Talk:Oslo

Imigrants in Oslo

This list must be wrong, is it possible to get a citation? I'm certiain that swedes rank quite high, see http://www.oslo.kommune.no/article142922-7690.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.228.114 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gardemoen

There are absolutely no sources for any of that info. There needs to be some sources cited or else it's all opinion. I also wonder how important it is to include all that info when wikipedia has a page for Gardemoen

Is there a source for it being the most on-time? It seems to directly contradict the wikipedia article on Gardemoen that says it has problems with fog and freezing rain.

Sorry for all these edits, I accidentally deleted my first comment. --109.189.37.229 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sister cities

New York and Washington are listed as sister cities to Oslo, but on the respective page for those cities, Oslo is NOT mentioned in their list of sister cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.125.39 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Holmenkollen is gone

The Norwegian article needs to keep up with the cnahges in Tryvann, Oslo. The Original Holmenkollen Ski Jump is gone, and is about to be replaced with the new consept to stand the test of time.

City flag

The city flag shown in this article is not official and should be deleted, see article List of flags of Norway#Flags of counties and municipalities.

Oslo within Oslo

The infobox reads "Oslo within Oslo" beneath the map, but the map is really of Akershus. Is this possible to fix? It looks like this text is hard-coded into the infobox_kommune-template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.23.90 (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additional info : As mentioned above, the map shows county (and city) of Oslo in red, placed within the county of Akershus marked in grey. TorSch (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (no.wiki) oslo is its own county.

Population

I think the population figures have been messed up by 83.108.248.222's edits. Could someone look into this? no they cant

I believe you're right.

According to Norwegian encyclopedia Oslo has over 800000 peope in it. http://www.snl.no/Oslo

Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 08:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Be aware that even in Norway there are discussions going on how to refer to population numbers. Most towns and cities are referred to by the population living WITHIN CITY LIMITS. With this figure Oslo has less than 600.000 inhabitants. To list cities ranked by population, figures for total population are used, disregarding city/county limits. A population figure of 800.000, say 900.000, will only be reached when surrounding "kommunes" in Akershus County are counted in. TorSch (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (of no.wiki)

I think you are confusing Oslo the city/komune with the 'Oslo region', and the Oslo region contains 1.5 million people. 85.165.91.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

K and / versus Ch

Writing "K" instead of "Ch" began in the (late?) 19th century. It is virtually impossible that King Christian[!] IV should have chosen to call the city "Kristiania".
S.
Of course he did not. And in fact, we started to write his name Kristian IV at the same time as we started to write Kristiania. Kristian IV's gate is not far from Karl Johans gate (Was it ever Carl Johans gate?)
G.

If I'm not mistaken, the spelling of Christiania was changed to Kristiania in 1875.

The original name of Oslo was restored in 1925 but it doesn't say why.

The reason was that Kristiania was named after a king of Denmark. With the independence, the Norwegians wanted to rid themselves of the Danish and Swedish influence, hence renaming a number of towns and cities throughout Norway: Fredrikshald became Halden, Fredriksvern became Stavern and Victoriahavn became Narvik. All these names are the original ones. Don't forget that Oslo was called Oslo for more than 600 years before Christiania came around.

In fact 'Oslo' continued to be the name of the part where the old city was situated before the fire in 1624 and the development of the new city across the bay named 'Christiania'. In 1925 'Oslo' became the name of the hole ciy while the former district of Oslo was renamed 'Gamle Oslo' mening 'Old Oslo'.

None of the mentioned names are "original". Basically, they're reconstructions of supposed Old Norse or local dialect names of the places were towns were erected. The towns themselves had their Danish (or more seldom Swedish) names from the start. These days some of the renamed towns are trying to get rid of the anhistoric, nationalist names, and get the old town name back. Oslo is a special case: The mediaeval city by that name was abandoned in 1624, what was left of stone buildings were used as quarries, and the grounds were levelled and used for pastures. Christiania was a brand new city, to which the citizens of Oslo were partly encouraged, partly forced to move. Official city history has always focused on the "national heritage" aspects, merging the history of the mediaeval city and the modern one. Only lately the historians have recognized that it's actually a matter of two different cities. There was a parallell case one generation earlier, when the mediaeval town of Sarpsborg was abandoned after being destroyed by the Swedish army, and the citizens were moved to the new town of Fredrikstad, which was easier to defend. The man behind this plan, King Frederik II, wanted to do the same thing with Oslo (also destroyed in the war and needing better protection), but the citizens rebuilt the city before the King could act. Only after the city fire in 1924^{[citation needed]}, his son Christian IV, visiting Norway at the time, managed to put the plan into effect. As for Christian, there was no fixed orthography in his days. The spelling of a person's name - even the King's - would differ from writer to writer. I think Kristiern was still a rather common spelling back then, though the international form "Christian" might already have become the most common one. The fixed spelling of kings' names dates from later times anyway. Though it's still common in most countries to translate the names of royalty – thus "Christian" would be the correct spelling in English. Same thing goes for city names: They're usually translated as far as larger and/or internationally known cities goes. Finally: The name "Gamle Oslo" is a recent construction, connected with the administrative reforms of the 1980's/2000's. This administrative unit is much bigger than the mediaeval city. The area until 1924 known as Oslo was called "Gamlebyen" (Old Town) from 1925, and still is.

