Talk:Copenhagen/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

34 Municipalities?

There's a definition in this article which counts Copenhagen and 33 other municipalities as some kind of metropolitan area. However, it's impossible from the text to evaluate if this is a homemade or official definition. I hope someone can add a reliable and authoritarian source for this. Otherwise, it has to be removed.--Pjred (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pjred

As for the map, its the municipalities which includes parts of the Copenhagen urban area, according to the 200-meters rule. The Fingerplan part is, as I figured it out, based on the work of the Danish Ministry of Invironment. Please feel free to argue why the definition whould be othervise. I myself removed the former map, showing the boundaries of the former Copenhagen County(changed to hospital regions in 2006), as it was neither adequate with the geographic morphology of urban Copenhagen, nor correct according to administrative borders. btw, what do you mean by "hope" --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

With 'hope' I mean that someone can come up with some kind of official document showing that the metropolitan area of Copenhagen is defined as described. And, that it is a current, running definition, and not an obsolete one. Articles on Wikipedia are not places to present own conclusions or personal point of views, other than on the discussion pages. Claims should be backed up with links to reliable, authoritarian references. By the way, I will revert your Copenhagen-Malmö definition again. It is definitly not a definition used by Statistics Denmark or Statistics Sweden. In official Swedish statistics and definitions, the Malmö area isn't considered to be a part of a 'greater Copenhagen', it is considered as a Metropolitan area of its own (see Greater Malmö). But, we've been through this before.--Pjred (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you keep presenting your own personal conclusions. You reverted an edit earlier today, stating that Demographia is an "experimental source", but on your own talk-page you recommend it to another user. At which point do you think national statistical bureaus would define a multinational city? You've refrained from commenting the fact that a series of other european multinational cities are measured as such on Wikipedia in the former discussion, while you now again start reverting population figures(unsourced, that is). --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On my talkpage, Lurlock asked for some kind of collective source for population statistics. He didn't specify that it was for Wikipedian work, and I read it as he was going to work on a private project. For his needs specifically, Demographia was the best source I could find for him, but as I stated in my comments, I don't agree with some of their figures. If anyone is interested in what I really wrote, instead of reading too much in to this like you, Kaare, go here. I have never used and will never use Demographia myself for population figures in Wikipedian articles. Talking about unsourced, how about the 2,4 million figure? To add the population figures for two areas can anyone do with a pocket calculator, but it's you who has to prove why they should be counted together (by the way, which definition of Copenhagen and Malmö areas is used? Not a homemade definition again, I hope?). The Copenhagen and Malmö areas are included in the wider Oresund Region, but that's a geographical and co-operative definition and no official definition of a Metropolitan area. As Metropolitan areas and commuter areas, they are very much working as separate areas.

I see no problem that Wikipedia articles mention cross-boundary definitions. And, many Wikipedian articles are of mixed quality, and can of course be challenged. Before you make any comment on why I don't try to correct them as well, read Do you ever go fishing?. However, many of them first of all use the definition which is backed up by main statistical authorities. Even the article about Lille, with an urban area definitly spreading across the border, uses the official French definitions in the infobox. Detroit use only the U.S. part. San Diego first of all the U.S. part, but also mention the San Diego-Tijuana definition. That would probably be the best way for this article too: the infobox should mention the best sourced, official MA definition, but I see no problem in mentioning the combined area in the text, as long as it's clear that it's experimental statistics and no official definition.--Pjred (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the talk page before mentioning it, but dont you think theres a long way from something being "not totally correct" to something being "experimental"? No, I dont go fishing and I do respect people to demand changes without fixing the whole system, but I'd rather if you'd let alone wiki-policies, when its far from relevant. I might ask you back, if your behaviour on this specific article is on the border to wikilawyering[[1]]? I wasnt here to discuss policies(as policy-dropping is most commonly used as meta-arguments in discussions between contributors of different experience, i.e. the older one bashing the younger one), but I think its suitable for you to consider, if you yourself is within the borders of the policies.

To stress it, it seems that your main task here is to rather to remove certain notions than contribute effectively, or at least discussing the removed. That is a shame, as you have wide range of knowlegde within the scope of urban statistics and urban development. This is in particular disencouraging when you start editing the sections which was the subject of the former discussion, in which you stopped repplying. This isnt about fishing, but about the respect of an ongoing discussion at the talk page. Same goes for the semi-aggressive and authoritarian style of this thread(seems you didnt catch my drift on the hope-thing).

And please, Njred, what is it about "homemade definition, again"? please explain, and please refrain from personal attacks --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I respect good arguments. I respect sourced claims. From authoritarian, official souces. That's how reliable encyclopedian work is done. Writing this comment, I started to point out a lot of obvious stuff about how you're trying to get the focus away from the issue here, and avoiding the demand for good quality sources. But I decided to make some kind of a restart instead. So, please add reliable sources for the Metropolitan definition that you promote. If you can't manage that, you have to deal with people like me who challenges it. The Finger plan seems promising as a definition with at least a bit of governmental touch, but to be really useful here, it needs some sources. My first request in this section was to get a reliable source for the '34 Municipalites' definition. If this is a useful, officially accepted definition, there should be no problem in inserting some reliable references. If no-one manages to do this, the suspicion of 'homemade definition' is obvious. It's as easy as that.

By the way; the 'homemade definition again' comment wasn't specifically towards you, it was for the Copenhagen article in general, especially some definitions that's been listed in previous versions. I apologize for this, as it seems you took it too personally. I should've been clearer. However, I am still interested in how this area is defined, and by which main statistical authority. The Copenhagen area (Danish side) is poorly defined by official sources, I know we both agree on that. So, I am just curious, honestly.

I have to ask. It seems important to you to respect the talk page. You pointed at this when you reverted back to the 2.4 million figure, and you comment on this above. Can you honestly say that you considered the lack of consensus on this talk page, when you decided to add the metropolitan area of Malmö to metropolitan Copenhagen? I don't think so. And then, to blame me, when I am just trying to get the facts as correct as possible, is quite rude actually. I am not intentionally trying to step on someone's toes, just trying to get the facts straight.--Pjred (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

34 municipalities - on page 16 of this report[2], youll get a topographic distinction between the different areas of urban Copenhagen, divided in three sections(Inner city area(Muni. of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Herlev, Rødovre, Hvidovre, Brøndby and Tårnby), Outer urban area(Muni. of Dragør, Vallensbæk, Ishøj, Greve, Solrød, Høje Taastrup, Albertslund, Glostrup, Ballerup, Egedal, Furesø, Allerød, Lyngby, Rudersdal, Hørsholm, Fredensborg and Elsinore), mixed urban/rural municipalities(Hillerød, Roskilde, Frederikssund, Køge).

