From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gothenburg:
  • Expand lead section
  • Expand history section. Write History of Gothenburg (stub)
  • Expand government section, integrate with Gothenburg Municipality
  • Expand geography section, add climare section
  • Expand demographics section
  • Expand economy section and transportation section, add infrastructure
  • References should be more specific (not just
  • There is probably some standard literature on Gothenburg that should be used as reference
  • Better selection of images, remove gallary
  • Change mayor. Göran Johansson is NOT the mayor of Gothenburg. Jörgen Linder is the mayor of Gothenburg.

Old talk[edit]

There has been a tendency in the last decade or so to market the city under it's Swedish name "Göteborg" rather than the established English name "Gothenburg". However this trend is not universal. One example is that sporting and other international events many times are held in "Gothenburg" rather than in "Göteborg". It is also a question of which form is used in media coverage, the established form, the Swedish national form, or a third, inbetween rationalisation, form "Goteborg". I think there is need for some additional input before settling the location of the article. -- Mic 10:55, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Since the name was officialy changed to Göteborg in 1995 I see no point to argue about this. Of course Wikipedia should use the official name and not the old name even if a lot of people uses it. Oct 23, 2003 --Johan
I find it odd that the article states that Göteborg/Gothenburg is called "Gothenburg" in German. I am a Gothenburg native but I have a German mother and as a half German I can tell I have NEVER heard a German call my city "Gothenburg". Germans always say "Göteborg". And they did so already in the 70's. Also, the German language has no "th" sound and does have the "ö" which would make it strange for the Germans to call our city Gothenburg rather than Göteborg.
Personally I think the page should be under the name "Göteborg" but I don't think it matters very much since we have redirects.
.../David Göthberg 24 Sep 2004
(Yea, it is my real name. It has the same root as the city name!)
As I'm the one who added this part, I guess I have to defend it. :-) It is based on a somewhat longer historical perspective than one going back to the 1970s. One way to find out what a place was called in various languages is to look at published works, as they are easy to date. I'll give you a few examples from Libris, the Swedish national library catalogue.
One from the 17th century is this work, printed in Gothenburg in 1680:
Mart. Frid. Hermann, Guldene Spann-Rose von 6 Blättern, welche Seiner Königl. Mayestätt ... K: Carl dem XI. zu einen christlichen Willkommen, alsz dieselbe nach ... vollendeter Vermählung sich hierher nach Gothenburg begaben, den 13. Maij 1680, und des andern : Tages drauf unser Teutsches Gottes Haus persönlich besuchten ... [Göteborg 1680]. [1]
18th century:
Knut Reinhold Bildt, Auf des durchleuchtigsten Fürsten und Herrn, Herrn Adolph Friedrichs, Erb-Fürsten zu Schweden, Erben zu Norrwegen, &c. &c. erfreuliche Ankunft in Uddewalla 1749. Aller-unterthänigst aufgesetzt von Knut Bildt. Gothenburg, gedruckt bey : Johan Georg Lange, Jun. königl. privil. Buchdrucker.[2]
19th century:
Kristian Wilhelm Malm, Beschreibung zur Charte über den Canalweg von Stockholm nach Gothenburg aus dem Schwedischen ins Deutsche übertragen von Lpn. Stockholm 1846.[3]
20th century samples:
Carl Georg Heise, "Kunst in Gothenburg", Der Kunstwanderer, 2 Nov. 1923, Berlin. 4:o.[4]
Sven Christian Johansson, "Ein Fall von Osteogenesis imperfecta mit verbreiteten Gefässverkalkungen", Von der chirurgischen Abteilung des Kinderkrankenhauses in Gothenburg, Ur: Acta radiologica. 1921.[5] (It's clearly an off-print.)
Hermann Kiesow, Zeittafel über die Geschichte der deutschen Christinengemeinde zu Gothenburg 1623-1973, published by the German congregation in Gothenburg in 1973.[6]
On the other hand, a biographical publication on this Kiesow from 1982 is called:
Aus Glauben und Lebenserfahrung : Hermann Kiesow 1913-1982, deutscher Pfarrer in Göteborg 1932-74 but also has the "variant title" (according to Libris; it looks more like the title of a publication series or of the publisher) Deutsche Christinengemeinde zu Gothenburg.[7]
Dutch (just in case somebody wants to question that as well):
D. Kouwenaar, "Het 300-jarig Bestaan von Gothenburg", Op de Hoogte 1923, s.154-158.
It may obviously be debated exactly when Gothenburg stopped being used in German (if it has indeed gone entirely out of use) and for how long Göteborg has been used, but that it is in some sense the traditional name, used by German-speakers in and outside the city for centuries, can hardly be disputed.//u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 08:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah well. I once saw some plans (maps) that was supposed to be the original plans for the city from the 1620's. And those plans clearly said "Gothiaburg". That is, they neither said Gothenburg nor Göteborg. And I have seen many other forms of the name in old documents and on old maps from the 17:th and 18:th centuries. So personally I think we should state the current use of the city name in different languages and not primarily the historical use. And as Mic pointed out, today whe even use the (slightly uglu) form Goteborg in English fairly often.
.../David Göthberg 15:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The question is really if you can find any evidence that "Gothiaburg" was ever used after 1623 or if you can point to any other form that is as obviously well documented in German over more than 300 years as "Gothenburg" is. But go ahead and make your point clear in the article; just don't remove correct information on the historical names of the city. //u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 16:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article speaks of a "Dutch invasion of Gothenburg" but I've never heard of it...? "The site of the first church built in Gothenburg, subsequently destroyed by Dutch invaders, is marked by a stone near the north end of the Älvsborg Bridge in Färjenäs park. The church was built in 1603 and destroyed in 1611. "

I'm a Gothenburg native myself, but isn't it a bit too much to call Gothenburg the "hip-hop capital of sweden"?