Oslo, Oslo, Minnesota, Oslo, (disambiguation)

• Should there be also Oslo, (disambiguation)?
• See Special:Allpages/Oslo. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 02:59, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

25 biggest cities of Norway

I've been asked to explain my deletion of Template:25 biggest cities of Norway from Oslo. The City of Oslo has not suddenly gained almost 300 000 inhabitants. See also Talk:Cities of Norway about a page that uses the same erroneous numbers. For example, Stavanger and Sandnes seem to have been merged for the purpose of statistics, yet for Bergen it seems to have been reversed: they "lost" more than 25 000 inhabitants. Some of the numbers cannot possibly be for cities of Norway, but perhaps for conurbations of Norway. Tskoge 10:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you put the template back in. What you've done is basically vandalism. If you disagree with the numbers, the source for which is given in the template itself, the appropriate steps are (1) find a better source and then (2) fix the template accordingly. Tomer^talk 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'll remove the template from all of the remaining pages instead. But it's a boring job, so it'll take a while. In the meantime pages on many of Norway's largest cities will display erroneous information.

I do not dispute the numbers. However, the numbers are obviously not for the mentioned cities' populations. Perhaps for conurbations or urban settlements, but not the claimed cities. Where are the cities of Asker, Bærum, Porsgrunn or Sandnes on that list? How are you going to find these cities? Why stop at 25? Isn't city number 26 or 27 just as interesting as number 25? How is this template useful?

It is not my job to fix all sorts of nonsense. If I see nonsense I will either delete it, or perhaps correct the claimed information, depending on the amount of work and amount of nonsense. The curse of Wikipedia is that it is easy to add all sorts of nonsense, but then it gets difficult to get the nonsense removed just because the nonsense was first. Tskoge 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You have my support on this topic. While "watching" the page with Sandefjord, I did not like this template in the article. Keep up the good work with removing this type of nonsense! To avoid conflicts, perhaps a vote for removal of the template is in order? --Nordby73 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics Norway does not count inhabitants in cities, but rather in regions. This is why there doesn't exist a good list of Norwegian cities sorted by population size. Many Norwegian cities have unclear city borders, since a city's border isn't measured by its population density per square kilometer. An example is the city of Tromsø, which in square kilometres alone should be the largest city, but of course is not the largest city measured by population. Therefore a Top 25 Largest Norwegian Cities list would at best be an approximation.

Further more the list in question is based on flawed interpretation of statistics from Norway Statistics, since the population sizes clearly suggest that the numbers are taken from "grand regions" rather then city regions, giving a better view of how population is spread accross Norway, rather then the actual sizes of cities. --82.148.167.103 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics Norway do list the largest cities (urban settlements) in Norway, see Statistical yearbook of Norway . See also: Population and land area in urban settlements . Urban settlement is here defined as "An agglomeration having at least 200 residents and where the distance between houses as a rule does not exceed 50 metres. An urban settlement is delimited independent of administrative boundaries.". --84.208.198.182 16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oslo -meaning of...

There seems to be different opinions of what the name is derived from, another suggestion I was told at school where "os" -the place where a river runs into the sea, and "Lo" name of river, thereby "Oslo" - where the river Lo runs into the the sea (or fjord as is the case here)

Reply:

According to Språkrådet the name derives from Áslo or Óslo explenation below:

Oslo:

Truleg frå gammalnorsk áss ('gud') og *ló ('eng', 'slette'). I eldre tolkingar har førsteleddet vore knytt til gammalnorsk óss ('os', ::'elvemunning') og áss ('ås'). I gammalnorsk finn ein formene Áslo og Óslo.

Oslo:

Most likely from old norse áss('god') and *ló ('field of some sort, (someone find me a english equilant)).

In older translations(lack of better term) the prefix was connected to óss (os, mentioned above) and áss (hill). in old norse

we find the terms Áslo and Óslo.

(by this I suggest the "history of the name" to be altered)

The interpretation "Mouth of the River Lo" was launched by a 16th century writer who did not know that the river name of his days was a new one, not existing when the city got its name. Anyway, putting the "mouth" (óss") before the river's name is not known in Norwegian (as far as I know). Still this false ethymology was tought in Norwegian schools into modern times. The equilant of -ló" in English place names would be "-ley". More famous are Flemish -loo, like in Waterloo. The meaning of the word is probably "moist meadow". In the case of Oslo, the alternative interpretation "grove" has also been suggested.

