From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Stockholm was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sweden (Rated B-class, Top-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Top-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Hanseatic League (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Hanseatic League 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Stockholm is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


From the old /Todo page: History: A LOT of work to be done. 750 years worth, on or about.

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


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

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

I selected the Random Page link, which brought up the article on Stockholm. I am a new user and hope you do not mind my comments. I have not been to Stockholm, but the gay aspect interested me, given the comment that was inserted and deleted. I reviewed the attached Stockholm Visitors Board ( - The official visitors' guide, which is a link on the page. It has a section on gays, which is informative on the subject. Under cafes it does list the Patricia. Sorry, didn't know it would not enter my member name automatically - rickeyjay.


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

Please stop using as source[edit]

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

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

The "Venice of the North" again[edit]

The old "Venice of the North" advertising phrase keeps creeping into the lead section, this time sourced to If you read the text of the source, not just the headline, you'll see where the CNN reporter gets the phrase: from his/her guidebook. A guidebook isn't a reliable source, not even if a CNN reporter is quoting it.[1] It's true that the Stockholm tourist industry and the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps — not sure about that — also Stadshuset would like Stockholm to be "sometimes referred to" as the Venice of the North, but that doesn't make it so. "Sometimes"? It's only referred to as the Venice of the North in travel brochures, guidebooks, and other texts that promote commercial interests. It's far from being a genuine nickname. All Swedes have heard the phrase? (Several people state that they've heard the phrase plenty of times in a 2006 thread above.[2] But the point is, who have they heard it from? A tourist guide, right?) It's all over the internet? Yes, of course. There's a whole universe of commercial promotion all over the internet, as well as lodged inside our heads. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be decorated with that kind of bling. I've removed it. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, I first encountered it in an adventure book from the 1950s :-) It is used now and then (not in English, but in Swedish - Nordens Venedig), but I would not say that it's a frequent enough nickname that it belongs in the Wikipedia article. Good removal. --bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A majority of the Swedish people have heard about this slogan. There is though no canals at all in the city (not of the kind that exists in Venice, Amsterdam - and in smaller versions in Gothenburgh, Malmö and Copenhagen) - the slogan referred to the water ways (actually Riddarfjärden and also Saltsjön are an outlet from lake Mälaren, and as such they can be seen as a river. Not long, but still. All water in the city center are fresh water. On the other hand, the new slogan "Capital of Scandinavia" has caused harm in both Copenhagen and Oslo. Stockholm has defended its new slogan by "it's the largest city in the Nordic countries". But also this is debatable. The real city has actually only around 300.000 inhabitants, all others lives in Solna or typical suburbs. Greater Stockholm comprices 2.16 mio inhanitants at an land area of 6500 km2, While the city center of Copenhagen has around 700.000 inhabitants.

(Most of Copenhagen municipality including its exclave of Frederiksberg and the eastern part of Gentofte municipllity, Hellerup). And Greater Copenhagen counts 1.96 million inhabitants, but at a land surface of only 2850 km2. So there are problems also with also with the new slogan (which by the way - unlike the previous one - only exits in English which seem a bit orchid, at least to me. Boeing720 (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fiber optic network[edit]

This part is very out of place, I don't see what it's doing there. Should it be removed? No sources, little relevance and it reads like an advert. - (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's an ad. (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not of any encyclopedical value in this article, but could possibly be an article of its own. Else was becomme next - the precice drawings of the cloak system ? Every postal areacode etc ? Especially if, the article want's to be a feutered article such crap must be avoided. Boeing720 (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The bright summer nights[edit]

It's actually a phenomenon worth mention, but not as the dull "daylight hours". The term "Bright Scandinavian Nights" is well-known amomg tourists that has visited the city during 1.June until 15 July (approx). For anyone coming from below the 55th latitude, this phenomenon isn't known to this degree. Even if it gets even brighter further north, but that has isn't related to Stockholm as such. Of Capital cities this phenomenon only is really notable also in Oslo, Helsinky, Tallin and Reykjavik (and perhaps Riga). Boeing720 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