I was down town during the EU summit in June 2001 and saw how the police time after time surrounded peaceful anti EU, anti Bush and pro democracy demonstrators, attacked them with batons and police dogs and arrested some of them. Many of those "temporarily arrested" was never told why they were arrested and was put in temporary holding cells for up to 26 hours without access to food and without a bed to sleep in. Finally (after days) the demonstrators retaliated. Then when the riots started the police even fired several live rounds at the demonstrators almost killing one guy. So a few smashed shop windows are not much compared to the huge number of demonstrators wounded by the police (even before the riots). However, for some reason Swedish press did not show the pictures of the wounded demonstrators. I was there myself and saw lots of demonstrators with nasty dog bites and bleeding head wounds etc. And I saw the cameras filming it. But hardly anything of it was shown on TV. After the summit many demonstrators and even talkers from political meetings prior to the summit was arrested. They were then detained for months and deprived of any contact with the surrounding world (like the worst serial killers or so) and then sentenced to several years in prison. (And many of them never rioted, they got sentenced anyway.) It seems nowadays you risk harsher treatment and longer jail time if you talk against the EU on political meetings than if you kill a person in Sweden. I think that if the EU summit should even be mentioned in this article about Göteborg a more nuanced story needs to be told. But personally I think that shameful story of non-democratic oppression from the current government should be left out. Especially since it would result in endless editing wars since most Swedes wasn't there to see with their own eyes and only know the official media version of the events. .../David Göthberg 24 Sep 2004

I'm surprised that the article still uses the name Gothenburg, it's completely out of use here in Canada, no one that has ever gone to Sweden uses to name Gothenburg to describe the city, moreover all Swedes that come here use to name Goteborg to describe the city. Gothenburg fell into disuse the same way that Lyons or Marseilles did.

Can someone please fix or add a new audio link? Zarxos 01:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a photopgrapher working in Göteborg, is there any use for more pictures of Göteborg? Which parts in that case? /m

That would be great. We have hardly any pictures from Gothenburg, and could probably use several dozen, not only for this page, but for the Gothenburg Opera, the Göteborg University, Chalmers University of Technology and many articles not yet written on Gothenburg buildings, institutions, notable architects working in the city, or people to whom monuments of som kind exist. Kungsportsavenyn, The Art Museum, Röhsska konstslöjdmuseet, the main university building, the churches, Stora Teatern, Trädgårdsföreningen, Ostindiska huset, and probably many other places or buildings that I can't think of at the moment. Please register and join the Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board! u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 8 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
ok, it seems that I have a summer project ;) /m


Is there really a long "ø"-sound in "Göteborg"? I have always heard it pronounced with a short "ø".

Yes, it sounds very artificial with a long sound. A spelling-pronunciation?
Haha, asking which ö pronunciation to use in Göteborg is a funny question. (Disclaimer, I am not a linguist but I am a native.) See, in the dialects spoken within Göteborg there are seven different ways to pronounce ö depending on in which word, which situation and who uses it. That is, we got several different dialects within the city, depending on which part of town you are from and if you are working class, academic or higher upper class. Each person uses about 4-5 different pronunciations of ö. Most Swedes who are not from Göteborg can not even hear the difference between some of those pronunciations of ö. That's why even the best Swedish actors always fail to fake our dialect properly, they always stick the wrong ö in the wrong place which kind of sounds strange to us natives. (So if you are not a native, don't even try to argue about it since you don't even hear the difference, ok?)
So to the question of how to pronounce "Göteborg": Well, there are several different ways to pronounce it even within the city. And some of those ways include a kind of short "ö" and some a longer "ö". (Although none of them as short as the Norwegian pronunciation of the city name!) Right now I can come up with at least three different ways to pronounce the ö in the name depending which local dialect I say it in. If you add the dialects talked in the outer metropolitan area you get some more pronunciations and if you add in the rest of Sweden you get even more variations. So sorry, there is no simple answer to how "Göteborg" should be pronounced in Swedish.
Oh, by the way, the sound sample in the article is pronounced in a dialect from the other side of Sweden and that specific pronunciation does not even exist in any of the local dialects. But note that there is nothing wrong with that sound sample, it does represent one way of pronouncing it in Swedish.
--David Göthberg 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I would say this info was interesting enough to add it to the article, but that up to you ofcourse :)
The sound sample is by me and it's in Standard Swedish as commonly spoken around Stockholm and the variant that is most common in broadcast media. It happens to be pretty much the way I speak normally, but it wasn't an arbitrary choice and I am not a particularly avid supporter of pronouncing the names of places in anything other than nationally recognized standards, since it's intended primarily for non-natives to listen to. Having heavily localized pronunciation of every imaginable city or town is simply not practical. The vowel is short, however, I just transcribed it improperly. It's now short and written phonemically, so that it's more or less dialect-neutral.
However, I'd like to see examples of words that represent those 4-7 different variants of "ö" that would be more or less exclusive to Gothenburg and the surrounding area. At first glance it seems like a mild exaggeration. Disregarding the very distinct diphthongs of southern Sweden and Gotland and the truly exotic dialects, there are about three variants of "ö" in the rest of Sweden, and there's a ongoing shift that will probably lead to a reduction of those to two or perhaps even just one sound for most speakers within one generation.
Peter Isotalo 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Peter, first things first. You live on the east coast, in Stockholm. Gothenburg is on the west coast, far from Stockholm. As is usual in many countries people living in the capital try to force their dialect onto the rest of the country. The notion of a "Standard Swedish" when it comes to pronunciation is an insult to the rest of the country. Haven't you heard that linguists (at least in other parts of Sweden than the capital) no longer call it "rikssvenska" (standard Swedish)? But instead are now calling each local variant that is spoken in a way easily comprehensible by the rest of the country like this: "riksgöteborgska, riksskånska, riksstockholmska" ? (Standard Gothenburgish, Standard Scanian, Standard Stockholmian.) Now, your sound sample is not even in "TV Swedish" which after all sort of is the most standard Swedish around. To me, your sound sample sounds like the dialects spoken in the Mälaren Valley which ends in Stockholm where you live. (And nothing wrong with that, it's a nice dialect.)

And regarding there being seven different ways to pronounce ö here in Gothenburg: That is not my own number, that is the number I heard linguists state several times. And since I do hear the difference between them I agree, there seems to be about seven different variants. (If you add in the variants used by immigrants in our city you get even more but that is another issue.) So let me quote what I myself wrote before:

"Most Swedes who are not from Göteborg can not even hear the difference between some of those pronunciations of ö. (So if you are not a native, don't even try to argue about it since you don't even hear the difference, ok?)"

Dialects are fun, forcing your dialect upon others is not fun. Enjoy dialects, don't suppress them.