Could you maybe point to any references of this being the case in regard to Oslo? As far as I know there is documentation of the above explenation with áslo. Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 12:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Answar to Barend

First admit: That the Icelandic saga writed about the 12 century, about Harald Hardråde founded Oslo is fiction. As it says: According to the Norse sagas, Oslo was founded around 1048 by king Harald Hardråde. Recent archaeological research has uncovered Christian burials from before 1000, evidence of a preceding urban settlement. This called for the celebration of Oslo's millennium in 2000.

That mean that Harald Hardråde NOT founded Oslo because he was born in 1015. Oslo was proberly founded in ca. 950, the time when Harald Bluetooth should invade Norway, -arcording to the Jelling stones from the late 900. And since there has been found Christian burials from before 1000. I can only see it could be from Harald Bluetooth, since he should had Invaded Viken and converted to Christanity, as it is writed on the Jelling stones.

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bl%C3%A5tand

--Comanche cph 16:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Both theories are speculative. Basically, cities were not founded by kings in Viking Age Scandinavia. Market places grew up in places where goods could easily be sold to visiting merchants. At a later stage the most important of these market places developed into permanent cities. Buildings, and even burials are not decisive signs of a permanent city - they might very well be connected to major annual markets. It's possible that Oslo was a market place already in the time of Harald Bluetooth, and it's possible that the King gave this market place some sort of patronage - though there's nothing to prove this. It's not unlikely that Harald Hardråde built a primitive castle at Oslo to defend his claim on Viken, but this doesn't mean he founded a city. Some historians seems to think that we cannot speak of "cities" in Norway until the 12th century, when the bishops and the kings stopped travelling the countryside to consume their incomes locally. A system of royal sanctioning of city right or privileges is not probable before the 14th, or even perhaps 15th century. The sagas were written before this, but still a couple of centuries after the major towns first seems to have occured. But at the times of the saga writers, at least a king (as well as a bishop) was supposed to recide in a city, so a king's name could easily be associated with a city. The idea that King Harald (the one or the other) founded Oslo is probably highly anachronistic.

Harald Hardrade turned into into a trading hub, not founded the city. Harald Bluetooth did not invade and did not convert anyone. 155.55.60.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 12:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Population numbers Oslo metropolitan area and Oslofjord area

1.5 million people seems a very high number for the metropolitan area. That would imply a large area, with considerably distances involved. Also, the claim that 2 million people live around Oslofjord seems as a too large estimate. If you count all counties bordering the fjord - Oslo, Akershus, Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold (Telemark is not in this region and does not border the fjord), you get just over 1.7 million people, and that includes all people in those counties - even though some of them, as in Buskerud, lives far from the fjord, up in the valleys. Orcaborealis 13:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Oslo Teknopol: "1 524 412 av dem bor i Osloregionen. Dette tallet inkluderer innbyggerantallet i Oslo og de 55 kommunene som er med i Samarbeidsalliansen Osloregionen" (English translation: 1,524,412 of them lives in the Oslo region. This number includes the population figures for Oslo and the 55 communes/counties that participates in the Oslo region Cooperative Alliance.). I could partially agree that it might be a little overboard to include this full number in the metropolitan area of Oslo, but at the same time this does include mostly people that might have Oslo as a place of work/important city centre, so it might also be justifiable. -- A-ixemy 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote my edit on the Bergen page, "Is it at encyclopedia level to use the concept of metropolitan area at all as long as there's no tradition for using it in Norway, and no clear definition of what it's supposed to include"? Narssarssuaq 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That there's no tradition, as in like older than year 1800, may be correct. But tradition is not relevant for 2006. What I'm referring to/talking about, is the fact that there has been talk of "Stor-Oslo" since at least 1980, I believe. This is old enough to warrant such a definition, which in english would be "Oslo region" or "Oslo metropolitan area." So, in my opinion, yes, it is at encyclopedia level. --A-ixemy 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. If there exists a consensus of what "Stor-Oslo" includes, do include the figures. If not, an interval could be included, though effort of course should be but into making the article as brief as possible on this point. Narssarssuaq 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics Norway use the term "tettsted" / urban settlement instead of metropolitan area. --84.208.198.182 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a definition used by Statistics Norway that is called Stor-Osloregionen (Greater Oslo Region). It has an area of 6 920 km² and a population of 1 121 020 (051231). This definition included the area around Drammen earlier but defined Drammen as a separate area from 2005. Probably the best official definition of Stor-Oslo so I will add this figure to the article. --Pjred 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

22% of the population are immigrants? I will assume this to be false, until somebody backs it up with a good, trustworthy link. Maybe if one considers all children of immigrants, and children of these people again to be "immigrants". But that's a definite maybe! And furthermore, they ain't immigrants if they're born in the country. I think this link should be removed if somebody doesn't provide hard facts that support it very soon...

There lots of ways to define "immigrant". The most common one have been "a person born abroad, or with at least one parent born abroad". This is a very wide definition, that very well might result in numbers like the one mentioned. Most immigrants in Oslo are Scandinavian anyway, and hardly distinguishable from the native population. Anyway, the statistical definition of the "Greater Oslo Region" is said to be "dynamic", so numbers migh change dramatically if a couple of houses decreases a gap between what's until then is considered inside and outside...