"Stockholm is an important global city, placed in the "alpha-" category by the GaWC,[6] and ranked 27th in the world, 12th in Europe and first in Scandinavia by the Global Cities Index in 2012.[7] " is mostly rubbish. There are 100's of institutes and indexes with fancy names that ranks cities. Generally they are unreliable, subjective, unclear and unstabile. For instance the article London only "It is one of the world's leading financial centres[14][15][16]" is communicated, no financial ranking at all. And for Paris follwing is stated "Today it is one of the world's leading business and cultural centres, and its influence in politics, education, entertainment, media, science, fashion and the arts all contribute to its status as one of the world's major cities. The city has one of the largest GDPs in the world, €607 billion (US$845 billion) as of 2011, and as a result of its high concentration of national and international political, cultural and scientific institutions is one of the world's leading tourist destinations. The Paris Region hosts the world headquarters of 30 of the Fortune Global 500 companies[6] in several business districts, notably La Défense, the largest dedicated business district in Europe.[7]". I urge You to rephrase the text in that direction, and remove f.i. "alpha-category of GaWC". It's not of encyclopedical value, and sooner than describing the city, one gets the impression that the article deals with some kind of competion. Boeing720 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kista in northern Stocholm ?[edit]

Stating "Kista in northern Stocholm" is like stating "Watford in north-eastern London", so shouldn't it rather be "Kista, a bit north of Stocholm" ? I've looked at Google Maps, and think it's a clear suburb, rather than a part of the city. I also wonder why Kista is given so much space. It's hardly a well known tourist attraction or of any perticular interest. Boeing720 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at? I can't see how it is "given so much space." It's hardly mentioned more than Farsta or Rinkeby. Kista is a part of Stockholm Municipality or City of Stockholm (Swedish: Stockholms kommun or Stockholms stad), and also the Stockholm Urban area. So under all qualifying aspects, it's a part of Stockholm -- the city. Gavleson (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

