these comparisons, I would rather see this stupid dispute ignored, and not mentioned in Wikipedia.

I think you could argue, that Stockholm in some respects is a tiny bit bigger than Copenhagen., (though Copenhagen, as you mention, has a far bigger metro-area), if that makes you feel more important, then please write so. But please use a proper source then. I find it not only extremely silly, i find it wrong, to find evidence for this remark by linking to a page, that actually lists Copenhagen higher. Do you get me? regards --217.61.54.194 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rasmus81, I find it to be a splendid expression, since it seems to have become quite a competition of the title "largest city in scandinavia/the North" here. And maybe you should think more about something worth wrinting before you hit the keyboard. Writing comments just to bash other people is very... unmature. --Red w 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It has become a competition because you are making it one. And quite frankly, I think it is a bit immature. Especially since Copenhagen in some respects seems to be slightly bigger. You are now referring to Stockholm as the largest city in Scandinavia, I think you have to explain this information, because Copenhagen with suburbs seems to be bigger, and the Danish-Swedish Metro area around Øresund has ca. 2,5 mio inhabitants. --Rasmus81 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is OK the way it is now, no? / Fred-J 11:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Rasmus81, it wan't I who kicked up a fuss about it from the beginning. And by writing here you're as guilty as anyone else. If you wan't a source, I've already writed those. But if you insist on me posting sources again, by just comparing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen , you'll directly see which of those two cities are the largest. --Red w 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am making a fuss, because some people regularly feel the need of stating superiority over others, even if it doesnt exist. The Copenhagen metro-area is 1.870.636 (last page) in an area of 2673 km2, the Stockholm metro area is 1.761.125 in an area of 3.472,25. You cant take Stockholm County and make it the metro area as it has been done in the Stockholm article some places. It is as big as the whole island of Sjælland (pop. 2.115.317) . Whatever, I have made my point now. Gut baj. --Rasmus81 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So by writing that, as an example, China is the most populated country in the world, is that "stating superiority over others"? No, Its just facts. And you know, both Sweden and Denmark use the same method when counting urban areas, the 200 meters rule. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area for "European countries define urbanized areas on the basis of urban-type land use, not allowing any gaps of typically more than 200 meters, and use satellite photos instead of census blocks to determine the boundaries of the urban area". Stockholm is larger in area due to this "200 meter rule", which thereby make the city consist more people. Also, density nor area means nothing in counting city size, only the total number of the population is for interest! If Copenhagen choose not to count Sjælland, then pardon me but that's Copenhagen's proplem and not Stockholm's. --Red w 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rasmus81 and Red w, calm down a bit! As you say Red w, Stockholm urban area could be considered as larger than Copenhagen. But in this section we don't discuss urban areas. This section is about the metropolitan area. In many ways it is wrong to compare the two metropolitan areas since they are politically defined. There also seems to be different definitions for each city. In Copenhagen we have the Hovedstadsregionen with about 1,826,000 inhabitants. There is also the Copenhagen-Malmö-metro which has about 2,3-2,4 million inhabitants. This definition of an metro area is problematic since it is shared by two countries. E.g Lille-Kortrijk area is an urban area but cannot be considered as a metropolitan one since there is a cultural/linguistic border crossing it according to Largest urban areas of the European Union. Currently Stockholm seems to have two definitions of metro area. One that is equivalent to the Stockholm county which have 1,933,000 and one excuding the municipalities of Norrtälje, Nynäshamn, Södertälje and Nykvarn (1,761,000). For me it is strange that in the former, Norrtälje is included while Uppsala and Västerås are not (they are both within one hour drive from Stockholm and have good and fast commutin service while most parts of Norrtälje hasn't). Applying the one-hour-away-drive as a definition, Metropolitan Stockholm would have 2,424,985 inhabitants. As you all can see, it is impossible and quite unnecessary to compare hte two metropolitan areas. Let's be content that Stockholm urban area is larger than Copenhagen according to [[2]] and [[3]] or that Copenhagen urban is larger than Stockholm according to Largest urban areas of the European Union. Bye / Nirro 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Culture in Stockholm - Cleanup

I just replaced the short and incomplete list in Culture in Stockholm with a reworked version of the present content in the section Stockholm#Culture. I suggest this section should be shortened and be made more on-topic. While both sports and the number of immigrants in the suburbs are interesting topics, I think they should be made separate sections and/or articles. Additionally, both the section and the article need references.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Temperature