'Most immigrants in Oslo are Scandinavian anyway' isn't born out by these figures: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/ Vauxhall1964 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that the present king, by official definition, is an immigrant. --Hordaland (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A propos area: why is the urban area smaller than the city area, when the former has a larger population? Giese (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not A Beautiful City?

"...the city as a whole is not usually considered beautiful, even by most of its own residents." – I have rescearched this a fair bit, and neither I, nor those who I´ve questioned agree to this quote. Oslo is indeed considered beautiful, at least by most of its own residents. Mostly due to Oslo´s vast areas of "green zones", which is quite unique compared to other capitals of Europe. – Martinor Wed. 26.07.06

Agreed, and it's definitely POV. For example, in my opinion and with my tastes in architecture and city planning, it could actually be the most beautiful city in Norway. Narssarssuaq 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be a reference to the trash problem in the city. Unfortunately, it is common a common problem that people throw away trash on the street and elsewhere... [1] --Jambalaya 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed this claim as it was unsourced, definitely POV, and didn't add anything to the article. jax 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not really POV, littering IS a problem in the city. --Jambalaya 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think info like this is usually added elsewhere on Wikipedia. Narssarssuaq 07:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oslo is generally considered a terrible place in every way - looks, culture, people etc - by everyone in Norway who isn't actually from Oslo, including most outsiders who have moved there. I think this has a lot to do with Oslo symbolizing central authority in a country where people loathe central authority, and have always done so. It's more or less a part of Norwegian culture (outside Oslo) to hate Oslo.

In my opinion, Oslo is a beautiful city - though the "gateway area" around the railway station, the first place people see, is so terribly soulless as to confirm all prejudices outsiders have against the city. --Misha bb 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)(Who's an outsider that have moved to Oslo)

Yeah I pretty much agree with that sentiment, Misha. The area around the central 'square,' Jernbanetorget, isn't exactly the most inspiring cityscape in the world (to put it mildly). But there are many more charming environments to be found outside of it. I also think most 'native' Oslo people try to stay out of the most central area (i.e. around Jernbanetorget) as much as possible - I certainly do. There are even a few fairly hidden nice places in Oslo, which I'm sure tourists never see. Telthusbakken/Fredensborg, Ullevål Hageby to name just a couple. Problem is, there is usually nothing outside of a few nice buildings or a nice sight to see on such places, so there isn't really a reason to go there for most, including tourists. -- A-ixemy 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this information even belong in an encyclopedia? Beautiful or not, who is supposed to decide? I am terrified to read statements such as "Oslo is generally considered a terrible place in every way" above. In Wikipedia policy this kind of statements are called weasel words and should be avoided. By the way, I was born and raised in Oslo and find beauty and ugliness both, just as I do in other cities around the world.Wameya (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been living several times in Oslo. I would say it has some nice places, but in general it is not partcularly beautiful, but not particularly ugly either (at least not compared to a city like Manchester in England). But I guess it should not be included unless someone has any reference to statistics. --Oddeivind (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) i have walked around in many areas of oslo and it looks terrible. inconsistent architecture with old and new side by side in places. only a few places look good.

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) 15:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Name section

I broadened the heading from "meaning of name" so that I could move the Dahl quote and some of the other naming information out of the history section, where it mostly seemed out of place. If you think this change was unhelpful, by all means revert. Many cities have a naming section like this, so it's not out of place. I also renamed the Communications section as Transport, since the former usually refers to things like telephone network, and the section was entirely about modes of transport. Walkerma 06:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Why is there no map showing the location of Oslo in Norway? Deigo 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why? There really should be. I'm norwegian and i couldn't tell you that was Oslo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.96.195 (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

It would have been nice if someone made a new Infobox for this article. The Present box is messy, specially around the population numbers.

There is no need for an infobox just for Oslo; the current infobox is used in all Norwegian municipality articles, and consistency is very important. Also, I'm not sure why you think it's messy - is it because it's not showing the population of the urban area? In that case, that problem is present in several other articles about cities with much higher urban populations than municipality populations. --Aqwis 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous residents