In the current map, Elsinore isnt included, while Allerød is, which is the only difference between the two. It has to be fixed of course.

Copenhagen-MalmöAs Ive stated earlier, it is far from easy to get a authoritarian source for a geographical area stretching over two soveriegn states. There will never be a Dano-Swedish statistical bureau to settle these things. However, this fact does not make Copenhagen-Malmö two different MA's. It is obvious to anyone living in one of the two cities, but if authoritarian sources is the thing that does it for you, heres some:

Danish Ministry of Employment and Swedish Department of Labour Market, claiming the Oresund Region to be one labour market(which is, according to e.g. David Harvey the central concept of a metropolitan region). [3]

Swedish Departement of Finance, Swedish Department of Commerce and Danish Ministry of Urban development and housing, stating the Oresund Region to be ”one European Metropol”, while trying to harmonize housing markets of the two sides of Oresund[4]

Danish ”Vejdirektoratet”(part of the ministry of transport), stating the Oresund Region to be a united MA of some 2,2 million[5]

Former Capital Development Council – same story[6]

Hope this will get facts straight. --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The pdf-document was perfect stuff, just what's needed. Probably a good start for a proper, somewhat official definition of the true metropolitan area. About the Copenhagen-Malmö issue, I feel it's wrong to use it as the main definition of metropolitan Copenhagen. However, to use a definition of a combined metropolitan area as additional information (as they've done for the San Diego-Tijuana area in the infobox for the San Diego article) is perhaps a useful approach? Btw, Kaare, you've got mail;-).--Pjred (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to be 33 municipalities but since the responsibility of Copenhagen's planing was handed over to the Ministry of the Environment in 2007 the metropolitan area has been enlarged with Stevens municipality and that's why it's now counting 34 municipalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many images!

Someone recently added a ton of images. I think it's seriously disrupting the flow of the article. I think many of the new images added are great, the article has been using dated photos of Copenhagen for a long time, but is it really necessary to have a panorama for each section of the article? --83.94.145.18 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks much better the last article looked so dull and made Copenhagen look boaring ! Now it looks better with all the big panoramas.--Tom.magnussen (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree makes the city looks much better. I've updated the 'Copenhagen in the future', renamed it to 'Copenhagen's new skyline' with a picture gallery and a list of the biggest projects. Plus I've inserted some pictures of Carlsberg 'Vores By' og Copenhagen Towers, but they are probably way to big? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moveteam (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is most messy with all the panoramas, pictures and stuff. Even the same picture of Søerne is there twice, and all in all it looks messy. 80.198.48.47 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it really detracts from the page.Petero9 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles panoramas are used quite carefully. I believe one or two panorama pictures after the lead would be ideal. Inwind (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the current state of images tossed in all over the place is not looking good. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not meant to sell Copenhagen as a tourist destination, or not make it look boring for that matter. If anyone is interested in selling Copenhagen as a tourist destination, they can head over to wikitravel.org and help me building the article there - Wikipedia is not the place for this. A consensus on this would be appreciated, at the very least an agreement to remove some of the worst panoramas, would be nice, as I have a twitching urge to unilaterally start deleting those images at the moment. Sertmann (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can Somebody Please Make It Clear ! What is the Largest City in Scandinavia?

Ive seen too many facts being jumped back and forth !

My personal opintion is that Copenhagen is the Largest City in Scandinavia--Tom.magnussen (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we have discussed this back and forth. The conclusion is to not make such claims on neither Copenhagen nor Stockholm articles. So please, don't start this edit-war again. Carewolf (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal thoughts aren't good enough, you have to back that up with reliable sources. According to official statistics from Statistics Denmark and Statistics Sweden, Stockholm is more populous, both when it comes to the municipality and the official definition for the urban area. The Metropolitan area is a harder issue, especially when it comes to the official definition of Metropolitan Copenhagen. Using experimental figures as presented by for instance worldmayors, world gazetteer, demographia and so on is not a good idea when it comes to encyclopedian work. You can more or less be sure that official statistical authorities are doing their work properly. But, you can't be sure that the other ones do.--Pjred (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, tom.magnussen is stating his personal opinion, he's not actually implying that Copenhagen is the largest city in Scandinavia. No need to respond so unneccesarily --Liam.thomas64 (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for calling you an idiot, but we could be arguing about largest by landmass, largest by population, etc. It isn't neccessarily the OVERALL largest --Liam.thomas64 (talk) 07:36, 18 October

2008 (UTC)

Coming to your buddy's rescue, aren't you? Relax, I understand what you mean. Of course he could've meant the area, I didn't think of that when I wrote the comment. I assumed, by good reasons, that he meant by population, which is a neverending debate as it seems.--Pjred (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this argument will ever end........... --Liam.thomas64 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I LOVE IT !!! BUDDYS RESCUE !!! GREAT ONE Pjred !! I Actually Laughed !--Tom.magnussen (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

lol!!! --Liam.thomas64 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And why is my time different to tom.magnussen's? mine shows the changes at 18:50 at night, yesterday, when i did it today? different timezone mayby............--Liam.thomas64 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

.

Comparisions must be fair. The inner city of Copenhagen has about 650 thousand inhabitants, Stockholm only 300 thousand. Both metropolitan areas has about 1,9 million inhabitants, but Stockholm includes a very much larger area, towns of a whole county far larger then used for "Greater London" for instance (it is an astronomical 2550 square miles surface). Copenhagen has no official borders of an metropolitan area any more, but using the former HT-metropolitan area of about 1000 square miles the sum of inhabitants equals those of mega-huge-Stockholm about 1,9 million in both cases. So Copenhagen is surely the city in Scandinavia wich is the greater one. /the Judge of silly discussions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.37.137 (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The city of Copenhagen consists of Copenhagen, Federiksberg, and Gentofte and has 680.000 inhabitants

The city of Stockholm consists of Stockholm municipality (excluding Sundbyberg and Solna enclaves) and has 820.000 inhabitants.