--David Göthberg 20:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be the first one to tell you this, David, but watered-down Central Swedish has been the most dominant norm for the standard language for quite a long time now. That's why you seldom hear people on Rapport or Ekot speaking with southern diphthongs, northern prosody or (heh) Gothenburg "ö"s when reporting on a war in Congo or the latest developments on the bird flu. Swedish linguists don't generally use the term "rikssvenska" any longer, that you're right about. They call it "standardsvenska", though, so I really don't know what your statement is based on. This term is very flexible however and includes all the regional standards, which you refer to as "riksXXX". I don't understand why anyone would use these terms, though, since they mean "national" not "standard".
Since you don't agree that my recording is TV-Swedish, I would very much like to hear a pronunciation of "Göteborg" that is just that. I'm sure it's not difficult to find in SR's or SVT's internet programming. Please let me know when you find the correct TV-pronunciation, so I can record a properly neutral sound file.
And about the vowels: I recommend you actually try describing it if you claim to be able to hear the difference instead of making rather stereotypical assumptions. Just one written example of each "ö" variant can't be that difficult to produce. Try giving us non-Gothenburgers the benefit of the doubt on this one. If you actually know the IPA-transcriptions for any of them, even better.
And please don't get on my case about "supressing dialects" when you don't even seem to have been reading up much on the subject to begin with. I've written way too much about languages (such as Swedish language) here on Wikipedia to take such a comment lightly. What I am used to, though, are rather rude Swedes who are not from Stockholm who love to assume that since I'm from Stockholm, I must be someone who supresses dialects.
Peter Isotalo 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it is best to have the audio as standardized as possible, to make it in line with verifiability, NPOV and all of that...
But feel free to record a pronunciation in the local tongue and upload it with a different file name and link to it from the article.
Fred-Chess 23:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I agree that Peter has a Mälardalen / Stockholm dialect, not standard Swedish per se, but more like standard Swedish that Göteborgska, of course.
Fred-Chess 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Peter, I hate to break it to you, but you don't speak Standard Swedish. The clip you supplied is obviously of a Stockholm dialect to anyone from outside Mälardalen. Nobody outside of Mälardalen would pronounce "borg" like that. Not that there is anything wrong with it, it just isn't Standard Swedish.-- 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to read the article on Standard Swedish and understand that there is no such thing as geographically neutral prestige dialects. At least not in Swedish. If y'all persist, I'd love to hear a sample of this speech that is disassociated from all forms of colloquial Swedish. The vast online archives of either SVT or SR would have to contain samples if this form of speech actually exists, so please link away...
Peter Isotalo 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


the name of this city is Göteborg, please rename

No, in english the name is Gothenburg, as well as Venice is called Venedig in swedish, but Venezia in italian. Battra 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not that simple anymore. Göteborg is the name that the city calls itself, even in english. The english name of the university is NOT Gothenburg University, but Göteborg University. Other examples: Göteborg international film festival, Göteborg Museum of Art, Göteborg Book Fair and the list goes on. Both ways of spelling can be considered accurate in an english text, but the use of Gothenburg is definately losing ground to Göteborg. Since that is also the official name I agree that this article should be renamed Göteborg. Pax:Vobiscum 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, the english name is Gothenburg --Krm500 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, there must be an official policy somewhere stating what should be used. Kreca 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The official policy is in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), and it says "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." and "Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type." BIL 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Okey, I just did a google search on and, with a total of 1000 references to the name gothenburg. I think this settles the matter Kreca 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... when I tried the search, there were 5 million for 'Gothenburg' and 49 million for 'Göteborg.' Personally, I've never even heard of the name Gothenburg, and I'm not exactly uninformed. Alexandre-Jérôme 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Except for the fact that you're unaware that the name Gothenburg has been in use in English for several hundred years (almost since the city was founded). Did you restrict your search to English-language sites? When I did so, I got a much less lopsided distribution (1,480,000 for Gothenburg; 2,030,000 for Göteborg). When I also restricted the search to a conveniently available English-speaking country by using .uk as the domain, I got 276,000 hits for Gothenburg and only 101,000 for Göteborg. Gothenburg is the standard English name, and it is the appropriate name for the article on the English Wikipedia. --Tkynerd 14:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time to put an end to the non-sense of having "anglicised" names for cities around the world. Why should a city have two different names for its indigenous language and English? Furthermore, English-speaking people should stop pronouncing city names as if they were English words. "Göteborg" should be spelt and pronounced as in its original form, which looks and sounds nothing like "Gothenburg". English-speaking people are about the only ones that pronounce "Paris" with an 's' sound at the end, similar "distortion of pronunciation" with Warsaw, Moscow, etc. I think it's a remnant of English-speaking people changing spellings and pronunciations of proper nouns at their discretion if they are "difficult" for them. This has to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to show the level of nonsense in your argument in relation to this particular article, in Swedish, Paris is pronounced just like in English, with the s. Also in Swedish, we say Storbritannien instead of Great Britain, Amerikas Förenta Stater instead of United States of America, and so on. (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree your argument is nonsense, the Germans/Dutch/Afrikaans call it PariS, and some languages (Dutch & Afrikaans call SPELL it differently!) but who cares? We're not French, so why should we say it the French way? What about South African cities where no language makes a majority? Your argument is stupid and ignorant. French people can't pronounce Cape Town for example, English people don't know how to pronounce words with umlauts on (I do), so we give them different names.Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The ö is almost never used in English, as almost every place name in Europe has an anglicised version without accents, eg Munich, Dusseldorf, Malmo, Lubeck. Michellecrisp 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, except that "Munich" is not "Munchen," which would be the German name without the diaeresis. Munich is the English name for the city, just as Gothenburg is the English name for Göteborg. --Tkynerd 16:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The official policy is that it is called göteborg, much like Bombey chaning name of Mumbai. I think we can have a referral link from gothenburg but the city has officially changed it's international name to göteborg and I think a proper article should reflect the ACTUAL NAME as opposed to what people call it, and accknowledge IN the article that it has been called something else and might be more well known by that name. --fjafjan

As of the 1st of February, the name of the university will change to University of Gothenburg. Updating the article to reflect this. However, the city itself refuses to acknowledge the Gothenburg name though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

it was recently officially and internationally renamed 'Göteborg'. "champagne" is not pronounced champ-agg-nee, i can think of lots of words that are used every day by english speakers that have funky pronunciations, that honor the actual pronunciation of the source. the renaming might have coincided with a high profile sporting event that happened in Göteborg earlier this year. will keep digging into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still named "Gothenburg". The Official name of the town is Göteborg, in english too, as in all languages. The fact that it used to be called Gothenburg should obviously also be mentioned (suitable right at the start of the article) but the official name is Göteborg. As an Encyclopedia we should write articles under the official names, not the most recognizable ones. I am changing the headline of this article since there has been no response to my previous comment. Fjafjan (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)fjafjan

No, look up naming conventions and they'll tell you that most recognizable english name should be used. In this case that is Gothenburg. It doesn't really matter what the municipality decide to call it self, this article is not limited to the municipal entity. --Krm500 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recognizable English name differs, and it's time for a more fact-based discussion within the Wikipedia naming conventions. The Times of London uses Gothenburg. The New York Times uses Goteborg (without the umlaut). It appears that the use of Gothenburg prevails in Britain, while in the rest of the English-speaking world the prevailing English usage is Goteborg (with or without umlaut). There is a legitimate discussion here about what is the prevailing English usage, though with all due respect to the English speakers of Britain, I would say that the prevaling English usage worldwide is Goteborg. Also from a comprehension standpoint, I think most English speakers who use Gothenburg will recognize that Goteborg refers to the same place. However, the reverse is not true: those who commonly use Goteborg (especially those in North America) will not recognize Gothenburg as an alternative English spelling. underalms —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

In English-language maps, the city is also always referred to as Göteborg, not Gothenburg.