Göran-

I have a question, i live slightly north of stockholm and here the winters always drops down to at least 20-, how come the page sais that the avarage winter temprature in Stockholm is 7-? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.118.48 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I live in central Stockholm, and I can't remember having experienced -20°C in several years.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The temperatures are on AVERAGE (medeltemperatur) and the temperatures is for Stockholm City, not the suburbs. Although it could sometimes drop to -15 or -20°C sometimes.--69.127.126.229 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you define Stockholm City under these circumstances? Observatorielunden (inner city) or Bromma (outer city)? --Strangnet (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Business" :
  • [http://www.stockholmbusinessregion.se/templates/page____12283.aspx Näringslivet i siffror] — Stockholm Business Region website
  • [http://www.stockholmbusinessregion.se/templates/page____12283.aspx Näringslivet i siffror] Stockholm Business Region website

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox map

I think the current infobox map is rather, eh... ugly. Perhaps it is because I am not used to an equirectangular projection. But I would prefer a more common map, and perhaps also using an European map, like Image:Blank map of Europe cropped.svg, which is better recognized by most of the readers. Although it is convenient to have the map location automatically pointed with the coordinates and the Template:Location map (as of now), I think the other map would look better. --Kildor (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to an European map now. Let me know if you don't think it is an improvement. --Kildor (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As said above; most people will recognize a map of Europe. The borders of Sweden are quite clear also in this map, and a square map fits better into the infobox. --Kildor (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stockholm is the capital of Sweden, not Europe

If anyone can handle a computer and knows the word "Stockholm" then she or he also knows that Stockholm is the capital of Sweden. Sweden is In Europe/EU Thus the Europe map for Sweden. Stockholm is in Sweden thus there should be a SWEDISH map representing Stockholm just like there is for all other cities. Someone who is interested in the location of Stockholm is obviously not interested in the location of Sweden as that would be at fault with the very basic knowledge of knowing of Stockholm itself.

I've already made a map of Sweden (the classic one) and put Stockholm on it. This has been edited several times by people. I will give this a few days of discussion and then I will re-edit it back to a map of Sweden if no real answer has been given to why Stockholm should be shown on an European map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondskan (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong. Stockholm might very well be a topic of interest to someone that is not completely familiar with the location of Sweden. And the borders of Sweden are clearly visible on the current map, so the current solution conveys more information compared to if a map of Sweden is used. There are many more readers that are familiar with a map of Europe than with a map of Sweden. Furthermore, the map of Sweden used before was (in my opinion) quite ugly and very long, making the layout of the article worse, and the infobox less readable. So this map is better in many aspects. I would, as example, be much better off if the article about Milwaukee show a map of the United States instead of a map of Wisconsin.

Why do you think a map showing only Sweden would be better? Or even further, would it be better with a map showing the location of Stockholm in Svealand? Stockholm is a city in Europe as well as a city in Sweden. I honestly do not see the problem.... --Kildor (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Compare the articles for Paris, London, Rome and Amsterdam. Do you really want to claim Stockholm so special compared those cities? Of course you could also follow Madrid or Berlin which has both maps, but they are the rare cases. Carewolf (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. My choice of map is really not about making Stockholm appear special. It is about layout, and to provide the reader with even better information. I would rather see an European map on the articles of Paris, London, Rome and Amsterdam as well. --Kildor (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We are living in a world of nations in which cities exist. Nations in turn exist in continents and continents in the world. That is the way of things and that is basic geography. And that rubbish about "that we might aswell have a map of Svealand" doesn't make sense. Stockholm is not the capital of Svealand, it is the capital of a 1000 old nation of "Sweden".

Now let's be correct and put the map that should be there, the nations map. In the article we link to "Sweden" where that one in a million person who knows about Stockholm but not about Sweden can look it up. 213.100.108.69 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And what makes the Sweden map correct? I prefer the Europe map, simply because it's better for the layout not to have a ridiculous long infobox. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone at least could explain to me why he/she thinks that the Swedish map is better than the European map? --Kildor (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As already has been attempted. But here it is in an even simpler version: An electron is shown as the part of an atom in school books. An atom as part of a molecule and a molecule as part of the material it is part of together with other molecules. The same goes for basic geography. It is also more factual to have a map of STOCKHOLM in SWEDEN than have a map of Stockholm in Europe or in the planet or in the solar system. It is basic logic. We live in a world of nationstates and Stockholm is the capital of one of these. Open up your Atlas, textbook or anything ellse and you'll seem the same pattern.213.100.108.69 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So your saying by using a map of Europe, Stockholm isn't the capital of Sweden? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