Something has to be done to establish what kind of noability-limit we need for this kind of lists. I think only the "very most famous" should be listed, but this is of course a very subjective thing. Still, I think we must stop people from adding their personal favourite here. Greswik (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What criterion did you use in trimming the list? -- Hebrides (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As i said: it is really hard to make criterions. That's why I started this discussion. There are still people there I think don't belong, but input on how to make criterions would be great. Of course, you can say everybody born in Oslo having an article may belong, but then the list will obviously be far to long.Greswik (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the list from the article, and linking to the category with the full list. To be honest, i believe a list of "famous residents" chosen randomly is against NPOV, unless we have a source or something. --Aqwis (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Otherwise, criterions could be Nobel laureate, multiple Olympic gold medal winner, boss of UN organization or really big NGO, perhaps Oscar-winner.. - but it will be really difficult to make this. Also, once made people will of course object to it, and we will possibly never manage to agree. But let's see for some days if we get something genious? Greswik (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Greswik, I think your criteria for selection are arbitrary. Why is Knutsen more important than the queen? And why do you prefer Christensen to Nesbø? --Gejan (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I kept Christensen because: In 2002 he received the The Nordic Council's Literature Prize for his book The Halfbrother. My impression is this is the highest prize (barring the Nobel prize). Nesbø has Rivertonprisen and Glasnöklen, so I was not sure about it- this seems impressing.But I think Nordic Council's is the "highest" one. Am I wrong? Tell me. Or perhaps we get to many writers on the list if we even accept Nordic Counisls prize? But my point is: if every notable person in Oslo should be on the list, it will be to far damn long. You are in a way also making my point: it's hopeless to keep this a short list. Add him back if you want to, I don't own the article, and he has some well known prizes. The queen is just a queen. I may be hard, but her fame is just thru marriage. You want her on the list? You can argue for it. I know. Knutsen is a tough case. I left him of totally personal reasons, because I think he is the best Norwegian hockey-player ever. (and I will add: I know I'm not the only one thinking so, but I don't have any links. I would never have moved him in on the list though... :-/ ) Of course, you can argue he must go. And I would have been silenced easily (for once;-)). I assume you removed Hassel by mistake? Or is there some reason you not wanted him on the list? So, again: Should we agree to remove the list alltogehter? It is probably the only NPOV solution. (and to quickly add here: Kagge and Ousland, I could probably not explain why I not removed.) Greswik (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think people like to have a list of famous people born in a city. If you think a more extensive list would blow-up the article too much, I suggest to create a separate article like it was done for other cities and just link to it. Then you don't have to be so restrictive.--Gejan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spurious demonym – osloenser

The infobox mentions a Denonym; Osloenser. This is a word I have never read or heard before I saw it here. While it is possible to construct a word like that and it has meaning, it is not used and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.172.63 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also a bit queasy about this one. I think perhaps it does occur, only it is used very rarely. __meco (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will remove it. I may have heard it used, but this is really rare... 363 Ghits tells it tales. Greswik (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An undisputable reference is given, so this issue has been resolved.193.157.228.182 (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition: The correct Norwegian spelling is "oslomann", "oslokvinne" and "osloenser", without capitalization. (Stor eller liten forbokstav? -- Ord med geografiske namn eller personnamn, Innbyggernavn). However, it is written as a part of an English text, where it is correct to capitalize such words. I suggest someone decide whether Norwegian or English rules have precedence here, and if the decision falls on Norwegian (which I think is correct), change the sentence to "Oslokvinne (f) / oslomann (m) (also osloenser)".193.157.228.182 (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I must protest accepting Språkrådet as an authority on prevalence in use of this term. "Osloenser" simply is either unknown to people from Oslo, or, should they happen upon it, they unequivocally abhor it. Språkrådet are bureaucrats and their misses when it comes to describing accurately what the actual terms are that are in prevalent usage are plentyfold. This is one such miss. Very common terms appear to be "Oslojente" and "Oslogutt" (Oslo girl/boy) for the younger generations. __meco (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember: verifiability, not truth. Unless a reliable source for "Oslokvinne" and "Oslomann" is found, preferably explaining that they are more common than "Osloenser", they should be removed from the article; or at the very least, "Osloenser", which is actually cited, should be listed as the primary demonym. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The same site citing "osloenser" also cites "oslokvinne" and "oslomann". Link from the article page, reference 1.193.157.228.182 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

People from Oslo are refered to as Osloborger, not Osloer or Oslomann etc. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 09:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

The terrorist that carried out the attacks in Oslo/Norway in 2011 should not be listed under "notable residents". This is disappointing that people like this are getting recognition for their crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.21.88 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Helsinki?

Finland isn't really considered part of Scandinavia. Thus, I feel it's incorrect to include it in the comparison of the largest Scandinavian cities. DarkPhoenix (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But it sounds a bit non-informative to tell that Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo are the three biggest cities of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP policy even what seems obvious should be stated. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Map in info-box

The tiny map called Oslo within Norway does have a tiny red dot showing the location of Oslo. But it's virtually invisible, even if one knows where to look. Could it be made more prominent? Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate description

User Karachh deleted a lot of stuff describing Oslo's climate, but did not give a reason. I agree that the section was a bit "talkative", but I am not sure if it is fair to remove all. So I copied the deleted material here for further discussion:

    Normal   0         21         false   false   false      NO-BOK   X-NONE   X-NONE                                                     MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

"Summers are mild or even warm, with daily high temperatures averaging between 20.1 °C (68.2 °F) and 21.5 °C (70.7 °F) during the summer months (June-August). September is often as warm, with colder temperatures usually arriving before the end of October. The highest temperature ever recorded was 35 °C (95 °F) on 21 July 1901. There are four distinct seasons, with winter lasting from early December to March, and spring arriving in April, lasting though May. Summer ranges from June to late August. Autumn/fall usually comes mid-september with cooler air and more unstable weather, and lasts throughout november. heatwaves are not rare during the summer, usually pushing the temperatures above 30C (86F).