I strongley disagree with you, all my English atlases use the same wording, they sall say: Gothernburg (Goteborg). I know you've heard this a few hundred times: but this is English wikipedia and I personally think that promoting the English name is what we should do on ENGLISH wikipedia.Bezuidenhout (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Death metal spam[edit]

Is there anyone else from Göteborg who thinks that the references to melodic death metal and the bands The Gates, Opeth, Dark Tranquillity, The Haunted, In Flames, and Arch Enemy - are spam? Should that stuff really be here?--Ezeu 01:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't think it is spam, because the bands are notable in regards to google hits; and they have their own articles on wikipedia too. Based on google, more people in the world know about them than about, say Pär Nuder. Fred-Chess 23:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Gothenburg is world famous in the heavy metal community, and is known as the birthplace of a musical style (melodic death metal), just as Seattle was to grunge music, or Washington DC was to hardcore punk. It is a common to hear the term "Gothenburg sound", as is "Swedish melodic death metal". Skeletor2112 04:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Mentioning Gothenburg Metal is in no way spam! The city is world famous for it's melodic death bands. There is probably a lot more people that knows about Gothenburg Metal than the University of Gothenburg (a quick google search also indicates that). Ran4 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoever thinks mentioning the notable bands of the Göteborg scene is a spam, doesn't have the slightest idea about the music.

Norum (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

These traditional forms are now widely replaced[edit]

I've reversed the section regarding the "traditional form". It is very uncommon in contemporary German. The Leipziger Wortschatzlexikon which summarises word usage in (print) media gives about 2500:20 for Göteborg:Gothenburg. --Pjacobi 12:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Pop Music[edit]

I changed It is also the pop music capital of Sweden, with an active indie scene. which didn't sound alltogether objective, into It is also a pop music center in Sweden, with an active indie scene. I'm quite sure that there are more pop artists in Stockholm than in Gothenburg. Though Gothenburg might be considered to be the capital of swedish comedy and humor. Battra 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Well maybe more but not close to Gothenburg considering quality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

I created at gallery of Sites of interests in Gothenburg, hope other users agree this is sites worth seeing. I´ve also written a piece on the Culture of Gothenburg (which somebody added some info on death metal-bands) and on the cuisine of Gothenburg, a subject in its own right, I think. I´ve also expanded most of the other subjects: history, geography, transportation etcetera. User:Erik031

I have added the naming of Gothenburg, Nebraska after Gothenburg, Sweden to the history section. My dad's family is from Gothenburg, Nebraska and are continually talking about the link, so I thought I would add it to this article. user:bigk83

Hi everyone, I believe that the images in our article are of quite poor quality. For example, the Ullevi stadium (the image of which I have recently changed) did'nt show much of the architecture, but only the playing ground (which looks like any other playing ground in the world). Or consider the picture of "Hangelshogskolen", which together with the rainy sky gives a rather boring impression. Another exapmle is the picture of the bench in slottsskogen (site of interest), which is of course a nice idea, but taken into account that the space and number of possible images is limited, it adds no substantial information to the article. Benches are found worlwide and are nothing typical for Gothenburg. Wouldn't it be nice to delete some of the existing pictures and introduce some others that have more informational value? This is of course just a suggestion. Hope to hear from you, Daniel

I have uploaded an image of Gothenburg's old university, since I believe that this gives a better impression of the architecture in Vasastan than the picture of the "Hangelshogskolen", which I have deleted. I hope you agree with me. Daniel

Removed information[edit]

Somebody has copied all the information from the individual articles on Liseberg, the Botanical Garden etcetera (which I am a major contributor on I can add) and put them in the head article on Gothenburg. I see no reason to do this - all you get is a lengthy article on the sites of interest which nobody will read. All the information on the different sites of interest can be read when you just click on link of the article; you get a much clearer view of the subjects this way. User:Erik031

I am sorry. I thought it may be nice to have a somewhat longer article on the main sights, which I find is underrepresented. But I can see your point. However, don't you think we should add some more information? Daniel

Sure, I see you added some info on Avenyn, The Avenue, which is OK i think. But the Sites of Interest-section don't need to be too long a piece, I think, and when you look at other cities - say Stockholm - they only have pictures under this heading. There also is separate tourist-information on Gothenburg on Wiki Travel, there is a link to this article on the bottom of the page. But if you wish to contribute on the the other subjects of the Gothenburg-article you're welcome of course! And by the way, I also think the Going Out-information which someone added on the Gothenburg-article belongs better on the Wiki Travel-page and not here in the encyclopedia, but the info is correct, I guess, so I haven't removed it. Cheers! User:Erik031

(Temp) Move from article[edit]

I'll integrate it into the article later.

==Miscellaneous topics==

According to a recent survey of Swedish media, Gothenburg was voted the most popular major city in Sweden, ahead of Stockholm and Malmö. More than 60% of all Swedes would like to live in Gothenburg, which has a reputation of being even friendlier and more welcoming than the Swedish capital.

Off the coast of Gothenburg is the Southern Gothenburg Archipelago, a group of completely car-free islands.

Gothenburg is a twin town of Chicago and Shanghai.

In 2006, the number of days where the levels of NO2 was higher than 60mg/m3 in Gothenburg had exceeded the EU air pollution limit for the year by the end of January. The level of dust PM10 also exceeds the EU framework directive for ambient air quality 1999/30/EC and the four Daughter Directives. Not surprisingly is Gothenburg the only city in Sweden that has a regular Critical Mass demonstration every month.

On the evening of October 29 1998, a fire developed in the premises of the Macedonian Association discotheque in Gothenburg. On the evening of the fire it was estimated that the number of people in the disco reached 400. In this incident 63 people died[8] [9].

A point of some controversy is the fact that the borough councils do not reflect the local majority, but follow the majority at City Hall for the entire municipality.

==Going out==

Gothenburg has many restaurants and bars. The nightlife is concentrated along the street "Avenyn", and further north. Alcohol in Sweden is expensive due to high taxes, but this concerns shops mostly. The price of beer in bars and restaurants is in the range US$4-6 or €3-5.