However not all parts in Stockholms city nor Copenhagen city are real city settlements. Gentofte, western parts of Frederiksberg and outer parts of Copenhagen municipality are certainly not city settlements.

In the same way, Hässelby, Farsta and Skarholmen are typical suburbs.

The Stockholm metro has at the very moment more than 2 million inhabitants, excluding satellites as Uppsala, Vasteras, Eskilstuna and Nykoping, which can be reached within one hour. If they were included Stockholm metro would have around 2,4 million.

The Greater London area has 1,572 km². i.e about half the surface of metropolitan Copenhagen (2,923).

We know that the urban area of Stockholm had 1,252,020 inhabitants in 2005, and the annual growth has been 1,5-2%. In 2009 the urban area of Copenhagen had 1,167,569. The definitions of urban areas (byområde/tätort) is the same in both Denmark and Sweden. Nirro (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rankings in summary

I am feeling uneasy about the growing number of international ranks in the introduction text. It looks unprofessional and a somehow just feel really vain. Could we maybe select those that are significant enough for the summary, and either delete the rest or move them to an "international ranks" sections? Carewolf (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I aggree now that the major rankings should stay in the summary and there should be an international/Scandinavian / European Ranks section , Does anybody else agree ??--122.57.187.212 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Article Looks better Now !

Finally the Copenhagen Article is looking better. It now looks like the other major European City Articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.magnussen (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

area for the urban area

Statistics Denmark do NOT publish figures for the area of urban areas in Denmark. The figure used on this site for Copenhagen's urban area is wrong. Copenhagen urban area covers Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Albertslund, Brønd-by, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Herlev, Hvidovre, Lyngby-Taarbæk, Rødovre, Tårnby and Vallensbæk municipalities and PARTS (not all) of Ballerup, Søllerød, Værløse municipalities as well as Ishøj city and Greve Beach city (not their municipalities).

Also remember not all of e.g. Copenhagen's municipality is urbanized and it contains parts of other municipalities NOT all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking this up, you're absolutely correct. The 455.61 figure seems to be coming from the Metropolitan Copenhagen article, and is just adding some pre-2007 municipal figures. I suggest to remove this area figure from the infobox.--Pjred (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it sounds stupid but, if you type Copenhagen Urban Area into Google it comes up directly with that figure 455.61 !!!!!! so it may be correct--222.152.67.201 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the figure 455.61 km2 is definitely wrong since this is the figure you get for Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Albertslund, Brøndby, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Herlev, Hvidovre, Lyngby-Taarbæk, Rødovre, Tårnby, Vallensbæk, Ballerup, Søllerød and Værløse municipalities combined.

But Copenhagen urban area only covers parts of Ballerup, Søllerød (now Rudersdal) and Værløse municipalities, not all of it. Also Copenhagen urban area covers Ishøj Beach city and Greve Beach city (not their municipalities, only the cities). However the 455.61 figure does not include anything from Ishøj and Greve municipality at all.

Also not all of the municipalities are 100% urbanized, e.g. not all of Copenhagen municipality is urbanized. So the figure is wrong and Statistics Denmark as I've said do not publish figures for the area of urban areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually also says it in the article: "Statistics Denmark has never stated the geographical area of urban Copenhagen." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.24.198 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mastercard ranks Copenhagen as the 14th most important business city in the world, two notches above Stockholm.

How could that be ?? Stockholm has a bigger stock exchange. How can this be explained ??? Ive seen the Offical Mastercard List with Copenhagen above Stockholm.--Tom.magnussen (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the official report http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/insights/pdfs/2008/MCWW_WCoC-Report_2008.pdf--Tom.magnussen (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro issue

Hemmingsen raised the issue of the intro-part being to volumious, and a agree in the earlier version. However, Ive put back Monocle and Master Card back in. I know such dicissions will always be arbitrary, but I think the two are different from the rest. Regarding Monocle, Ive always thought that 1st places were by far more relevant than 7's or 13's. As for Mastercard I believe it is different as it is a international standard wich is updated annually. Gawc is from the late 90's and the case is the same for many of the former rankings. But again its only my arbitrary view. --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that all these kind of more or less important "ranking lists" are relevant for the intro. As someone already wrote, it looks very much like silly "boosterism". We've had this discussion earlier at the Stockholm article already, where eventually all such info was removed from the intro.

Also, to make the conclusion in the intro that "This makes Copenhagen the most important business city in Nordic Region" simply out of MasterCard's list is highly dubious and POV. Critics of this statement could point to a number of facts, lists and statistics, for example:

Stockholm has a larger stock exchange than those of Copenhagen, Oslo and Helsinki combined.
Stockholm has considerably more foreign visitors than any other Nordic city. Source: Nutek, SCB and SCR.
5 out of 12 Nordic companies on the Fortune Global 500-list has its headquarters in Stockholm. That's considerably more than any other Nordic city. Source: Fortune Global 500, 2007.
In the 2008 World Knowledge Competitiveness Index, published by the Centre for International Competitiveness, Stockholm was ranked as the 6th most competitive region in the world and the most competitive region outside the U.S.[7]
In the 2006 European Regional Growth Index (E-REGI), published by Jones Lang LaSalle, Stockholm was ranked 5th on the list of European cities with the strongest GDP growth forecast. Stockholm was ranked first of any Nordic city and second of any cities outside Central and Eastern Europe.[8]
In the 2006 European Innovation Scoreboard, prepared by the Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT) and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Stockholm was ranked as the leading innovative city of Europe.[9]
In the 2007 European Cities Monitor, published by Cushman & Wakefield, Stockholm was ranked as the best Nordic city to locate a business.[10]
In a 2002 report published by the Robert Huggins Associates, which compared 90 of the world's largest economic cities and regions, Stockholm was ranked 22nd in terms of transforming knowledge into business.[11] This was the highest ranking for any city outside the U.S. Major cities that ranked below Stockholm included New York, London, Tokyo, Hamburg and Hong Kong.