The Oslofjord has many public beaches and recreational areas, which are very popular in the summer months. Due to the fjord being sort of an enclosed body of water, the water temperatures can get quite high if the weather stays warm. During the summer of 2008, the water reached a temperature of 24C (75F).

The winter is cold, chilly and wet. Temperatures can drop down to −20 °C (−4 °F) or lower when there is high pressure and blue skies. Almost every winter, ice develops in the inner parts of the Oslofjord.

Temperatures below zero may be experienced from October until May, the coldest month being January with a mean temperature of −4.3 °C (24.3 °F), and both January and February may have daily minimum temperatures of around −7 °C (19 °F). The coldest temperature recorded is −27.9 °C (−18.2 °F) in February 1871. Snowfall is spread evenly throughout the winter months and on average more than 25 centimetres (9.8 in) of snow cover is experienced 30 days per year. Temperatures have tended to be higher in recent years."

Regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the facts above simply repeat the numbers from the table, but I reinserted some of deleted basic facts that does not appear from the table. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Crime

Maybe there should be a new section in this article about crime in Oslo..? The recent years prostitution, drugs, violence and gang activity has been rising, and is more often mentioned in the media. As far as i can tell, Oslo is the most unsafe city in Scandinavia at the moment, and I think this should be mentioned at some point in the article. Arguments?

Sources: Aftenposten on gang activity (Norwegian), VG on pickpocketing (Norwegian), Google translate, should make you to understand most of it --79.160.97.59 (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is certainly a relevant topic. But making a whole section would perhaps overstate the importance (undue weight, WP guidelines), after all, Oslo is a very safe city by international standards. I am not sure if Oslo is really the most unsafe city in Scandinavia. Infighting in gangs does not affect the general public. In addition, WP is not a travel guide. Perhaps crime could be included in a section on social/living conditions? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The new crime section should definitely be edited for spelling and grammar, as it is written in terrible norwegian-english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.127.228 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Climate & fjord

I was surprised to read that Oslofjord is the only major fjord that can freeze over. This maybe correct although my impression is that the large fjords in Finnmark (Porsangen for instance) can freeze over. Source is also needed. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it may seem strange. But many people can still remember the old days, when the fjord froze over, and not just the inner fjord, but even the wide outer fjord to Færder lighthouse. See this link about a veteran fisher in Oslofjord here in norwegian. I have never seen hints about the wide fjords in Finnmark has ever frozen over, not even the more enclosed Altafjord. There are however many small, enclosed fjord branches that quite often freeze over (for example enclosed bays in inner Oslofjord, Ramfjord branch south of Tromsø, Verrabotn branch in northern Trondheimsfjord - but the main fjord here never freezes). There were some years for more than 100 years ago so cold that the Arctic sea ice were not far from the northeastern Finnmark coast, I don't know if any fjords up there froze over then.Regards. Orcaborealis (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting and you may of course be right, but please do not include such a broad claim without better evidence (source). Let's leave it on discussion page until somebody digs up supporting evidence. Regards, Mondeo (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in an image of ice fishing on Oslofjord, click here.Orcaborealis (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems as 2003 was the last year (?) that ice created serious problems for the boat traffic in inner Oslofjord, see this article from Oslo Havn (Oslo Harbor authority) here. The article says that it's five years since ice created problems for the boat traffic, so 1998 also had ice. Orcaborealis (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This winter(2010) we had ice in inner Oslo fjord that was thick enough to walk on until mid-march at least(last time I observed anyone on the ice) Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate again wrong

The values in the climate table now (18 april 2009) is completely wrong according to the official base period 1961 - 1990. For the correct values, check world weather information service, where the data has been provided from met.no, see here. For instance, January in Oslo has a average low of -6.8°C and a average high of -1.8. Orcaborealis (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has again changed the climate data in table, and the source added only give the record high/low, and is also unofficial. This must therefore be reverted. The fact that recent years have been warmer, should be added to article in some way - not just change article and add a unofficial source like that. This just degrades the value of Wikipedia. Orcaborealis (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual errors

I believe the part about Oslo being the largest harbour and centre of trade has to be edited. Afaik Oslo is the 6th largest port in Norway by tonnage.

tyvm/ takker

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/12/60/havn_en/tab-2009-05-13-01-en.html http://www.bt.no/na24/article278586.ece

(83.108.230.179 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Infobox.