== See also ==

I couldn't find a good spot for the image, but the history section is just wrong. Fred-Chess 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only think you've made the Gothenburg article less attractive - why did you take all the pictures away and made them smaller? It looks plain boring now. The pictures fit in well - the Poseidon statue is a symbol of the city, and was erected after the 1923 exhibition when the city manifested its 300th anniversary. And the picture of Gothenburg harbour illustrates transportation, economy as well as geography. It´s okay to add new information, but I don't understand what you are doing. And what are you going to do with the info you´ve taken away? It seems to me that you are a bit "klåfingrig" as we say in Swedish. I change it back to an earlier version. ...sorry if I reacted strongly. I see you made contributions as well, but can´t you add the info without taking things away? Perhaps it´s OK with subcategories, though. Please respond. User:Erik031

Klåfingrig, eh? Actually I was Being Bold, as we say on Wikipedia.
Please do not insert the Poseidon statue in the history section. Images are ment to illustrate the text, not act as cliparts. But lets discuss the Poseidon image: give some reference why exactly Poseidon should illustrate this section? Why not something else?
When it comes to image sizes, I thought that the preferred image size was the standard image size. But I don't hold any strong position on that matter.
Why should the harbour illustrate the geography section? It is called Geography which is why a geographical image is to be preferred.
If your claw fingers can find some suitable place for the images, then just put them there.
When it comes to section "going out" -- do you expect me to take that seriously?
In regards to the trivia parts -- they do not make much sense. Possibly they could be integrated with other section -- the section about air pollution could be integrated into a section about environment for instance.
Fred-Chess 14:54, 30 May 2006

OK. You might have a point, the satellite image is a good illustration, and the subsections might be a good idea. But I can´t see why the images has to be so small - when I look at other cities, for exemple New York, Stockholm or, say, your homecity Malmö there are larger illustrations which works good; they are contrasts to the smaller gallery-images (which I created in the Gothenburg-article).

  • And the harbour-image is a good illustration at least for the Economy-section of Gothenburg (and perhaps Transportation) - the port of Gothenburg is very important for the economy of the city, and the largest in northern Europe.
  • No, I´m not in favour of the "Going Out"-section either, I haven't put it there. I only reacted on your clean sweap of the article, and changed it back to an earlier version.
  • And I still think the Poseidon statue is a good illustration of Gothenburg, it has become one the most frequent symbols of the city. Perhaps I shouldn´t compare it to the Eiffel tower, but it's the same kind of city emblem.
  • The other stuff you put away I'm not sure about - is it wrong to mension famous people of the city? I see that info on other cities, Edinburg for example. I'll look through the new version and come back to you - a dialogue on this matters is what Wikipedia is about, OK?

Erik031 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I am all in favour of discussing, and I don't mind changing my mind if proven wrong.
When it comes to image sizes -- as I said -- I was under the impression they should be 180px (standard) width, but I can find no consensus on this matter whatsoever, so feel free to enlarge them as you think looks best
When it comes to the structure, I am somewhat trying to follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities recommendations as well as the way some featured articles are structured, such as Bath and Canberra. For instance, none of those articles have a "notable natives" section -- and to be frank, I have never seen such a list in a renowned encyclopedia either. The reason is obvious: it encourages anyone to add their favourite person which may or may not say something to the reader. I have also removed suchs lists from both Stockholm and Malmö (moved to list of people connected to Stockholm and expanded and to list of people connected to Malmö); just as we now have list of people connected to Gothenburg.
Fred-Chess 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that there have been made some changes on the article. I havn't read the entire article since the change but I can directly see that some images have been removed. I'm thinking about the picture with the old classic tram going down avenyn. It looks like it has been replaced by a quite boring picture of a number 4 tram. Why? The tram that is on the current picture will be replaced på the new trams and the other picture was much better. And it showed a more classic look then the current picture.

I'm also thinking about that maybe there should be something about Götatunneln and the plans for södra ävstranden since this will be a major change for the city. I have pictures from the tunnel on opening day if there arn't any avalible.--Krm500 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I had removed the image of the old streetcar because I thought it was there by mistake. While the vintage streetcar might look nicer to some, it is probably more useful to have an article that is up-to-date. Oh well.
Götatunneln will probably lead to transportation changes, yes. If you want to upload photos, I'm sure they'd suit the article.
Fred-Chess 22:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I restored the old tram (I liked it better too), which also had some nice 19th century Avenyn architecture in the background. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Is the correct title really mayor as stated in the article? I thought we have no mayors in sweden… Kreca 23:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not the correct term but I don't know how too translate his title. --Krm500 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it might be confusing, since some cities actually have a mayor (Linköping has a "borgmästare").-- 11:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Göteborg does have a mayor (borgmästare), his name is Jörgen Linder. [edit] It looks like his official title is Lord Mayor while Göran Johansson uses the title Mayor. Pax:Vobiscum 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
When Time featured, among others, Annika Billström as part of a cover story last year she was described as one of several new and dynamic European mayors.
Peter Isotalo 07:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In Scotland Borgmästare would be the Provost (see Provost (civil)), but Göran Johansson is definitely not the mayor: he is the political leader of the council (in Scotland: Convener).

I suppose that the best widely-understood English-language term for Jörgen Linder is "mayor", but definitely not for Johansson ("Leader of the Council" seems to be the standard term in England, but I'm not sure about other English-speaking countries).