Now if I wanted to engage in this silly "my city is the best"-competition, I could just go and add that information to the intro in the Stockholm article. But as I wrote, this is just silly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel agency or advertising spot. /Slarre (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern wasn't so much with the size of the intro but with its focus. Rankings are just as much information about other cities as they are information about this one, which means they are moving focus away from what's important, and as Slarre says you can paint a very different by selecting other rankings and it is rather difficult to give objective selection criteria for which rankings to use, so at the very least, they should be kept to a minimum. Another objection I had with that version of the intro, but couldn't fit into the edit summary, was a bit of rather unencyclopaedic language such as the claim that Copenhagen is known for its people.
Regarding the size of the intro I actually it should be expanded but with material like Christian IV's building projects, the finger plan, the S-trains and the different municipalities. There are so many hard facts about the city that are/were more influential than any of the rankings. Hemmingsen 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

more

Somebody spent alot of time looking for those Stockholm facts , Copenhaen is No.1 it has way more major world companies , and im sure mastercard statistics dont lie !!! Copenhagen is clearly 2 above Stockholm , stupid argument when there are plain facts !!!! --222.152.64.96 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Slarre

Seems you've been spending time looking for numbers, but placing them in the wrong talk page. The Copenhagen article isnt interdependent with the Stockholm article. If youd like to put in the various numbers in the Stockholm article, then go ahead. Hopefully someone will be there to discuss it.

As I mentioned in my previous post I think the present entry is vulgar, and Id like it to be less numbers, more fluent. However this is a discussion only concerning this article, trying to make it better, maybe even getting the GA-label back sometime. Thus, contributers to this article are not forced to check the Stockholm article(or, just as relevant, Hamburg og Berlin) before editing.

As for your points:

A large Stock Exchange belongs to a large country, not a large city. Swedish industry is, and has always been, based on large companies.
Id like to see your tourist-stats, and I'd like you to define "considerably more"
Wikipedia has a different view on the Fortune issue - [12]
The rest is arbitrary. Youll find one list, someone finds another. Maybe someone thinks Stockholm is the best place to locate business, but fact is that since 2005, Copenhagen has rounded up more distribution and R&D centres from international companies.[13]
As for "Transforming knowledge into business"(!)... its not to be rude, but that is probably one of the most remote parameters in inter-urban business location ive ever heard of. How would someone ever make a valid result on something like that(from a scientific view). My imagination cant help me getting to a point wheres it anything but some numbers(universities, companies in specific fields etc) put together without regard to the many differences in each area.

--Kaare Dybvad (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry for the late reply. I've been very busy with IRL last weeks.

Now to the issues:

"The Copenhagen article isnt interdependent with the Stockholm article. If youd like to put in the various numbers in the Stockholm article, then go ahead."
No. You probobly didn't read or understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat it for you. The current intro makes the claim that "Copenhagen [is] the most important business city in Nordic Region". Since this statement is made, that in fact makes this article interdependent with the Stockholm article. I also strongly object to the correctness and POV:ness of this statement, since the basis for this is only one (1) source and as I've pointed out you can find another of sources that tells you something else. This subjective statement should be removed and changed into something neutral like "Copenhagen was ranked by MasterCard..." etc.
The source for the tourist stats is the report "Fakta om besöksnäringen 2008" published by the city of Stockholm, which uses official figures published by each national statistic agency in the Nordic countries. As you can see from the figures, Stochkolm has more than 2 million commercial overnight stayings compared to Copenhagen (9.3 million for Stockholm to 7.2 for Copenhagen), which I would definitely say is "considerably more".
"Wikipedia has a different view on the Fortune issue"
The Wikipedia article that you linked to was based on on outdated version of the Forbes Global 2000 list (published by Forbes magazine), while my reference was to the Fortune Global 500 list (published by Fortune). I have now updated the list of largest Nordic companies in accordance with the most recent rankings by Forbes (published in Feb. 2008) and independent of which of these two lists you choose to use, you'll see that the claim that five out of the twelve largest Nordic companies has their headquarters in Stockholm is still correct. From the Forbes list you can also make some other interesting observations: out of the 72 Nordic companies on the list, as many as 23 has their headquarters in Stockholm. This is more than twice as many as the closest competitor, Helsinki, which has 10 companies. Copenhagen, on the other hand, is placed only 5th with 5 companies.

As for now I won't bother anymore about the rankings being in the introduction or not, since that seems to be a dead end that'll only lead to more edit wars. Even though I agree with you that the present intro looks vulgar, my main concern is with the POV issue. As for now I'll only change the most blatantly POV sentences like the one I've pointed out above. /Slarre (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Slarre

Tourist stats: The document comparing Stockholms Län to Region Hovedstaden(which is the hospital authority in and around Copenhagen). Obviously, this makes Stockholms share look larger, although they are well aware that Copenhagen as a city is more often defined as the area of HUR(Capital development council) The remaining area(muni. of Roskilde, Køge, Greve, Solrød, Stevns and Lejre), according to DST, has around 1,9 million overnight stayings - that makes it 9,3 to 9,1.

Business: Well, 5 out of 12 is your definition. Copenhagen has 2 out of 5. Who are you to draw the line? If you take a look at these stats, you'll find that Copenhagen is more prosperous than Stockholm: [14], but as you might know, Danish economy isnt based on large companies.

--Kaare Dybvad (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information on the urban area

I know I've said this before but the area figure for the urban area is wrong. I've tried to remove incorrect information about the urban area, but now it's been added again. As I've stated earlier the 455.61 km2 figure is clearly wrong. To get this figure one would need to add Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Albertslund, Ballerup, Brøndby, Dragør, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Glostrup,Herlev, Hvidovre, Lyngby-Taarbæk, Rødovre, Søllerød, Tårnby and Vallensbæk municipalities as it can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Copenhagen

But this wrong because:

Copenhagen urban area consists of parts of Ballerup municpality (not all of it).
Copenhagen urban area consists of parts of Søllerød municipality (not all of it).
Copenhagen urban area consists of parts of Værløse municipality (not all of it).
Copenhagen urban area does not contain Dragør municipality.
As of 2007 both Greve Beach city and Ishøj Beach city have been added (not their municipalities) but they haven't been included here at all.
Not all of the area of the municipalities are urbanized, e.g. not all of Copenhagen municipality is urbanized and netiher is much of Tårnby municipality.