213.100.108.69: I did look up Europe in my Atlas. And guess what? Stockholm appears clearly on that map. Your arguments are obviously flawed. --Kildor (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Take up an encyclopedia and look up "Stockholm" and you will see the map of Sweden. My argument is not flawed. In the end it matter not what shows up, even though it will show as Sweden. It matters only that it is the logical step to take. If you wish to find a street in a city you look up the map of the City. If you wish to find a City you look up the map of the nation. If you wish to find a nation you look up the map of a continent. If that is not a logical conclusion then I don't know what is.213.100.108.69 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is if you look in a map book, this is an encyclopedia. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have an article on Melbourne; do you select a map of Australia or a map of Victoria to show the location of Melbourne? I would say that there is no simple answer to that question. It is about the expected audience, structure and layout of the article, balance between detail and overview, amoung many aspects. In this particular case (about Stockholm), I believe the European map is superior to the map of Sweden used before, particularily regarding the layout of the infobox. But if there is a map of Sweden (or the Baltic Region), providing names and details on surronding cities and geographical features, with approximately the same format as the current European map, that would perhaps be a better choice. I don't know. But I simply just do not accept your "logic" argument that an article on Stockholm must be illustrated with a map of Sweden. --Kildor (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse it should be Australia. Australia is the nation, is it not? Go and check the article of Melbourne (without being a dick and changing it now). You'll see Australia and ONLY Australia is depicted. I am not asking for a map of "Svealand" or "Uppland/Södermaland" which would resemble Victoria when it comes to Australia. I am asking for exacly what you are asking for Melbourne, and that is a map of Sweden.

Now this discussion should be finished. 213.100.108.69 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right about one thing: This discussion is over! --Kildor (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. I've disproven every argument you've had and you still keep pushign your own agenda. As no valid argument has been provided and as real "professional" examples are to be followed and a "high" standard applied then I see no other choice but to edit it again. 213.100.108.205 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Stockholm is by far the most populous city both in Sweden and Scandinavia"

The statement that Stockholm "is by far" the the most popolous city in Scandinavia (according to user Kapheee) is to me an overstatement. The municipality is ma bit larger than that of Copenhagen, but Copenhagen often include the municipalities of Copenhagen, Dragør, Frederiksberg and Tårnby in its city definition (pop 656,582 compared to 807,301 for Stockholm). Both the urban area and metropolitan area of Copenhagen are slightly smaller than that of Stockholm, but still comparable in size. The wording "by far" is not correct and it will just evoke edit-wars. Therefore I will revert Kaphee's edits and choose a more objective wording. Nirro (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Stockholm logo / coat of arms

I think it is rather pointless to highlight the current version of Stockholm coat of arms that is at the top of the infobox in this article. This version is not at all similar to the official one [4], and it is own work by a Wikipedia user, and this interpretation does not exist anywhere but on Wikipedia. I suggest that we either use the official coat of arms under the fair use policy, or simply remove the current one. I don't think it look good, and it may falsly give the impression that it is the official coat of arms of Stockholm. --Kildor (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it looks good either, and it was me who created it since there were no free once available. But that is how king Magnus was depicted in the oldest seal of Stockholm I could find so I thought it would be most accurate to draw the coat of arms in a way that resembled him the most. He did not have the angel looks of the modern idolized seal. He apparently was ugly. I can't help that.

The question of coat of arms versus logo is an interesting one. On the one hand, some people connect a town or country strongly with a symbol that looks in a distinct way. This is probably the case of Stockholm, because the logo of Stockholm is used so frequently with government agencies etc. In these modern times, most logos only look in one distinct way, of course.

On the other hand, the coat of arms and the heraldic tradition come from a different background. And so, the left-faced griffin's head is the symbol of Scania regardless of how it looks in its details. And in my hand I am holding a can of Åbro and I see the a lion with a crossbow, the coat of arms of Småland.

Since Stockholm is so much stronger connected with a symbol than with a coat of arms, it might be more appropriate to put the symbol of Stockholm on this page rather than the coat of arms. One must then take into account that the symbol is not free. It is both copyright protected and restricted in many other ways, you would for example not be allowed to but it on letters you post to people to give the impression you represent the city.

These things taken into account, I think it is better to keep the current ugly coat of arms. If an artist then wants to create a nicer looking coat of arms and upload, he is free to do so. Hopefully, the current one will inspire someone.