So about the latest edit... It's very common to compare Scandinavian or Nordic countries when it comes to other things -- we share a geographical, cultural, historical and linguistic region after all. So why shouldn't it be allowed here, and since when is stating a fact a "contest" all of a sudden? I have read the lead sections of other cities, and guess what? It's not unusual to rank cities. I can concede that things could be rephrased or maybe shortened, but the facts that just got erased are worth keeping, and they should be in the lead section. Reverting. If you want to have a discussion about how to rephrase things, go ahead. Gavleson (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. This article has previously had the status of "good reading", which f.i. Copenhagen still has. The green little circle with a cross inside indicates if an article is concidered "good reading". (And a star indicates a "feutured article"). Secondly I'm talking about the lead section only. Do You really think that a "good reading" article begins with lots of financial ratings ? Or to state that this city is larger than a few other cities ? A matter which also is pretty unclear. For instance, all comparable areas are much smaller regarding Copenhagen. If comparing municipalities Copenhagen covers less than half the surface of Stockholm's municipality. And concidering metropolitan areas Copenhagen reaches (very close to) 2 million at a far smaller area than Stockholm does. So it depends of how one both define and meassure the size of cities. Infact the metropolitan area of Stockholm has notably lesser population density (320) than the entire Netherlands (>400), which does not apply to the corresponding area of Copenhagen (>700) ! To be worth mention, the difference must be larger than 2.15 million inhabitants at 6500 km2 compared to 1.98 million at 2800 km2. Do You really self think that the most interesting issues about Stockholm is what rating a financial institute gives the city and a doubtful comparison with other capitals ? What about founding, history, culture and perhaps that it's one of only seven remaining Royal capital cities left in Europe ? Or You don't want to rise the status of the article back to "worth reading" ? (Above You can see lots of other reasons to why the article was downgraded). Regarding Kista, I've even spoke to a Stockholmer I've known for decades. He said Kista is a typical suburb north of Stockholm, and I think that part could be cut down, since it's nothing special about it from a global perspective. All my changes has been in order to attempt restoring the "read worthy" standard of the article. Boeing720 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. But in your last "change" you just removed a bunch of relevant information...
It's been said by others before me, and I'll say it again: The definition of "urban area" is the same in all Nordic countries. Stockholm is the most populous municipality and urban area in the Nordic region. The metropolitan area is also the most populous. No matter how you count, it's the most populous city in the region, and that's a fact worth mentioning in the lead section. And yeah, I'm fully aware that the "most populous city" is not the same as "most densely settled city". (But I got to wonder if you know the difference...) You still haven't given us a good reason for removing it. The fact that it annoys some people living in Copenhagen doesn't really matter.
Also, about Kista, I still don't get what you are on about. It's a district of the City of Stockholm. So again, it really doesn't matter if you "looked at some satellite images on Google", or that your "friend said something", as we're supposed to go by established definitions here.
The global cities rankings... You know that's based on financial factors, right? Mentioning the economy or financial rankings of a city is absolutely relevant in the lead section. Why shouldn't it be? It's done for a tonne of other cities on Wikipedia. You gave Paris and London as an example yourself!
Can it be done better than what we had? Sure. That's why I've now edited it. But removing it altogether? Nope. I don't agree with that. Gavleson (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You still don't get it. It's a matter of the lost status of this article. Other articles about capital cities ("read worthy" or "feutured") doesn't contain stuff about financial indexes - not in the lead atleast. There are hundereds of such different indexes. They are not of any greater encyclopedical value. Further the lead shall cover a brief summary of the entire article and nothing else. You do not seem to appriciate common fundaments of Wikipedia.
And how do You think Wikipedia would end up like, if our articles about cities like London, Paris and Moscow begins to compete with each other over which city that is the larger. As I've stated, there is not much encyclopedical value in stating Stockholm as the largest in Scandinavia, especially not when the matter is unsourcered. You would need a single comparing source for making such claimbs, but still - all stuff in the lead must reflect the article thereafter. I.o.w. You must first write something about Scandinavian capital cities, all well sourcered in the article. First then You may make a lead mentioning of those facts.
To my knowledge Swedish cities are directly defined by the statistical instistute SCB. While the Danish equivalent, DST, only present the facts afterwards. The actual city limits in Denmark are decided by Geodatastyrelsen at the Danish Ministry of the Environment. Unfortunately this part seems to not been translated into English, but perhaps You do understand written Danish ?. So it's a lie to state there is a common definition of cities whithin Scandinavia. Boeing720 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it because I don't agree with you, is that it? Let's examine the current lead section on the article on London -- a featured article -- and compare with the current lead on Stockholm...
London lead, on the population (114 words and 563 characters):

It is the most populous city in the United Kingdom, with a metropolitan area of over 13 million inhabitants. London had an official population of 8,308,369 in 2012, making it the most populous municipality in the European Union, and accounting for 12.5% of the UK population. The Greater London Urban Area is the second-largest in the EU with a population of 9,787,426 according to the 2011 census. The London metropolitan area is the largest in the EU with a total population of 13,614,409, while the Greater London Authority puts the population of London metropolitan region at 21 million. London had the largest population of any city in the world from around 1831 to 1925.

Stockholm lead, on the population (37 words and 191 characters):

Stockholm is the most populous city in Sweden and the Nordic region, with 901,698 people living in the municipality, approximately 1,4 million in urban area, and a total population close to 2,2 million in the metropolitan area.

London lead, on the economy (54 words and 334 characters):

London is a leading global city, with strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism and transport all contributing to its prominence. It is one of the world's leading financial centres and has the fifth-or sixth-largest metropolitan area GDP in the world depending on measurement.