As it can be seen here according to Statistics Denmark: http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2008/NR159.pdf

It even says in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Copenhagen: "According to Danmarks Statistik Metropolitan Copenhagen has a population of 1,086,762 per. January 1, 2004, about 30,000 less than the table shows." So it even says in the article that this area is not the same as the one stated by Statistics Denmark and since then both Greve Beach city and Ishøj Beach city have been added which doesn't make it any better.

As it also says in this article in the population section: "Statistics Denmark has never stated the geographical area of urban Copenhagen."

So why use a number which is clearly wrong? I've just stated why it's wrong and it is indeed wrong. I could remove it again but I got the feeling that someone would just add it again then so I want people to realise that it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall structure of article

I have done some restructuring and supplementing of his article but apparantly a Tom Magnusen disagrees with me. But I don't understand why since the structure I apply is very much consistant with the one used in other articles on european capitals. Compare Stockholm for example. First I don't understand why the chapter on Culture and recreation has to be split up. Is music not culture? The topics grouped together under culture are exactly rhe same as in numerous other articles on cities. I also think it is better to introduce a chapter called Geography since all other city articles seem to have one. This should at least contain location and climate and imo also Copenhagen municipality and Greater Copenhagen but these could also be merged in a chapter called Cityscape I guess. If every little topic is given a seperate chapter you end up with twice as many chapters as they have in any other article on cities such as those on London, Berlin or Paris. What is the meaning in that? All it does is to kill the overview and the logic of the article. And lastly I don't understand why Copenhagen Fashion Week can't be put under Yearly events? And to me it seems far to long, this is an article on Copenhagen and not on Danish fashion, it looks more like an advertisment to me. And most Danish fashion ondustry isn't even located in Copenhagen. With too much stuff like that the article looses credability.

Mikkel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.160.93.110 (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The metropolitan area

According to Kaare Dybvad's changes, the official metropolitan area of Copenhagen is composed of the Swedish city of Malmö and Copenhagen, together having a population of 2,501,094. The reference [[15]] doesn't even mention this figure and doesn't even mention the Malmo/Copenhagen as a single metropolitan area.

Furthermore: In the present article, it is said that:

"Since the opening of the Øresund Bridge in 2000, commuting between and integration of Greater Malmö and Copenhagen have increased rapidly, and a combined statistical metropolitan area has formed. This metropolitan area, which has a population of 2,501,094 (2008) is expected to be officially defined by the respective statistics divisions of Denmark and Sweden in the upcoming years."

The article can't state two opposite things since it is quite contradictory ("is expected to be officially defined by the respective statistics divisions of Denmark and Sweden in the upcoming years" i.e not now, but in the future).

Since there is no reference supporting Kaare's sentence, I changed it. If Kaare (or someone else) wants to change it back, I suggest we discuss it here.

Nirro (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right that there is no official definition of a common Copenhagen-Malmö MA. I have heard that the statistical agencies of Denmark and Sweden will come up with one in 2009. How much it will include is for time to show. Till then I agree it should be changed. ~ Ramblersen (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As for reliability, this source is the Nordic Council, the only coordinating body between the governments of the five countries. This means that all five governments recognise the existence of a common metropolitan area consisting of Copenhagen and Malmö. I'd like to know if you consider a statistical bureau to be more authoritative than a national government, and to what extent you consider this to be the hierarchy? --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention an URBAN AREA (not metropolitan area) consisting of 2,3 M inhabitants. It is somehow contradictory since there is a common nordic definnition of urban areas (i.e danish byområde and swedish tätort or finnish tajaama). According to dst the urban area (byområde) of Copenhagen has 1,153,781 inhabitants and (according to scb) the urban area of Malmö has 258,020 inhabitants (2005), thus around 1,41 M alltogether (far less than 2,3 M). The source doesn't mention the definition of urban areas, upon which their figures are based. It is however stated in the book, that many of their figures are exerpted from the national statistical bureaus of the nordic countries. As long as that book is unclear in this aspect, the national statistical bureaus seem far more authoritative. Nirro (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont know why this is, but the number corresponds to the combined metro area. OECD uses the same words though, and it might be the formal definition of what wikipedia considers a metro area. As long as it isnt defined, Id like to have it like this[16], considering the fact that the only pan-nordic organization recognizes the existence of the area(and OECD, btw). Can't see how this is *not relevant* to the users of wikipedia(who might wonder how large the functional metropolitan area is, after all), or how this should be *not correct*(considering authoritarian sources), but maybe youre able to enlighten me? --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The figure used in your source is 2.3M. If we add the Malmö metro population to the population of Region Hovedstaden, we obtain around 2,280,000 inh. I guess that this is what the source is referring to. Our problem for now is that: This corresponde to the official metropolitan area of Malmö (628,388 inh), but the Region Hovedstaden is only an administrative area and could hardly be regarded as the Cph metro. In fact the real metropolitan area of Cph has around 1.2M to 1.9M depending on definition (Malmo excluded). Combining the Swedish area with the danish area is the same thing as combining apples and pears (then it would be more appropriate to combine Region Hovedstaden with Scania). The other problem is that the source mention the word "urban area". I cannot find any article on wikipedia where urban areas include huge areas of sea (in this case more than 10km). The definition of urban areas differs somewhat, but totally unpopulated areas (like sea-surfaces) aren't included. THe source doesn't tell anything about its definition of an urban area, which is in conflict with all other definitions I've seen.

It seems as though Kaare validate the authority of this source only upon who has written it. I think it also is important to make a validation (if it is worth citing) based on its content. As for now, the source doesn't make anything but confusing the readers, given the clear definied figures from the national statistcs bureaus (which also make use of the same definitions). If the source is to be used, a clarification about the definition is required (stated by the same authors). --Nirro (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There might be some researchers ourthere who doesnt agree on the wikipedia-definions of urban/metropolitan areas, hence using "urban area" for "metropolitan area". Fact is, that the metropolitan area of Copenhagen *is not* in a span from 1,2 to 1,9 M, but rather between 1,5 and 2,2 M (scientifically, not wikipedially, speaking).