(Incidentally, the translation of "kommun" to "municipality" is unecessary. We use "commune" for the French local govt. units, so there is no need to invent a new translation for the same word in Swedish.)--Mais oui! 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Municipality is definatley what should be used here, just because it's used to describe french "communes" doesnt mean that we shouldnt use municipality which is the correct term. Kreca 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Chief Councillor? although many American mayors are the elected heads of Boards of Councillors or Township Committees. Septentrionalis 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked it up and Johanssons title is actually mayor--Krm500 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just decided (perhaps foolishly) to chime in on this. Johansson may have decided to use the title "Mayor" in English, but that doesn't mean it is the correct English term to describe him; the term we use here to describe him should correspond to his actual function, not to what he chooses to call himself -- the idea is to convey to English speakers (particularly those who don't speak Swedish) what his position really is. I'll also note in passing, per the discussion above, that the usual U.S. term for his position would be "City Council President." --Tkynerd 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Göteborgs Stad official webpage has him as "Göran Johansson, Mayor and Chairman of the City Executive Board" and "Jörgen Linder, Lord Mayor and Chairman of the City Council". --Krm500 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, that doesn't mean that text aimed at native English speakers should title him Mayor. He should only be titled Mayor if he is performing the functions of a mayor, which he is not. If he is described as the mayor, English speakers (who actually know what that word means) will be misled. --Tkynerd 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern but there's not much we can do about it, we can't change their (Linder & Johansson) official titles. Mayor and other titles can mean diffrent things/functions in diffrent countries. --Krm500 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you do understand my concern. Swedish officials can only have Swedish official titles. Other titles are translations, and they need to be accurate. The fact that the city's official Web site uses an inaccurate translation is no reason why Wikipedia should. --Tkynerd 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the Wikipedia article Mayor -"A mayor (from the Latin māior, meaning "larger", "greater") is the modern title of the highest ranking municipal officer." and "In many systems, the mayor is an elected politician who serves as chief executive and/or ceremonial official of many types of municipalities. Worldwide, there is a wide variance in local laws and customs regarding the powers and responsibilities of a mayor, as well as the means by which a mayor is elected or otherwise mandated". --Krm500 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So tell me: Which is Göran Johansson? Chief executive, or ceremonial official? He is neither; instead, he is a legislative official. He's just not a mayor. --Tkynerd 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The city's own website says "Göran Johansson, Mayor and Chairman of the City Executive Board" [10] --AW 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea! But all that is unofficial. The "city" is a municipality (kommun) and the "mayor" is kommunstyrelsens ordförande(chairman of the municipal board). --Muniswede 07:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move Duja 12:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

GothenburgGöteborg — Göteborg is the official name of the city in all languages, see Nehletalk҉ 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Weak Support Although Gothemburg is still widely used, I believe that Göteborg is gaining wider usage among English speakers (and the provided link confirms that even the city's official website prefers to utilize the Swedish variant for English).--Húsönd 13:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I know that the city uses Göteborg more and more but that doesn't change the fact that Gothenburg is a widely used english version of the name, and this is the english Wikipedia. --Krm500 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: stick with the English name, where one exists. Jonathunder 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Use English. No evidence that English usage has changed. Septentrionalis 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should use the English name where one exists. And Gothenburgers should be proud that their city has an English name; it shows that it is more widely known and more important than, say, Borås or Skövde. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence that Goteborg has become the most widely used English name. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE and (to my surprise) the continued usage of Gothenburg in English in Sweden (anecdotal -- please don't ask for citation). —  AjaxSmack  06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Septentrionalis. Google Book searches also do not indicate an overwhelming shift from one to the other.[11],[12] Olessi 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

  • I'm working on a new infobox which fetures both Göteborg and Gothenburg in the headline. I can't see any reason for moving the article to Göteborg. --Krm500 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New infobox added[edit]

First of all - Opinions?

Secondly - I decided to use the engraving from the 17th century since there isn't any good image of Gothenburg available on Wikipedia. And before we change the image I think we should discuss what the image should illustrate. Since Gothenburg doesn't have a skyline, but plenty of old, good looking buildnings I think that it's the best we can come up with right now. My suggestion is "Wijkska huset" with the big harbour canal in foreground or simply Götaplatsen.

Please check if the stats for the urban area are correct. From what I understand, the urban area of Gothenburg consists of Gothenburg Municipality, Mölndal Municipality and Partille Municipality. --Krm500 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The new infobox looks ok. (But don't remember how the old one looked so can not tell if it is better than before.) But I disagree about the city's nickname. Sure "Lilla London" is one known nickname but the nickname "Götet" is used way more often, at least in Swedish. So if there should be a nickname in the infobox I suggest using "Götet". --David Göthberg 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Götet is not a nickname, it's a hypocorism of the name. Personally I'd like to remove all nicknames since the city is known by many names but none is official. --Krm500 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it would be better to remove the nickname(s). --David Göthberg 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest university city?[edit]

DN cites Stockholm as having 73 000 students in an article in 2005: [13], and Stockholm's website says "around 80 000 students a year" [14] 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the Stockholm urban area probably has more students than Göteborg urban area, but not in the actual muncipality.Poktirity 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Immigrant population...[edit]

"The Iranian population, as well as other immigrants from the Middle East (notably Iraq) and former Yugoslavia, is concentrated in Angered (most notably Bergsjön, Hjällbo and Hammarkullen) and other suburbs in the north east."

Is there any REAL source to this?

-- Well, I live in Gothenburg and as far as I know that information is rather accurate. All Iraqi, Iranian and most of the Yugoslavian people i know live there (And my father is a former yugoslavian so know quite a bit of them) -- (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture gallery[edit]

I think there are som pictures in the gallery that should be deleted - there are two nearly identical pictures of the Gothia Towers. The picture of Vasagatan doesn´t show anything - only that Gothenburg like many other cities has avenues. And the picture of the Paddan boat are of a rather poor quality, the house is cut off. Shouldn´t one weed out some of the pictures? Erik031 13:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Acctualy picture galleries should not even be in articles. --Krm500 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The link to the Commons gallery is sufficient. I fail to see what value a picture of some people walking at Nordstan or bicycles parked at Vasagatan adds to the article. --Ezeu 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I´ve started this discussion - but, sorry, I disagree. I think some pictures can give a quick glimpse of a given city and therefore contains an information an knowledge value. Actually, many city articles on Wikipedia have such galleries. I´ll think I add SOME pictures again. Erik031 08:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at other cities again and find the image galleries valuable. The Stockholm article, for exemple, has been given an GA rating, and nobody has remarked on the picture gallery. I can´t find any rules saying you shouldn´t have such a gallery - an important question must be if you have pictures worthy of a gallery, and I think Gothenburg does for sure. Erik031 09:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:Cities have a policy of not using galleries, but I have to look it before I can say anything for sure. Stockho,m might have reached GA but maybe take a look at some of the FA articles, I'd bet there's no image gallery there. --Krm500 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Stockholm is GA (per its talk page), and yes, it has a picture gallery. In fact, Seattle, Washington is FA and has a gallery. I haven't looked through its (long) history to see whether the gallery was added after it was FA'd, though. There are plenty of other city FAs that, while they lack galleries, have images liberally strewn through the article. --Tkynerd 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

This isn't a big issue: but somebody removed two external links I´ve added. One link concerns the architecture of Gothenburg, the other urban planning. I think there are good reasons why they should be there: the architect quide in English is written by scholars and is a thorough description of both the architecture and thereby of the history of the city. The urban planning guide shows what will be built in the years to come. The latter is written by the city authority and the facts are trustworthy. I think these links gives a deeper insight on this topics of the city and that the two links are more interesting than the link to the city´s hotel for example. Thus I´ve added them again.Erik031 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing with the links is that they have no connection to the body of the article. It would be most helpful if you actually wrote something about those things, and used the links as references. / Fred-Chess 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased opinion[edit]