Stockholm lead, on the economy (54 words and 262 characters):

Stockholm is the cultural, media, political, and economic centre of Sweden. The region alone accounts for over a third of the country's GDP, and is among the top 10 regions in Europe with the highest GDP per capita. It's an important global city, and the main centre for corporate headquarters in the Nordic region.

Do you want me to give more examples? The current wording on the economy and population of Stockholm is reasonable, well sourced, and to the point. Don't try to act like this is preventing the article on Stockholm to be featured. Gavleson (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia style , "Good Articles" and "Featured Articles"[edit]

Gavleson - Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, which is the style guidelines we strive to follow on all of our content. These style rules are closely followed in Featured Articles and Good Articles, whereas other articles are more of a work in progress. Featured articles are independently reviewed by at least three people, and Good articles by at least one person. Some articles are too short to really need the repetition / summary that the style guideline calls for in the lead. But the Stockholm article is not a such short story. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for complete information on the lead section. Your source regarding sizes of Nordic countries' capital cities impair with what elsewise is stated in this article, and can hence not be concidered of any higher value. Did You get this, Gavleson ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How about addressing what I wrote above? If you want to add something about the "history, culture" and the fact that it's one the few "remaining Royal capitals" there's plenty of room to do that in the lead still. Again...
  • London (total length, lead section): 469 words, 2676 characters
  • Stockholm (total length, lead section): 372 words, 1940 characters
Don't act like you need to remove facts about the economy or population, that are extremely relevant to the article, from the lead section. That's BS, and you know it! Here's an idea: How about you start by telling us what you want to add?
Also, I don't think the lead section is the main problem with this article. (See the new section below, for what I think needs improvement.) So if you really are genuinely out to make a positive contribution here -- instead of making unhelpful comments, silly arguments and delete relevant information -- there's plenty of real problems to fix... Gavleson (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is the third time I now tell You, that I simply deal with the lead. And the reason is (and was) the formally poor status of the article. Even if the lead section now is improved, a lead of a longer article mainly shall reflect very basic facts of the article and references shall be put in the article , not the lead. Otherwise this article will never be rated as "good reading" again. It's not what You or I think that matters here, but common Wikipedia practice - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead. And for the second time, I urge You to remove the part You have copied from my personal page (not talk page) including the untrue conclutions You base on that perticular text. It borders to harassment, and may even have exceed that border. You may rephrase Your criticism though. Boeing720 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Whats wrong with you? Heelbood (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to improve this article[edit]

Here's what needs to be improved, IMO:

  1. To many pictures scattered across the article. A reduction and a better selection is needed. The Gallery section should be erased, as per WP:Gallery.
  2. "History" -- Attribution could be better.
  3. "Economy" -- Needs an update, better attribution, expansion.
  4. ‹The template Strikethrough is being considered for deletion.› 

"Politics and government" -- Needs a rewrite. It's not pretty having a list of the current distribution of seats in Stockholm city council, linking to that information should suffice. I'd prefer a more general explanation about how the city is run. FIXED!

  1. "Fibre Optic Network" -- Not sure about this section, it's huge and not sourced. Could be incorporated in a section on Infrastructure (where the sections under Transport would be other subsections).
  2. "Education" -- Better attribution is needed. Provincial complaints about student housing feels unnecessary -- housing problems is very common in all major cities, all over the world.
  3. "Demographics" -- Needs an update, and maybe a better worded paragraph on immigration.
  4. "Literature" -- No mention of more current world-famous Swedish authors, like Stieg Larsson, who made Stockholm more famous than ever.
  5. "Architecture" -- Some of the stuff is not noteworthy, like the hostel. It's a bit long-winded compared to other articles, and not that well sourced. Again, to many pictures. It should possibly be broken up into several subsections. Could make sense to organizing this under a new section titled Cityscape and move the pano there (see the article on Paris, for example).
  6. "Museums" -- All the top 3 visited museums in Sweden are located in Stockholm, according to "Riksförbundet Sveriges museer": Skansen, Moderna museet and Vasa Museum needs to be better described.
  7. "Media" -- More unattributed claims. I know a lot of it is true, but we need sources.
  8. "Sports" -- Unattributed claims and needs a rewrite.
  9. "Suburbs" -- Misplaced and not needed.
  10. "Amusement Park" -- Get rid of this section and incorporate it elsewhere under Culture. Dedicating a whole section to "Gröna Lund" is excessive.
  11. "Cuisine" -- Unattributed claim on ethnic food. All major cities have ethnic food, it's unremarkable. Makes sense to go into more detail on the most notable restaurants featured in Michelin Guide.
  12. "Yearly events" -- Superfluous, lots of not noteworthy stuff. Anything noteworthy should be incorporated elsewhere, such as the sections on Sports or Culture.
  13. "The City Line Project" -- Don't think it's a good idea to mention projects under construction. Where do you draw the line? Should "Förbifart Stockholm" be mentioned also?
  14. "Inter-city trains" -- Unnecessary.
  15. "Congestion charges" -- Doesn't need to go into such detail about referendums and such.
  16. "Rankings" -- This should be removed and incorporated in the main text as far as possible, IMO. Possibly while rewriting the sections on the economy, culture and environment.

I could definitely help with this, but there's a lot of stuff to do, so this could take a while... Gavleson (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I have not studied everything in detail, I think the edits You propose are improvements. In general atleast. However if You want to acchieve a better status for the article (good reading, as a first step), You really need to rewright much of the lead. Like I've stated before, in long articles the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. All references must be given in the article, and not in the lead. I've never seen any exception from this in any article marked as good reading. It may be different at Swedish Wikipedia, I don't know. But atleast here the quality requirements are fairly high. I assume You do want this article to be labeled as "good reading", and if so there is no other way around it than follow WP practice also regarding leads. Boeing720 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Value of sources that impair, and encyclopedical value of comparisons[edit]

First - In general the value of different sources differ quite significantly, I think a wide majority of editors agree with this. And if two different sources impair significantly, by default one of them must be untrue, is misinterpreted or is unclear in definition. In this perticular case the Swedish statistc institute , SCB, must be concidered of higher value than the one from the Nordic council's webbpage. The Nordic council itself isn't involved, only a single editor. If SCB states that the metropolitan area of Stockholm has close to 2.2 million inhabitants - and the webbpage of the Nordic Council states 1.9 million, the latter must be regarded as unsafe. This becomes even more obvious when the webbpage is examined more closely. The figures appears in a general short text labeled as "Call for the metropolis". While the SCB figures are updated at an annual level and presented in precise numbers.
Secondly comparing Stockholm's 2.2 million inhabitants at a surface of 6500 km2 with Copenhagen's 2.0 million at a surface of 2800 km2, and upon those figures alone, state that it is of encyclopedical value to proclaim Stockholm as "the largest metropolitan area in the Nordic countries", isn't of global interest. For instance an incorporation of new Danish territories to the metropolitan area of Copenhagen (which today covers a far less area) might turn the positions around, without any real change in the populations. However to state that St Petersburg is the largest city at the Baltic Sea, is in that case of greater value, since that city is 3 times as populated than Stockholm or Copenhagen. So - in general, international comparisons must be obvious aswell as of encyclopedical value. There are many lists to use, if competing feels necessary. Boeing720 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion, but if it's not relevant then why is the Nordic council writing about it? We obviously disagree, and I've already tried to explain this to you once. (See above.) I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Again, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up city density. In absolute numbers, the number of inhabitants in the City Proper, Urban Area and the metropolitan area is larger in Stockholm. This is especially true if you compare the municipal area, of which there's an advantage to Stockholm of over 300,000 people -- which is a lot by Scandinavian standards. (It's a difference about the size of the 6th largest city in the Nordic countries, Tampere.) No offence, but it's honestly hard to tell if you are deliberately trying to obfuscate, or just not that bright.
These are the facts, and that should be the end of it. Yet you keep deleting relevant info, and have shown no interest in making any real contributions to this article. This is not how a reasonable person would act, and you have no right to do that either unless there's a consensus. Now, I might have respected your opinion if I could find some evidence of even-handedness, but I see that you've edited the page on Copenhagen, yet never once complained about sentences like this:

Copenhagen is not only the economic and financial centre of Denmark but is a major business centre for the entire Scandinavian-Baltic region.