Fred-J 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stockholm logo is of course under copyright, but can be used here under the "fair use" policy. The coat of arms image you made is apparently correct, but since no one recognize it, I don't think it should be given such a prominent position. And if someone "improves" it and make it too similar to the official one, the image will no longer be free to use, and we could better use the official one under "fair use". Anyway, if a free coat of arms should be used, I think that your original (Image:Stockholm arms of Saint Eric.png) is better than the SVG traced version (Image:Stockholm vapen.svg). Or at least the colors of the SVG version should be changed to match the colors of the png version. --Kildor (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the case of Fair use that it's only allowed if a free alternative is not available? And since we have a free alternative that would dissalow the fair use one. The reason for the particular blue colour in the CoA is because it matches that of all the other municipalities. I think it's better to have the same set of coulours for all arms since as you pointed out the arms don't look like the official interpretation anyway. But then I would of course be biased. /Lokal_Profil 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, there is never a free alternative to a logotype. And according to WP:LOGOS, Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. In strict heraldic meaning though, I understand that any interpretation of the coat of arms is correct as long as it is in accordance with the textual description. But I find it quite pointless to highlight a symbol that is neither used nor recognized as an identity of Stockholm. That is why I do not think that the coat of arms currently shown in the article is an alternative, and that is why I think we should use the official logo instead. --Kildor (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it then boils down to whether we consider Stockholm to have a logo or a Coat of Arms. Yes a logo never has a free alternative but a Coat of Arms always has a free alternative. In my view Stockholm has a CoA, the fact that they then use it as though it was a logo (and have probably registered a particular interpretation of it as a logo) is irrelevant. /Lokal_Profil 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear that Stockholm has both a CoA and a logo. The logo consists of one interpretation of the CoA and is consistently used on flags, prints and signs about the city of Stockholm. In fact, the current logo is a CoA with the text "STOCKHOLMS STAD" in a circle around it. So I believe it boils down to whether we should use the logo, the official CoA, or the Wikipedia interpretation of the CoA. My main objection to use a CoA that is not the official one, is that its location at the top of the infobox makes it appear to be an official symbol of Stockholm. But this particular interpretation of the CoA is only used here at Wikipedia and nowhere else. This is different from other city articles that appear to use the offical CoA in most of the cases (if any at all). The fair use policy gives us the right to use the official logo or CoA here, and I cannot see why we should not us it. A different interpretation of the CoA is not a reasonable alternative since it is not used as a symbol of Stockholm. --Kildor (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now replaced the unofficial CoA with the official logo. --Kildor (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try to continue here instead of starting a new section.

The article currently has neither coat of arms or logo. It still makes no sense to me why the coat of arms File:Stockholm vapen.svg can't be used when it would improve the article. Coat of arms are not logos. In a historical sense, coat of arms are like symbols. Just as the griffin's head represent Skåne, the Saint Eric head represents Stockholm.

Fred-J 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Riksdag and the juridical system of Sweden?

Why is there a section about the riksdag and the juridical system and lack of juridical review in the International Ranking section? Has it any relevance to the article? When reading the section, I don't think it even has any connection to Stockholm as a city at all. I suggest the section should be deleted! Yiwa (Talk) 09:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But check first that the info is available in the Sweden article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Center Party in opposition?!

As far as I know the Center Party is in the government and not in the opposition. I may be wrong but why would the Center Party be in opposition in Stockholm but not at the national level? It does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.128.252 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish government and Stockholms Stad/Kommun are two different political entities. One party can hold one position in government, and another within the municipality.

However I think you are right in that the centre party is not in opposition. I think they are part of the ruling coalition not only in the government but in Stockholms Stad as well, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.80.188 (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

TWO panoramas?

Is it really necessary to have two panoramic images, taken from the same spot, in one article? I'm considering removing the first one since it shows less of the city, anyone oppose? Armigo (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any objections either way. I think there are probably other areas that are more useful to improve though :)

Fred-J 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Media center since 13th century

Stockholm has been the cultural, media, political, and economic centre of Sweden since the 13th century.

Is this really correct? What media was available? Aftonbladet? The bible?

And has Stockholm really been the cultural, economical and political centre constantly ever since the 1200s? I dont think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.80.188 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Very POV statement indeed. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Stockholm was just one of many towns in Sweden up at least until 1350. Medieval Sweden didn't really have a media centre at all. And I say this as a born-and-bred Stockholmer. I'll fix it in the article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better wording, but I recall reading something about Gotehenburg during the late 19th century being a much more international/continental city with broader culture and media. I'll see if I can find a source. Best option may be just to separate the historical aspect and state what Stockholm currently is. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

any songs about Stockholm?

List of songs about Stockholm
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

very, VERY few references!!

Are 38 really so extremely few? --Muniswede (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Source for gross domestic product and population size

The article claim Stockholm is responsible for 35% of the Swedish gross domestic product. Is there any valid source for this? Also, the source for population size does not seem to function. Zaijaj (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) SCB will not allow direct linking to their statistics engine. It's fairly easy to find the GRP from www.scb.se but when I do so the Stockholm GRP comes out as 28% of the GDP so I have changed this. I think this claim should just cite SCB.se as the source and leave it up to the intrepid to find the rest for him/herself.F97ks (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wide Lungs?

The article has the sentence "Over 30% of the city area is made up of waterways and another 30% is made up of parks and green spaces, giving Stockholm perhaps the widest lungs of any European capital." in the Location section. What exactly does "widest lungs" mean and how can a capital have any kind of lungs? Tex (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tex. The phrase "green lungs" for areas of green plants which absorb CO2 and emit oxygen is certainly widespread, see this Google search. But I can't say I've heard of "wide lungs", nor can I find the phrase (in the sense of forested areas) on Google, either. Therefore, I've changed it. See what you think.[5] Bishonen | talk 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. That would make more sense than the wide lungs term. I do see various Google hits about Stockholm and "green lungs", but none of the first few I checked mentioned that Stockholm has any more green lungs than other European capitals. It's not something I'm all that concerned about, however. I was just curious about what "wide lungs" had to do with it. Thanks again. Tex (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true that lungs transport away CO2 and transmit exygen to the blood, and that park often are called "the city's lungs". However, the parks only marginally contribute to the city's oxigen resource. It is true that they absorb pollution however (and provide recreation). So, a more precise body-analogue would be nostrils (But the word isn't perhaps poetic enough). Nirro (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate table does not use official source

The link given as source in climate section says world weather information service, but this is wrong. Here is the correct link to world weather information service. This page use official climate information from met.se and the official base period (1961-90), which other cities use. As seen from the link, the average daily low temperature in Stockholm in January is -5°C and the average high is -1°C.Orcaborealis (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have changed to the values taken from world weather information service. This source did not provide daily mean (24-hr mean), so I used worldclimate.org, which has a very long base period (1756 - 1980!), link here. However, this should ideally have been the same as high/low temperatures; 1961-90. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In the new table is the average low temperature for the year 5°C, but this does not correspond to the values in the table. Adding all 12 monthly average lows and dividing by 12 gives 3.6°C. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the climate table, we find temperature records for each month, but there are no sources. The table says that the overall record is 36 C (I have heard 38 or 36 C depending on what is included in Stockholm). The lowest recorded is said to be -32 C, but I have heard about 28 C (thus never below -30). So... We have to bring some sources. Otherwise, I suggest we delete the alleged records. Nirro (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orcaborealis. I have fixed the problem. It was due to the fact that the numbers were in Fahrenheit (rounded to the nearest integer). In the end this gave in summation error. Nirro (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Stockholm is not Europe's most polite city

It's North Europe's most polite city. Can someone check this out? Europe's most polite city is Ljubljana. Terminus1990 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ljubljana? Doubt it son... (Where´s your ref?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.90.110 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jjcisneros, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the spelling of the word "hitech" in the History section to "high tech" to avoid confusion with other usages of the term "hitech." "High tech" is more appropriate based on its context as a description of economic activity.

Replace the text: "Throughout the century, many industries shifted away from work-intensive activities into more hitech and service industry areas." with "Throughout the century, many industries shifted away from work-intensive activities into more high tech and service industry areas."

Jjcisneros (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done —fetch·comms 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 1 June 2010.

The paragraph beginning "In 1710 the Black Death reached Stockholm. After the end of the Great Northern War the city stagnated. Population growth halted and economic growth slowed. The city was in shock after having lost its place as the capital of a Great Power." has some severe problems. Firstly, the Black Death raged in the 1300's; the plague that hit Stockholm in 1710 was just your average same-old generic 'plague'. Not the Black Death. Secondly, the paragraph, as written, appears to say that Stockholm somehow ceased to be the capital of Sweden (a great power), when what happened was that Sweden ceased to be a great power, and Stockholm lost status as a result. Someone ought to fix this, perhaps with a reference to a (nonexistent?) page about the 1710 plague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.177.90 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Regretfully, it has become necessary to semi-protect this article due to IP socks on a banned editor continually adding content.

Any other IP is welcome to suggest improvements on this talk page. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Following the introduction of the edit notice system, I've created an edit notice for the article, and thus have unprotected the article. Please note that vandalism will be dealt with by blocks being imposed. All editors are encouraged to improve the article where they can do so. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)