Talk:Lund

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2005 discussion[edit]

There was a picture of a church on the Helgalund page. I think it is acutally in Lund, so I've moved it here, but I'd like a check from anyone who can tell for sure.

After looking around I think it is allhelgona kyrka on Hven. Here is a url http://www.sydsverige.dk/?pageID=37 .
It is however problematic that the image does not have a source. --Fred-Chess 09:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Foundation[edit]

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the city was founded around 1020 by the Danish king Canute; and later became the seat of a bishopric in 1060 and the seat of the archbishop of all Scandinavia in 1103. This doesn't comporate with what is said in the Wiki article. Someone more knowledgeable in the subject should fix this. --Anittas 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out an earlier revision, I think it explains it: [1]. / Fred-Chess 11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what this line means: "when the village of Uppåkra was moved to Lund's location, by King Sweyn I Forkbeard". Does it mean that the village of Uppåkra was abandoned and the settlement was moved to what is now, Lund, or does it mean that the village was Uppåkra is identified as the predecessor of Lund? --Anittas 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Roskilde[edit]

In 1658, all Scanian counties except the islands Bornholm and Anholt, were ceded by Denmark to Sweden by the Treaty of Roskilde.

If I am correct, Bornholm was ceded to Sweden in 1658, even though it was reclaimed by Denmark in the Treaty of Copenhagen in 1660. I will go ahead and edit it. --Warfvinge 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA[edit]

I've never heard anyone from Lund pronounce the name of their town like the current IPA suggests. Not being from town myself I'm not going to change it, but it would be nice if somebody who lives there could comment and possibly correct it. JdeJ 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language in the text is horrible.

Certainly requires some tidying up. This is the bane of many Sweden-related entries on WP, they are edited by Swedes who feel confident they "can good English" (yes, there are natives of course who really are fluent in *written*, idiomatic English *points to self* - but too many are overenthusiastic)
The IPA vowel isn't that bad though. I've studied phonetics myself, and the vowel in Lund is one that most native Swedes do not pronounce as a rich, sonorous 'u' (and the rounded Swedish "u" sound is almost unique within current European languages. The u here does drift toward the central back area, close to BE butter, come - and those vowels aren't very distinct.
Strausszek (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Lund[edit]

It's not just "one of the largest", in fact, it is the largest university of Scandinavia with more than 40,000 students.//Arial --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.149.138 (talk) 2006-11-15T10:16:43 (CET)

Well, it changes every year and sometimes the title of being the largest university is attributed to Gothenburg, sometimes to Stockholm. It also depends on how you count the number of students in each city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.116.31 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natives[edit]

What is the definition of "native"? I wonder because while Carolus Linnaeus spent some time in Lund, he was born in the province of Småland (some 150 km north of Lund), and did most of his work attached to the university of Uppsala. StaffanBaloo 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps the physicist Janne Rydberg should be added because he worked all his life in Lund but he was born in Halmstad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janne_Rydberg 213.113.127.116 (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this section has expanded to include people born within the city, close to the city, has lived in the city, or just passed through it on a journey (Linnaeus for instance), I really don't see any reason why not anyone with any vague connection should be included. Presumably every reader of the page will automatically have sufficient relation to Lund to add their own name to the list. Dórmouse (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

automatic red dot in the map ([2])[edit]

I think, this method has the big advantage, that it is automatic, so that we do not need to make a new map image for every location, which doesnt suck... The equirectangular projection is nothing bad, too... --Homer Landskirty 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

glort

Long introductions[edit]

Some articles have to long introductions. In this case the historical facts mentioned there are more or less repeated in the History section just below. Confer whith other cities such as Växjö, Uppsala or Västerås. The introduction should IMO be very short and concise and just contain some very basic facts. I have tried to change that in tghis article, but it seems impossible. Could the "reverters" please tell me why so much info should be mentioned twice in the articles. --Muniswede 09:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your statement "Some articles have to long introductions": Please forward your ideas about what is too long for leads at the proper place (suggest starting with the discussion page for Wikipedia:Guide to layout). The current style manual reads: "the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any." The word summary means that the same info will appear twice, once in a short summary form, once in a more detailed and expanded version lower in the article.
Also: Please note that none of your examples above are considered good articles. As a matter of fact, they have all been rated "Start-class" on the quality scale (= "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added.") The Lund article appears to be under expansion at the moment (20 percent completed) and I assume the editors here are aiming for better than start-quality. For guidelines on length, why not check out articles like Darjeeling, San Francisco, California or any other city at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places instead to find out what has been considered great leads (introductions)? Pia 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very close[edit]