That statement is completely unattributed, BTW. So again, the article on Copenhagen seems to "compare" itself with other Scandinavian cities -- something you say isn't of any encyclopaedic value. Interesting how there seems to be some lack of consistency on your part. Why is that? Are you harbouring some resentment towards Stockholm, for some reason?
Also, I'm not the one here who has received multiple warnings for engaging in edit wars. (I have in fact not gotten any warnings whatsoever.) Funny how you try to paint yourself as some kind of an expert on Wikipedia (especially considering you have less than 2k edits), yet fail to see that your actions are hurting Wikipedia a whole, and now this article in particular.
In the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't keep reversing my edits. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I was just about to drop an encouraging message at Your talk-page. Then I read this. And a centance like "No offence, but it's honestly hard to tell if you are deliberately trying to obfuscate, or just not that bright" is a personal offence. I won't take it ta any administrator this time though, but please do not continue to make unsubstiated and personal comments. And I have frankly not asked for anything else than what has been done (and I have nothing to do with the minor copyright issues) I'm fully prepared to discuss, but please stop all personal harassment and be focused at Your arguments instead. Please.
Answers Copenhagen municipality has much fewer inhabitants compared to Stockholm municipality, Yes. However is for instance Frederiksberg municipality (with 100.000+ inhabitants at 9 km2) is located as an enclave within Copenhagen municipality, it only borders to boroughs of Copenhagen (City/Indre by, Nørrebro, Vesterbro, Valby and Vanløse) and even lackes access to any open waters. No area has been incorporated to Copenhagen since 1902, and the land-surface is only 77 km2 (including the largely unusable enlargement from Øresund at western Amager). I do though agree that this (Your figures) it's noteworthy in listings.
You cannot hold me personally responsible for the entire article of Copenhagen ! This was what I could find in the lead of the Copenhagen article-
The city is the cultural, economic and governmental centre of Denmark and one of the major financial centres of Northern Europe with the Copenhagen Stock Exchange. In 2012, Copenhagen was third in the ranking of the richest cities in the world in terms of gross earnings, dropping from first place in 2009. Not my cup of tea, but without mentioning of a lot of rating institutes.
But fair enough in the main article have I changed Your quote to "Copenhagen is the economic and financial centre of Denmark but is also of international importance." (done hasty while wrighting this, there is more to do. I've also called for sources for the initial part of "economics"). I can also see that Kastrup Airport is mentioned in a comparisional manner. But here - in my opinion, and outside the lead - I find it to be of encyclopedical value though. As Kastrup has approximately 3 times as many international passengers as Oslo-Gardemoen (which actually is more busy than Arlanda, due to the domestic flights at Gardemoen)- and indeed as intercontinental airport. To my knowledge Kastrup is also the only of these airports thas has transfer check-in facilities. But of course my opinion can be questioned.
I wasn't aware of the fact that You had been involved in any warring.
I do not play to be any expert (nor am I), however I know a little about the requirements for "good reading" and "feutured articles". You, like I, seem to have started at Swedish Wikipedia, and I think I have found out many of the differencies. Like this - The use of talk-pages, as an example. The so called "depth", a kind of measuring of actual article stuff compared to talk-page amount, it is by far higher here. And in the end this ensures a higher quality in general. And as long as one do not get personal, the discussion tolerance is much better here (administrators does never abuse their potential "power") Boeing720 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)