What is the rationale for deviating from this standard? It appears every other article on Norway's cities includes two maps. Hayden120 (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say the old way is more informative than the way it is now as it displays a more easy to see way, except for the red dot on the top map being too small to spot. Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 14:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't too hard to spot. Besides, you can always enlarge it. :) More importantly, the old template also includes a picture of the municipality. The current template is missing the official language form and the demonym, as well. The "kommune" infobox was also replaced on Bergen and Stavanger recently, and I have brought it up here. Hayden120 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 heat wave

I restored the sentence about temperatures in the summer of 2009. Unfortunately, I could not find an easily accessible source (newspaper or similar), but the data is available from eKlima (free registration required). Click on the "Observations" tab, select "Air temperature, cloud cover and precipitation" and set the time period as follows: from 2009 to 2010, June + July + August (unfortunately it won't let you set from and to to the same year). When the report is ready, look at the TAX (maximum temperature) column for the end of June / beginning of July:

Date	TAX
2009-06-24	28.7
2009-06-25	28.0
2009-06-26	27.4
2009-06-27	29.4
2009-06-28	31.3
2009-06-29	31.8
2009-06-30	31.2
2009-07-01	31.5
2009-07-02	32.7
2009-07-03	33.0
2009-07-04	29.9
2009-07-05	27.6

These numbers are from Blindern; I believe Alna had higher temperatures, but for some reason that data is not available.

DES (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Muslim majority

I found the article which was cited in support of the claim that “[i]ndependent analytics [sic] have predicted a Muslim majority (more than 50%) in Oslo within the years 2050-60”. The article makes no such claim, and links to another article which says 4% - 11% countrywide by 2060, with no specific figures for Oslo. DES (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 attractions

Can we remove this? It is unsourced and reads like a tourist guide. Hayden120 (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do. This belongs on Wikitravel, in a shorter version. Inclusion of some or all of these as single-sentence facts in the relevant sections is appropriate, but we have wikilinks for people who want to read more about them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"The City of Oslo and the 27 (17) Oslo boroughs"

This map/figure is grossly misleading, as well as original research. Most of the named boroughs do not exist ("Østensjø Øst", "Nordstrand Øst", "Sentrale Alna" etc.), see List of boroughs of Oslo for the real boroughs. This should be taken care of ASAP. Kjetil_r 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits by User:Fiskepinner have left the entire "Economy" section one huge unsourced and un-Wikified list of companies. I think it should be reverted and discussed. Hayden120 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content you restored was also unsourced and / or directly contradicted the sources it referenced, see my comment above about the “Muslim majority”. On the other hand, User:Fiskepinner got even the most basic facts wrong, such as confusing the Mayor (currently Fabian Stang) with the Governing Mayor (currently Stian Berger Røsland), and a large part of it is copyvio—including the entire “Development Projects” section, which was lifted wholesale from Oslo Teknopol. DES (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm? Which content? I don't see anything in the article about a Muslim majority... Hayden120 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I scanned the diff too quickly and came across text in the demographics section that reminded me of the “Muslim majority” rant which was apparently removed some time ago. Never mind. Still, someone should stick a warning on his talk page re. blatant copyvio. DES (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

History section

I tagged as POV. last few paragraphs sound like someone's essay or original research. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's got four paragraphs, so I take it you mean the last two. Here they are:

Oslo was destroyed several times by fire, and after the fourteenth calamity, in 1624, King Christian IV of Denmark (and Norway) ordered it rebuilt at a new site across the bay, near Akershus Fortress and given the name Christiania. But long before this, Christiania had started to establish its stature as a centre of commerce and culture in Norway. The part of the city built from 1624 is now often called Kvadraturen because of its orthogonal layout.

The last plague outbreak ravaged Oslo in 1654. In 1814 Christiania once more became a real capital when the union with Denmark was dissolved.

Many landmarks were built in the 19th century, including the Royal Palace (1825–1848); Stortinget (the Parliament) (1861–1866), the University, Nationaltheatret and the Stock Exchange. Among the world-famous artists who lived here during this period were Henrik Ibsen and Knut Hamsun (the latter was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature). In 1850, Christiania also overtook Bergen and became the most populous city in the country. In 1878 the city was renamed Kristiania. The original name of Oslo was restored in 1925.

I can agree all of this had best been properly referenced, but is any of this so spectacular in your opinion that you think someone is out to push some agenda? And what would that be? I mean, if this is POV, what would be the opposite POV? __meco (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pagan heritage

According to 68.171.235.255 (talk · contribs):

Many people in Oslo feel that the name "Christiania" takes away from their true Norse heritage and uses the name of a conquerer Christian king who in part tried to fully eradicate their pagan heritage and beliefs. By placing upon the name "Christiania" on the city of Oslo, Christian IV was in part taking away their roots and heritage, according to many folks of the bustling city.

This is not only ungrammatical and unreferenced, but pure and simple nonsense, firstly because Norway was christianized in the 10th and 11th centuries, more than five hundred years before Christian IV's birth, and secondly because Christiania was not initially the same city as Oslo, and the two coexisted for quite a while until the latter was absorbed by the former and became what is known today as Gamlebyen.