Under the culture section, sub section Music, somebody has changed the first line to read that Gothenburg was the town where Sweden´s "greatest composer" Kurt Atterberg was born. Not only is it a questionable phrase to begin the music paragraph with but it is not an established fact that Kurt Atterberg is Sweden´s greatest composer. For example Hugo Alfvén is considered the best known classical composer abroad, and there are many other names - recent or elder. I therefore change text.Erik031 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sankta Birgittas kapell[edit]

Please see query at:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:City of Gothenburg.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. I have added a copyright explanation to the image's description page. --David Göthberg 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I´ve tried to add some of the fotnotes which the article is missing, but somebody has changed back to an earlier version without notes, where it is stated that the text lacks notes. Why do you change back? Erik031 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tack for adding the footnotes in, I put the unreferenced section tag as I thought it was odd that statistics were stated without references. Michellecrisp 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don´t know if it is you or someone else Michelle, but the my addition of notes are being deleted. And I can´t see any reason. This, for sure, isn´t in accordance with any wiki guidelines - I´m trying to improve the text. I change back to an earlier version again. I somebody has any complains please give a good reason, but don´t just simply take away the notes and changes - my sources are the Swedish National Encyclopedia.

Erik031 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik031, the article history shows no edits by you between 30 March and 20 June, and no edits by anyone other than you since 20 June. Can you link to a diff that shows your footnotes being deleted? I'm puzzled by your statement that someone has reverted the article to a version without footnotes. --Tkynerd 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Erik031, this is a complete before and after of all my Gothenburg edits [15] I did not remove the footnotes. Michellecrisp 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
OK! Maybe I´m the one deleting my text. Sorry.Erik031 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


The map looks very strange to me, it's in a weird projection that makes the country much wider than it should be. Can we get a more common one? One like this one, for example: Image:Visby in Sweden.png --AW 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree but the change was made to avoid images/maps being used for only one article. The map in the infobox has some sort of coordinates that displays Gothenburg at it's location. And can be used for all cities in Sweden. --Krm500 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The map I mentioned is the CIA Factbook map with a dot on it. Why don't we just used the black CIA Factbook map? Uppsala and Helsingborg use that map too. --AW 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the current one either but it's there so we don't have map used for only one city. This single map could be used for all cities in Sweden. Personally I'd like to see a map which show most part of northern Europe, or at least all of Scandinavia. --Krm500 15:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Like this one Stockholm --AW 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Melodic death metal[edit]

It isn't exactly proper for this article to say that Melodic Death Metal utilizes clean singing because more often than not, it uses some sort of scream. 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

--You have a point there. Though I'd say it utilizes "grownling" rather than screaming. -- (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

High Schools[edit]

I am not sure why Hvitfeldska, Samskolan etc are more "prominent" than others. These are typically the upper class schools but frankly I see no reason to mention these above any others, and so I am going to keep Hvitfeldska which is I think the biggest and oldest but remove the reference to the others as they are just opinion Fjafjan 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Most of the stuff about Geats on wikipedia is completely anachronistic. It is a term from Beowulf, about a legendary tribe somewhere in Southern Scandinavia. This anglosaxon poem was completely unknown when Gothenburg was founded, so the city cannot have been named after those Gæts. /Pieter Kuiper 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I just leave that comment to demonstrate your ignorance, or should I bother to explain that "geats" is english for "götar"? /Leos Friend 23:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Gætas was an anglosaxon word for people in Southern Scandinavia. It applies to the period 500-1000. The word was unknown in 1621 when Gothenburg was founded. It is not a word in modern English. /Pieter Kuiper 00:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would the swedish words götar/göte be unknown in the 17th century? --Krm500 00:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the English used the words Geats and Geatland long after that period, and still do on occasions, when referring to history. And the transliteration from Swedish ö to English e is still in use, as in dröm/dream/söt/sweet, etc. /Leos Friend 00:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in my Norstedts stora svensk-engelska ordbok (1994) it says:
Göt s hist., folk Geat
Götisk adj hist. Geatish
So according to my Swedish-English dictionary, what we call Götar in Swedish are called Geats in English.--Berig 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should be very easy then for you Swedes to come up with lots of print examples in post-1066 English of the use of the words Geats, geatish, and Geatland outside the context of Anglosaxon studies. /Pieter Kuiper 07:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Norstedts stora svensk-engelska ordbok is a valid work of reference for how Swedish names and words are translated into English. There is little reason to repeat the background work of their staff. Maybe you could help out?--Berig 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Is not is a bit ... provincial, to bring up a Swedish dictionary as an authoritative source here? The Oxford English Dictionary does not have an entry geat. Under "goth" I found that Touchstone says: I am here with thee, and thy Goats, as the most capricious Poet honest Ovid was among the Gothes. The OED has an entry Gothonic: "A name introduced by Dr. Gudmund Schütte to include all early Germanic and Scandinavian peoples." That might be a useful term for you sometimes, but not really in connection with the name of Gothenburg. /Pieter Kuiper 12:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think attempting to discredit standard works of reference will get you anywhere in this debate.--Berig 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This entry confirms that "Geat" is, not just was, in fact a standard English word with the meaning being discussed here. --Tkynerd 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Merriam-Webster confirms that the word is limited to the context of anglosaxon studies. /Pieter Kuiper 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can Pieter Kuiper please explain why it "confirms that the word is limited to the context of anglosaxon studies"?
a member of a Scandinavian people of southern Sweden to which the legendary hero Beowulf belonged[16]
IMHO, it only mentions Beowulf because he is the most notable Geat for English speakers. I cannot see on what Pieter bases his interpretation.--Berig 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Beowulf was the only geat the English really noticed. They did not notice any geats among the extortionist raiders they paid Danegeld to? /Pieter Kuiper 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Why should they? They appear to have called all Scandinavians "Danes".--Berig 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion, the word geat is not just limited to Anglosaxon studies, it is limited to the field of Beowulf studies. A literary work, something like Lord of the Rings. Not much to do with real geography. /Pieter Kuiper 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're drawing that conclusion based on what? See Geat (and, for good measure, Goths; they're not the same thing, as those articles make clear). Further, in discussing the basis of the name of Gothenburg, it's obvious we're talking about history, so why avoid terms that are only used to refer to historical phenomena? It would be like saying we can't mention the Pilgrims in a history of the United States because there are no Pilgrims today. --Tkynerd 18:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Tkynerd, have you read Beowulf? It is way more fantasy than Tolkien. /Pieter Kuiper 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper, can you read English? The Geats aren't a fictional people just because Beowulf was a fictional character and a Geat, any more than Americans are a fictional people just because Scarlett O'Hara was a fictional character and an American. I don't think you know what you're talking about, based on what you've written. It would appear you don't know how to correctly interpret the M-W citation I linked to. --Tkynerd 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Götar, in English Geats, are the people in Götaland (southwest Sweden), where the first Swedish kings resided. The Geats are historical reality in the same way as svear (Swedes) are - the latter being the tribe that gave Sweden it's name. This isn't a disputing matter in Swedish history. What importance the different tribes or groups had is however, but that is besides the point. And Beowulf, this eloquent poem, is of course a fictional story in the same way as the great Norse viking poems. Erik031 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
All this only shows that Gothicismus is alive in Sweden. In 1620 the Swedes felt a desperate need to link themselves to the internationally renowned Goths from Roman history. Now that Anglosaxon nations are dominating the world, they want to be Geats. A bit silly, I think. /Pieter Kuiper 16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Christ allmighty! Can´t you read - nobody except yourself is talking about the Goths. It´s just a similarity of names, that way of thinking about historical events and people has been outdated since the 18th century I think. But perhaps you just like to keep the debate going, eh? :-)Erik031 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ehm... the Name Göteborg is based on the SWEDISH word Göte, an therefore the swedish knowing of the english word Geat or not knowing of the word when Gothenburg/Göteborg was founded is irrelevant. Furthermore the area where Göteborg is located is known as Västra Götaland which is part of a larger region called Götaland. And you don't really have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this is probably where the name came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Skansen Crown??[edit]