Is Lund really "very close" to Sturup airport? is it 30-40km? Is that really close? Maybe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.134.69 (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) In Sweden, yes. Take a look at the country map, the distances are enourmous.[reply]

  • The distance between Lund and Sturup airport is 26 km. Ryttaren (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lundum town and factual errors[edit]

I've lived in Lund for most of my life but I've never heard of "Lundum town". I've never heard anyone use the word. Basicly, it is not used and I removed the reference to it. There are a number of other factual errors in the article. Uppsala is *not* the other old town in sweden. Sigtuna is however and it is located near Uppsala. Uppåkra was according to current archealogical evidence founded some time aroud year 0, probably in the fist century b.c. and moved to the current place - Lund - in 990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.62 (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lund[edit]

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—197.156.95.117 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. As far as I can see, the coordinates in the article (insofar as they are precise only to the nearest minute of latitude and longitude) are basically correct; and you haven't explained how you think they are erroneous. If you still think that there is something wrong with the coordinates, please explain clearly below what that is, and someone will take another look at the matter. Deor (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor inline references - more and more towards the end[edit]

This is English Wikipedia ! What may be well-known in Scandinavia rarely are here - at the entire community ! Hence - do not just translate from (the poorly sourced SW Wiki) without adding sources here ! And this is best done by what we call 'inline references' ! Example: "Lund is a bishop's seat." {ref}https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/organisation {/ref} - in a real contribution, please just change the "{" to "<" and "}" to ">". Currenntly does the article contain potentially interesting historical matters about allied bombings of Lund and Malmö during the end of the world war. But who knows ? It may have become invented out of the blue. On top of that follows intriguing speculations of why - and someone else appear to say it was done "accidentally". All I've heard (from my dad and his dad when I was younger), is that some British/American bombers emergency landed in Scania on their way back from raids on Germany. And also - Swedish anti-aircraft guns shot down a few themselves. But I cannot put that in writing at our Wiki - without binary stored (so called "digital"), written or Television documentary - sources (in the latter case be thorough with airing channel, time, title, producer(s), narrator etc). Also, I know "Lundakarnevalen" takes place every fourth year. But do they know that in Tromsø, in Gambia, Donegal, Vermont, New Zeeland or Petropavlovsk ? I don't think so. So please improve the quality of sources ! Now that English Wikipedia is indeed very thorough with sources, as inline references. If only sources in Swedish or Danish can be found (for this article), can these be used (in "inliners", not the actual text, of course.) Also must the Quality of used sources we use, follow WP:NPOV and "about OR", also read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY Boeing720 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article as it stands is quite poorly sourced; doing something about that has been on my todo list for a while.
From your contributions I get the impression that you know a lot about Scanian history. Can you recommend a good reference book (either in English or Swedish) for the history of Lund, or indeed Skåne more broadly? My (albeit limited) search efforts hadn't turned anything up. Wham2001 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lund appears on another list[edit]

Today this article has been thrown around by people in my social media feeds.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include (although it would seem so on first glance), so asking here first.

– Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik.Bjareholt: My view would be meh. The article is from the lightly-rewritten-press-release school of journalism; the press release that they're recycling (which they don't link to so I may be doing it an injustice) appears to have precised a book into a top-ten list to make it more digestable. Plus they've illustrated the article with an irrelevent photo of Stephen Hawking, and managed to get Oxford confused with Cambridge in the caption. So I'm unconvinced by the reliability of BI Australia as a source!
More useful might be to try to get hold of the book ("The Smartest Places on Earth" by van Agtmael and Bakker, published 2016) and see whether it has anything interesting to say about Lund, and if so incorporate that into the article. Wham2001 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wham2001: Alright, wont pursue this further due to lack of time. Thanks for the reply. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest city in Sweden[edit]

This piece seems rather confusing. Moving the establishment of Lund to 990 CE wouldn't make it the oldest city in Sweden? The reason it's been mentioned as a candidate among the oldest city in current Sweden is that some speculate it might have been founded earlier than that, as far as I can tell? /Julle (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lund&oldid=1208624351"