Apart from the patronizing comments regarding the validation of sources, there are no argument why the definition, which is mentioned in the report, was removed. As long as it is a fact, which, in the eyes of nordic governments, is worth mentioning, why should wikipedia remove it? Many city articles does not state the exact number in the metropolitan area, so i cant find any reasonable argument for not using the source--Kaare Dybvad (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Transportation history

I heard the bicycle infrastructure was mostly constructed in the 1980s? It would be illuminating to have more details on the history. -- Beland (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beland

It might be difficult to get this information in english, but these people[17] at the Danish Cyclist Union has published several useful reports and booklets about the importance of cykling in the development of Copenhagen. Unfortunately only in Danish, though. --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Usually considered as..." in the lead

Am I the only one who finds this sentence in the lead kund of weird? "Copenhagen is usually ranked as one of the two largest cities of the Nordic Countries"? Usually? I think what is it the rest of the time considered as? 3dr largest, 8th largest? I don't think it is needed at all. Just like the article on Amsterdam doesn't have to say what rank it has in the Benelux countris. The numbers are there and anyone who is interested can easily see for himself which are the biggest.

85.83.9.247 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen in international rankings

I have reverted some changes by 122.57.184.186 in the "Copenhagen in international rankings" section. Basically it wasn't rankings but general info and secondly it was a repetition (copy-paste even) from the lead (and elsewhere). The article being on the long side already, I think such repetitions should be avoided, also to improve the readability of it and not to bore/annoy readers. I think the section should be resserved for notorious rankings and not turn into a summary compiling all sorts of info. Furthermore I think it should be kept only for the most important/international/notable rankings, there are simply so many to pick from, many are not that trustworthy and they get outdated fast. And citing too many unimportant, local or random facts just reomves focus from the more relevant and important ones.

If 122.57.184.186 or others disagree I suggest we discuss it first here.

Ramblersen (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the above, but I'd suggest updating the first bullet in this section, either by replacing with:

It was ranked second most livable city in the world by international lifestyle magazine Monocle on their Top 25 Most Livable Cities 2009 list, exceeded only by Zurich. [ref]

[ref] is http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/766d1c92-561e-11de-ab7e-00144feabdc0.html

Or you could add this text to the existing text:

Copenhagen slipped to #2 in Monacle's 2009 ranking, as Zurich moved to #1. [ref]

Note that the reference above is a citation of the article in Financial Times. The Monacle article is accessible by subscription only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yambu (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yambu 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Length of article

The article is getting very long and some info should maybe be considered moved to other article? In the section on the "Finger Plan", there is a very long description and anumeration of suburbs. I would suggest this being put in a new article on the "Finger Plan" and replaced by a shorter overview. Also because the section as it is now suffers from a notorious lack of references and a lot of the suburbs enumerated haven't even got articles (are red).

Another possible shortening of the article I would suggest is giving up the section on "Notable citizens" alltogether. Most articles on larger cities in Europe haven't got such a llist and most of the people mentioned aren't really that famous among English-speakers anyway or are famous but allready associated with Copenhagen by most people. So does it really add something to the article? I don't think so, jow do others feel?

Ramblersen (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

pov

see at least history section. I don't know anything of Copenhagen, but I can see that the glittering Danish Empire .. is just pov Mallerd (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article has been in the hands of a few SPAs with an obvious agenda of turning this article into nothing more than a commercial for Copenhagen and "Danish design" (whatever that is) for some months now. All serious editors have more or less given up on it. Possibly it is a sock account because the monomania of the edits of Ramblersen, Tom.magnussen and an IP-editor is very apparent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a POV template to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I am one of the editors being named I would like to answer. It is true that I have made a lot of edits. However, the reason for this is that A) The overall structure of the article was very confusing and deffering from the standard on other major cities B) It lacked any information on important matters such as museums, cityscape/architecture etc C) It suffered from a notorious lack of references D) Some info was VERY biased, cf. for instande an enture section on Copenhagen Fashion Week that seemed like nothing but an advertisment imo. It still does but everytime I triede to reduce it to more basic info it was reverted E) A lot of wrong and outdated info plus a long summary of future architecture projects of which it is very uncertain wheather many of the will get built, something obviously not belonging in an envyvlopedia. As for my "monomania" edits in general I would like to stress I have done so to make it more readable, standard and less biased and since it had some very fundamental problems both with overall structure and (lack of) content, significant meassures were needed to resolve the problems as I see it. Andbodu who wants to can look back in the history of this article and hudge for him- or herself. I would like to point out that I have adapted the article to what seems to be the standard structure of articles on cities. I have added A LOT OF references since this was one of the majotr points of critisicm earlier. As for the neutrality of this article, I totally agree with the criticism of the "glittering"-stuff in the History section. It sounds like a turist pamflet - and a bad one. But it's been in here since I first read this article and made any edits. As I said I also see a problem with the stuff on Copenhagen Fashion Week and I have tried to remedy it but it was reverted and now is sort of a compromise (and I think it should be reduced to a mere menthioning and possibly some numbers). There used to be a somewhat similar problem with the subsection on the harbour and again I have shortened it and see no problem with neutrality now. I also see a problem with a survey made by a Danish agency about regional HQs nad again I have tried to remove it/reduce it - but again it has partly been reverted. A couple of other places I also think there has been a problem but it dates back to before I made any edits and I have generally tried to remove it, reduce it or at lest add references so people can judge for themselves. And it is kind of a Catch22 if you on one side are blamed of "monomania" edits and on the other side of not having changed even more. As for my onw edits, I don't see where there is a problem with POV and since no examples have been mentioned it is hard to answer. I certainly do provide positive info in places but always with international sources - and it is certainly no different from what is done in other articles on major cities, compare for instance the one on Berlin or pretty much any other big city. Again I see no general problem with the POV of this article and if anybody do I suggest they are more concrete in their criticism. Amd accusing me of being an unserious editor is totally unfair and ill-founded - which anyone who look into the history of this thread can see.Ramblersen (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking any editor, I was just pointing out POV in this article. I believe you do know a lot about Copenhagen, I only know that it is the capital of Denmark and that there is a roadsign in South Holland that tells me that I'm about 700km away from Copenhagen :P I don't feel like edHiting an article because of that. Catch22, how is it not winning by improving this article like you did? Mallerd (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I wasn't referring to your comments but to Saddhiyama, sorry if i didn't make that clear but I though it followed from what I wrote. I totally agree with your statement as for the example you gave (as well as a couple of other passages of which I have changes many already) but do not see a general problem with this article.Ramblersen (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What part/parts of the article do you consider POV? I'd like to improve it, but as long as you havent pointed out what is wrong, it is not right to add the POV template. --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Even as a copenhagener that loves his wonderful city, I do agree that the article tends to be too commercial for an encyclopedia-article. Especially the lead, which includes too many ranks from random magazines trying to boost the city into being more/other than it is. By the way, why is a random magazine a truthful source to the description of Copenhagen as the most livable city in the world?! One or too of the following references could be deleted, and the article toned down (I suggest deleting the Mastercard-reference):

"In 2008 Copenhagen was ranked #4 by Financial Times-owned FDi magazine on their list of Top50 European Cities of the Future after London, Paris and Berlin.[4] In the 2008 Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index, published by MasterCard, Copenhagen was ranked 14th in the world and 1st in Scandinavia.[5]" [...] "in 2008 it was singled out as the Most Liveable City in the World by international lifestyle magazine Monocle on their Top 25 Most Liveable Cities 2008 list.[11] \TLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.242.64.2 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to nake a fuss about it, I don't really care, but if you check a lot of other articles on European capitals they quote many of the same rankings. See e. g. the Berlin article for quoting a liveability ranking. A random magazine is a thful source to the description of Copenhagen as the most livable city in the world if you state that it is according to that particular maqazine, not if you state it as an abjective fact. The article made a more general statement and quotes a number of sources including the one by Monocle that you refer to. And outher articles on cities are full of such surveys and rankings. The Stockholm article quotes a book for stating that Stockholm Marathon is the best in the world, is that objective? As long as it isn't some small, obscure, national source I don't see the problem - or alternatively wikipedia artivles are full of that problem and you should make a more general clean out.

Ramblersen (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jup, modern Danish romantic nationalism, promoted by the infamous Danish Peoples Party, also seems to be showing it's ugly face around here, I would encourge and support any neutral non Danes to try and root it out, and be happy to answer any questions on my talk page, in any case we probably also need to shorten the article considerably. Sertmann (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IPA in first sentence

Could we move all the pronunciation stuff from the first sentence to the infobox or somewhere else? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Having it in the first sentence is standard on Wikipedia, so people will look for it there and be confused if not found. I do agree with your concern, though; four English pronunciations and two Danish ones are confusing, and, if the differences remain unexplained, fairly useless. The problem arises because the city is pronounced differenly in different sources, I think. Though I'm not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, I am convinced that most Danes (I am one myself) pronounce it as copenHEYgen, and the o being an OH sound. However, I think that many native anglophones pronounce it copenHARgen, with an A-sound as in father. There is also the variant of the o not sounding like OH, but I think that's less common. So perhaps something to do would be to include only the two common pronunciations (if they can be established by sources, preferably), and then have a section dealing with pronunciation differences, per your suggestion. As for the Danish pronunciations, the first one given is how it is officially pronounced in what is called Rigsdansk, which is the officially used pronunciations. Many people, myself included, probably use the latter version, though; should Wikipedia, then, use the official Danish version or the version that some (don't know if it's most) Danes use? Tough questions - I'll inform WP:WikiProject Denmark about this debate so we can get more Danish-speaking input going. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is overkill to have so many pronunciations indicated. Myself a Dane, I have difficulties seeing how it can be relevant to Wikipedia how the word "Copenhagen" is pronounced by a Dane. "Copenhagen" is not a Danish word, it is an English word and the pronunciation indicated, I would think, should be the "official" English one (whichever that is - I am not a phonetic specialist). Same for the Danish pronunciation of "København", although I can´t really help determining which one is the right one. So I guess I am not much of a help. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now we pretty much list every possible way of pronuncing it English. That should be fixed. I don't think there is a definite way to pronunce it among native English speakers. When I lived in East England they pronunced it as copenHEYgen, but I have noticed that Barack Obama says copenHARgen. My opinion is that if we can't find a definate way to pronunce it, then we should not list any IPA's. --Maitch (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest having one english and one danish pronunciation in the first sentence and put the others in a note.21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·

List of museums in and around Copenhagen

I have now twice removed this link from a {{seealso}} template. I fully believe that seealso templates should not contain redlinks. If someone creates the article, by all means re-add that template, but while it is a redlink, I think it shouldn't be put in the article. In order to avoid an edit war (including if consensus is that I'm wrong here), I'm bringing it here as well as stating this on the reverting editor's talkpage. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is now a moot point - I see User:Ramblersen was in the process of creating the article while I was complaining :-) So I withdraw my concern. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry if that was a wrong approach but it was a matter of minutes so I figured noone would mind. Chears.Ramblersen (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for you to apologise, I was probably a bit too quick on the trigger there. So I think I'll apologise instead. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war!

There seems to be two conflicting versions of this article, and editors alternate between them, reverting big chunks of perfectly legitimate edits and calling other editors sock-puppets (myself included). While I do not understand this behavior it seems to me that both version have some merit, and should be merged and not fought over. I suggest that the discussion be held here and not in the article history. Thanks --Thorseth (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article version called the sockpuppet version was changed from the other version to which we revert by user: wowscotland who was shown to be a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User Historian19. He has a history of including images in pages about european cities that later turn out to be copyright violations - that is why we revert back to the other version with the original images, the likelyhoo is that the images he provided are not legally his to provide. And in anycase the version came into existence as by circumvention of a block and was written by a user who has nor rights to contribute to the projects. It is safe to assume that most of the anonymous editors that revert to wow-scotlands version are sockpuppets too.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but it seems to me that for instance the start of the history section of the "sock version" is a lot more sober and encyclopedic then the "official" version. Perhaps a protection of some kind is in order--Thorseth (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an editor could extract some of the better features of the sockpuppet version and make that the new 'reference' article. I'm sure that the sock will continue to revert to his preferred version but at least then the reversion back would be to a superior version. JohnInDC (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here by the way is a link to the sockmaster's extensive history of puppetry - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historian19. JohnInDC (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to official municipality website

{{editsemiprotected}} The municipality of Copenhagen has created a citizen service website for foreign expats and students who are living in Copenhagen or considering moving to Copenhagen. I think a link to this page would be appropriate, as it is just as relevant or maybe more relevant to many people than the municipality's official website.