DES (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hard to read? Seriously?

This article isn't really that long, I can't really understand how someone would find this too long. Anyone want to argue with me? Altormainstream (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

when you edit this article you get the message "This page is 85 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. ". it definitely could be made easier to read by splitting into smaller articles. that way content is not lost. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Altormainstream (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. Having this article tagged as being too long is not helpful in the pursuit of making it better. The Warsaw article is 142 kilobytes, Kiev 86 kilobytes, Athens 100 kilobytes, Copenhagen 97 kilobytes, Stockholm 74 kilobyte and the Helsinki article is 49 kilobytes long. Now, do you think that all of those pages except for Helsinki need to be tagged similarly? __meco (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This edit [2] is essentially vandalism. The cited source gives a list of the most liveable cities, and saying that Oslo is the least liveable city in Scandinavia is a distorted synthesis. I encourage editors to check references for newly added content to prevent changes like this from staying in the article (for weeks in this case). Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The no: article has a reference for the "meadow beneath the ridge" / "meadow of the gods" part. It is also mentioned in Oslo Byleksikon, which is referenced in several articles relating to Oslo, e.g. Streets in Oslo, but although I have read the relevant excerpt, I do not have that book, so I can not give a precise citation. Perhaps someone who does can oblige? DES (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Glaring omissions

The article has not one word about hotels, restaurants or the city's bustling nightlife. __meco (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

bustling is a very POV word. sure it has a tourism and leisure industry but so does every capital city in Europe. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about addressing my post instead of making nonsensical comments? __meco (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments. please reread instead of posting rude "nonsensical" words about me. there is no need for every city article to have a tourist guide on hotels and "bustling nightlife" as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Oslo hardly rates for nightlife compared to most large cities in the world. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Every capital city in Europe also have a transport grid. Is that an argument for not discussing it in any of the related articles? You are arguing that the article doesn't need to mention Oslo's culinary and nightlife entertainment industry with reference to WP:NOTTRAVEL. That is simply mindless. That guideline supports no such position. __meco (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Every capital city in Europe also has a water and electricity grid, is this mentioned in city articles? transport is an encyclopaedic topic. certainly, if "Oslo's culinary and nightlife entertainment" is internationally well known then it might deserve a mention. but given eating and going out in Oslo is even expensive for locals I don't see how it compares to say Barcelona, Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, Moscow. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have something substantially new to add to your position I'm not going to comment on it further. __meco (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've expressed my viewpoint clearly. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Libstar. Every capital city in Europe has an electricity grid.81.167.16.214 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with LibStar and 81.167.16.214. Every capital city in Europe has an electricity grid. __meco (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

so you agree that bustling nightlife is not worthy of inclusion? LibStar (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are probably two or three hotels worth mentioning: Holmenkollen Park Hotel Rica, Oslo Plaza and Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel Oslo. All three for their architecture (the first because of its dragestil, the latter two for their hight alone). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that every capital city in Europe has an electricity grid. __meco (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, so you agree that "bustling" nightlife is not worthy of inclusion? LibStar (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I remain convinced that the entertainment and otherwise nightlife of a large city is worthy of mention. As for the adjective bustling which you seem to have latched onto, I have no specific affinity for that particular term. I should also mention that discussion of the city's nocturnal life does not demand the mention or promotion of any specific establishments or institutions, however, some examples might still be appropriate. __meco (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said if it is reliably covered in sources (preferably non Norwegian as it would be more third party) then it is worthy of inclusion. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Section on Literature

I've totally replaced the section on literature. The previous version was a brief overview on norwegian literature, with no emphasis on Oslo relevance, and thus listing several authors and literary works not relating to the city. --Orland (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oslo vs Norway

Why Oslo has more info than the Norway article? You norske need to take care of Norway article too and quit being uansvarlig. Ikke legg bilder som er tatt midt i vinteren med sky, det er viktig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information

"It is usually placed in Trafalgar Square. For the 61st time, this spruce will have been lit by the Mayor of Oslo, Fabian Stang and The Lord Mayor of Westminster, Councilor Carolyn Keen, between 6 December 2007 and 4 January 2008, and it has received yet more special attention than before, expressing environmental concern."

The info is outdated, and it is too selective (covering only one of sixty-one instances), and the wording is non-encyclopedic.--Novotal (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Climate and weather

In the climate section there are (representative?) examples from particular years (2008 and 2009). This might have been topical two years ago, but is it still today. Does a particular heatwave (with no records?) in 2009 tell us something about the climate in general? I don't think so. And is the water temperature in the summer of 2008 interesting (no ref. btw). I don't think so. It would be much more interesting to read about more typical average values. I suggest these sentences should be erased. Nirro (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As nobody opposed agains my proposal above, I now erase these irrelevant texts. Nirro (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Oslo explosion

See 2011 Oslo explosion for info on this.  Chzz  ►  14:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)