As far I know names shouldn't be translated and Skansen Kronan should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I moved the article to Skansen Kronan. --Krm500 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality of pictures[edit]

I think that the pictures under the Sites of interest-section are rather poor, the sightseeing picture has choped off the roof of the house and the Liseberg picture are blurry.Erik031 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Way too many images in the article... --Krm500 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Stock exchange building (photo gallery in the bottom)???[edit]

Well, first of all, the building is not a stock exchange buildning and have never been, Although, it has once been used as a trading/meeting-place for merchants. It is a building that the City is using for dinners et c and the name of the building is "Börsen" (a word with many meanings and one is "stock exchange"). The habit is not to translate names and WHY translate it into something that is wrong and gives people a feeling that the building is/was used for stock exchange. If it should be translated it should be "City Banquet Hall" or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Gothenburg's climate is oceanic, not humid continental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Citation Needed from the discussion of maximum/minimum daylight hours. This isn't something that needs to be referenced - it's just a property of Gothenburg's latitude and can be easily verified using any number of online calculators. Freeinfo (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Göteborg Coat of Arms[edit]

Why is not the accurate Coat of Arms on display. The one on the page is maybe the old one but certainly not the accurate one. Are wikipedia prohibited by the copy right owners (e.g. the city)? I have noticed that in the swedish article the Coat of Arms is not published at all...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)  :To see what I refer to as the accurate Göteborg Coat of Arms, see [[17]].

It's not the same artistic interpretation, but it's definately the same coat of arms. They are standardized only by textual description of the motive, and hence, heraldically, the shown coat of arms is the same as the one which is used by the city as a logotype, even though they differ. The blazon is still the same. The version used by the city is not included in (at least swedish WP) due to copyright issues. (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a problems with coats of arms on Wikipedia. The text description (blazon) is usable free from copyright, but the exact logotype is copyrighted. Therefore different renderings of the coats of arms are used on Wikipedia. This has been discussed several times on Swedish Wikipedia. Sometimes municipalities and government organizations have objected against the Wikipedia version of their coat of arm based logotype, but still they do not allow their logotype to be public domain. There is a difference between the logotype rules and the coat of arm rules, allowing a correct version of the coat of arm be outside the logotype copyright. --BIL (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Bush demonstrations[edit]

What is the relevance of the information provided within the one-line remark about the demonstrations in Gothenburg during G. W. Bush visit? Is it a fact that significantly characterizes the city? It rather seems to be just a biased comment. I would propose removing the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is most definitely a major event in the recent history of the city. And I don't see how it is biased? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 01:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Göteborg changes name back to Gothenburg[edit]

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good so far. Strictly the formal legal name of course is "Göteborgs kommun", regardless of language, when it comes to the local governmet entity. But the locality is one of few in Sweden with a specific name in English. I think that is something the inhabitants should be proud of. After all it means that Gothenburg is well known internationally. Nässjö, Hässleholm or Örebro have no English names, even if they also use "peculiar" letters like "Ä" and "Ö". Therefore I think the use of the form "City of Gothenburg" is much better than "City of Göteborg". I think it is the same with with the university. --Muniswede (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]



I noticed on the Lödöse page (and similarly on the higher order Lilla Edet Municipality page) that, these pages state Gothenburg moved to it's current site from Lödöse in 1473 explaining that "trapped as it was between Norway and Denmark, Lödöse was moved to the site of present day Gothenburg (Göteborg) to escape taxes levied on merchants". This would seem to be an important part of Gothenburgs history should it be correct. I have not been able to find other references which I consider trustworthy. I feel it should be included, but it would need to be verified, presumably by someone with local knowledge. L-Bit (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


Think this is fairly clearly deserving to be in this article, but am having trouble positioning it. Any ideas? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism regarding the Sister cities list[edit]

Dear all, in the past months I have corrected the reference to a sister city (Badalona, Spain) around half a dozen times. Someone keeps changing it to Badalona, Catalonia.

Badalona is located in Catalonia, an autonomous community inside Spain. As for all other sister cities, it is my understanding we should give the Country entity as a reference for the city. Thus, we should let it as Badalona, Spain, and not Badalona, Catalonia. This seems related to Catalonian independentism feelings. Funnily enough, the English page for the city of Badalona identifies it as in Spain.

Example: Revision as of 17:17, 6 June 2013 (edit) (undo) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Could we control and ban the IP giving the false information?


Metro system[edit]

I found that it's difficault to build tunnels in Central Gothenburg, but I will try to build a metro system that (for now, later I could create more lines) that has 4 lines: A (blue), B (Red), C (Green) and D (Yellow). Only one line, B serves the northern bank of the river. That is because it connects Gothenburg City Airport via the city centre to Gothenburg-Landvetter Airport. Line C does not go under the city for this reason: It connects Partille with Askim, and I have decided to not go throw the centre. This could use S/300 train, the version currently in use for Rome in Italy.

Line A stations[edit]

  • Toltorpsdalen
  • Bruns backe
  • Fridkullagatan

Götheborg ship[edit]

There is no mention of the Götheborg (ship) in this article. (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)