ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Stockholm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Stockholm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Stockholm was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Sweden The article on Stockholm is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Stockholm is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
To-do list for Stockholm: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Possibly a short mention of the Stockholm dialect(s)
  • Some of the culture section could (I'm not saying "should") be expanded. For example check the Literature section, maybe write a section about Art, and one about Film.
  • The current image in history section is a scanned in, but the two-page scan didn't work out very well (the image is obviously stiched together at the center). So a better one would be nice, but it should be a high resolution one like the current one -- don't just steal a 50 Kb gif from a random webpage.
Priority 2  

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.

Contents

[edit] 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 :

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)

[edit] 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 [stokh: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] No more edit warring about this please

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

Comanche cph

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

Magore

Valentinian

Fred Chess

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

Well, I appreciate your concern, but I have not support to block for general edit warring Wikipedia:Bans_and_blocks#Excessive_reverts says "As a rule of thumb, this [edit war block] happens when an editor reverts for the fourth time in a 24-hour period".
I must also humbly correct the description of Magores second revert being incivil. / Fred-Chess 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
"Suck it up" is borderline incivil in my view... but that was at talk:Copenhagen on this talk page ([1]) and was a talk comment, not the edit summary for the second revert, so oops!!! Corrected. And that edit war quote is a rule of thumb. My thinking on edit warring is rather more stringent, I know it when I see it and I see it here, and I believe I'd get supported if I handed out some blocks. However to hand out blocks is not my goal, blocks are preventative not punitive, I want you all to realise this is serious, and to work out your differences and stop reverting. See also the entry at LAME ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


I applaud the will to compromise which is evident in the current edit, saying that Stockholm is the most populous municipality in the Nordic countries. However, I think it is unnecessary. This is just a complicated way of saying that it is the largest city in the Nordic countries - which is what the article should say. This whole edit war has arisen because of 1 - one - users destructive edits, and the whole wikipedia-community should not be forced to make the article worse than it was as the result of one destructive user. I say the article should still say that Stockholm is the largest city - this is much better English, and more readable and understandable than "most populous municipality. --Barend 14:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Lar might be refering to what I've written on this talk page - I admit that I (theoretically) could have been more civil in some cases, although I'm not sure about it, since I haven't made any deliberate insults or accusations. I've kept a fairly neutral tone in what I've written, but as with all written messages, we loose the flavour of intonations and stuff, and that makes it easier to interpret what I've written as more negative and aggressive than intended. And to discuss things with Comanche cph can be really tiresome, and I do my best to keep calm and not run out of patience. Especially since I would prefer wikipedia to remain as a more or less reliable source for information on the web, thus I find it very trying to debate the same thing over and over with teenagers - or people who behave and argue like teenagers - just because the facts come into conflict with their personal views and opinions. If the facts support one claim, that is what we should stick to, regardless of what other individuals have found out on their own, since that would violate the NPOV and NOR guidelines. /M.O (u) (t) 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Barend: I actually think that "most populous municipality" is more accurate than "biggest city", because the definitions of "city" are diffuse, and even more so because the Swedish definition of "stad" (City) is non-intuitive for most people. You can compare the lead section with that of Toronto, who write it in the way I did.
M.O.: I support you -- I likewise do not regret my part in this so called edit war. What other way is there to resolv disputes with people who don't want to discuss?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred Chess (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This is the most correct version to avoid any confusion in claiming Stockholm is the largest city, since as a city Copenhagen is largest:

this also makes it the largest city of the Nordic countries, but in considering counting more land area than Copenhagen.

--Comanche cph 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Consensus is clear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] 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 [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[3]] and [[4]] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [5], 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)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -