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.
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.
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.
Possibly a short mention of the Stockholm dialect(s)
Some of the culture section could (I'm not saying "should") be expanded. For example check the Literature section, maybe write a section about Art, and one about Film.
The current image in history section is a scanned in, but the two-page scan didn't work out very well (the image is obviously stiched together at the center). So a better one would be nice, but it should be a high resolution one like the current one -- don't just steal a 50 Kb gif from a random webpage.
Delete or edit the section about the Riksdag and the juridical section, it has no relevance to Stockholm as a municipality. It has more relevance to an article about the political system of Sweden.
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 (http://www.stockholmtown.com/) - The official visitors' guide, which is a link on the page. It has a section on gays, which is informative on the subject. Under cafes it does list the Patricia. Sorry, didn't know it would not enter my member name automatically - rickeyjay.
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 www.stockholmtown.com as source
This is not neutral information, and the homepage is made to attract tourists, not to provide accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (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.
Wikipedia style , "Good Articles" and "Featured Articles"
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)
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.
"History" -- Attribution could be better.
"Economy" -- Needs an update, better attribution, expansion.
"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!
"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).
"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.
"Demographics" -- Needs an update, and maybe a better worded paragraph on immigration.
"Literature" -- No mention of more current world-famous Swedish authors, like Stieg Larsson, who made Stockholm more famous than ever.
"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).
"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.
"Media" -- More unattributed claims. I know a lot of it is true, but we need sources.
"Sports" -- Unattributed claims and needs a rewrite.
"Suburbs" -- Misplaced and not needed.
"Amusement Park" -- Get rid of this section and incorporate it elsewhere under Culture. Dedicating a whole section to "Gröna Lund" is excessive.
"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.
"Yearly events" -- Superfluous, lots of not noteworthy stuff. Anything noteworthy should be incorporated elsewhere, such as the sections on Sports or Culture.
"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?
"Inter-city trains" -- Unnecessary.
"Congestion charges" -- Doesn't need to go into such detail about referendums and such.
"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
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)