The citizen service website is located at http://www.kk.dk/thinkincph and the link text could be: CPH International Service - Citizen service for foreign expats and students in Copenhagen.

--PZtill (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. There was already an external link to the main page at www.kk.dk, so I added yours to that entry. Hope that works for you. Celestra (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes - that works just fine.

--PZtill (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad reference

The user JHF1000 used the reference, [18]. The reference says that "With around 3.5 million inhabitants within a 50 km radius...". JHF1000 trusted completely the journalist who wrote this article and used the reference as an official source of population statistics.

However, there is information available from the national statiscs agencies of Denmark and Sweden: Statistiska Centralbyran (Sweeden) http://www.scb.se and Danmarks Statistik (Denmark) http://www.dst.dk.

The following populations figures (081231 (Swe) and 090101 (Den)) where retreived from http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____132260.aspx http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1920

What areas are acutally inside the 50 km radius?

Denmark: The whole of Region Hovedstaden except Bornholm pop: 1,619,722

-Greve, pop: 47,951 -Solrod, pop: 20,743 -Koge, pop: 56,848 -Roskilde, pop: 81,285 -Stevns, pop: 21,948 -Faxe (Faxe is situated 54 km from Radhuspladsen, but the municipality is partially within the radius) pop: 35,441 -Ringsted (Ringsted is situated 54 km from Radhuspladsen, but the municipality is partially within the radius) pop: 32,442 -Holbaek (Holbaek is situated 54 km from Radhuspladsen, but the municipality is partially within the radius) pop: 69.528

Sweden: -Malmö, pop: 286,535
-Vellinge, pop: 32,843
-Lomma, pop: 20,449
-Staffanstorp, pop: 21,667
-Burlöv, pop: 16,230
-Kävlinge, pop: 28,255
-Svedala, pop: 19.390
-Lund, pop: 107,351
-Eslöv, pop: 31,123
-Helsingborg, pop: 126,754
-Svalöv, pop: 13,184
-Bjuv (Distance: 51 km, but municipality is paritally inside), pop: 14,613
-Trelleborg (Distance: 51 km, but municipality is paritally inside), pop: 41,558
-Åstorp (Distance: 55 km, but municipality is paritally inside), pop: 14,533

These municipalities count together a population of 2,760,393. It could be doubted that some of the municiplalities could be included. If they are excluded, we reach a sum of 2,593,836 within a 50 km radius. No matter how we count, the figure (3.5 million) refered from [19] must be completely wrong. Everything on the web that can be referred to is not a good reference.

I did remove the reference, but JHF1000 reinserted it. As I remove it for now, I expect it not to be reinserted, unless an explanation of the bad figures (which are not compatible with the official source given) is presented here on the talk page. Best regards Nirro (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is confused. I've heard the 3.5 million figure before, but as a part of a study of how many people live within 1 hour of Copenhagen (this is supposed to be the potential shoppers/commuters). It is pretty much the same as the Oresund region. I've never found that study online and this is a pretty wrong reproduction of it. Carewolf (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The content introduced by User:JHF1000 does indeed not seem to be up to scratch. I support its removal.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nirro. I rather believe The Times and the Distribution Council of Denmark, than your personal counting. Danmarks Statistik (Denmark) http://www.dst.dk. has not made this counting of 50 km radius. --JHF1000 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be lieve Danmarks Statistik as a definitive reference, not the Times. Can you please provide a link to where Danmarks Statistik writes that there are 3,5 million people living within 50 km of Copenhagen?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Danmarks Statistik has not made this kind of counting. Danmarks Statistik only counts regions and municipalities I believe. Then how can you use Danmarks Statistik if they not have made this counting of 50 km radius? The Times is maybe the largest newspaper the the world and is used as reference many times on wikipedia and in the reference it also says it's taken from the Distribution Council Denmark (Danish parlament)--JHF1000 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But the facts must be retreived from an official source directly. Has Times made an investigation of this kind it self, or have they just interviewed a civil servant from a Danish ministry (who made a guess?)?

I wouldn't argue that Copenhagen is within one of the most densely populated areas of Northern Europe. Its significantly denser than the area surrounding Stockholm (50 km radius should have some 2.2M as compared with Oresund's 2.5-2.7) and denser than Oslo or Helsinki. I don't know if it is denser than Hamburg however (sometimes Hamburg is included in "Northern Europe"). Sometimes the Great Britain is included in this area, and I don't know the figures for London, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool. Copenhagen is within one of the densiest region in Northern Europe or within the densiest region of the Nordic Countries/Scandinavia.

My figures come from counting whole municipalities/kommuner (figures from dst.dk and scb.se). The distances are however my weak point, since they are made from google.Earth. But I used quite a lot of margin and 2.5-2.7 is not close to 3.5.

The figure from the times can also be easely checked out. A circle with radius 50km is 7,850 km2. The whole of Oresund Region is 20,869 km2, thus the remaining part of Oresund region would encompass 13,019 km2 (probably more since the 50 radius include see-surface). The Oresund Region population (on the 20,8869 km2 region) is 3,698,295, thus, according to the times figure, around 200,000 would live in the remaining part (13,019 km2) of Oresund Region. This would mean a population density of around 15-16 /km2. Can you find a single municipality within the Oresund Region, where the density is as low as that? On the Danish side Lollands kommune is the most sparse (54/km2), next to it we find Guldborgsund (70/km2). On the Swedish side the Osby kommun is the most sparse (22/km2), and next to it Örkelljunga (32/km2). So not even one kommune is as sparse as 15-16km2. If we sum all the most periferal kommunes (i.e have coasts to Store baelt or to the south or north/east border of Scania), we reach a population of 507.000, on an area of 7948 km2. This means 64/km2, ie much higher than 15-16. Therefore we can completely conclude, from official sources that the figure presented by the Times must be wrong.

Regards Nirro (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Times may be a reliable source in other contents - but here Nirro is using official data to show that this particular claim of theirs is wrong. There doesn simply not live 3,5 million people within 50 km of Copenhagen according to official figures.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)