Talk:Copenhagen/Archive 3

Currently the German article gives the IPA for København as [kʰøb̥m̩ˈhɑʊ̯ˀn]. This English article has [kʰøb̥ənˈhaʊ̯ˀn]. (Therefore [m̩] vs. [n].) Which is more accurate? Lfh (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are accurate. The one given here is the precise, well articulated pronunciation that hardly anyone but the queen uses. The one with m at the german article is the standard colloquial pronunciation. I use the second one to be sure, but noth exist. The first one is more prescriptive while the other is more descriptive of actual speaking practices.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find no mention of the famous statue. Our article about The Little Mermaid (statue) states that it "sits on a rock in the Copenhagen harbour at Langelinie" and describes it as "a Copenhagen icon". I was inclined to add a sentence or two, but I've decided not to be bold in this instance, thinking that the omission was obvious enough that there must have been a reason for it. Can anyone explain? JamesMLane t c 07:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I can answer your question since I can only answer for muself. I really don't find it that important, nor do I see exactly where it would fit in: Architecture...? Culture...? The article hasn't got a section on icons, nor on overrated junk. I added a section on cityscape/architecture about a year ago or so and there I added a "See also" reference to a list of buildings and structures in Copenhagen which has a section with statues and fountains where it is listed. I figured it would be easy to find that way round and that that would do. Back then there wasn't any mention of a lot of stuff like museums, parks, architecture (apart from a long list with partly wrong info on projects most of which will never be built) and a lot of other stuff which I simply found much more relevant to expand the article with. But back then there was a very long list of very heterogenous stuff where I think it was listed. I removed the list since I had incorporated text on most of the things listed in relevant sections. And the little finned missy didn't really seam to fit in anywhere and neither all that important plus the article was getting very long - therefore I went for the sollution described above. So I guess that I'm the one to blame and for that I apoligize if it was a misjudgement. I still don't think it is worth any more space (well any space, that is) but sure it is famous and if you want to go ahead add a few lines, I certainly won't object, embark on edit wars or lie awake at night.Ramblersen (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep I checked, it was listed in that list - which was called Places of note in or near Copenhagen.Ramblersen (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me that a city article should make note of major tourist attractions. Regardless of whether something's overrated, an objective encyclopedia should report that many visitors want to see it.

You raise the point about where to put it, though, and that is certainly a problem. I live in New York City, so the obvious analogy to me was the Statue of Liberty. That statue is listed in the "Culture" section under a subhead for "Tourism". In the Copenhagen article, however, museums and the Tivoli Gardens are already in other subsections. Having a "Tourism" section just to mention the Little Mermaid seems awkward. Right now I'm not sure how to include it, but I do think it belongs in the article somewhere. JamesMLane t c 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of part of table in article - about months low temperatures

Jan_Lo_°C = -1 Feb_Lo_°C =-2 Mar_Lo_°C = 0 Apr_Lo_°C = 3 May_Lo_°C = 7 Jul_Lo_°C =13 Aug_Lo_°C = 13 Sep_Lo_°C =10 Oct_Lo_°C = 7 Nov_Lo_°C = 3 Dec_Lo_°C =0 The figures may be correct, but the sum of theese numbers (-1,-2,0,3,7,13,13,10,7,3,0) copied from the article) is 53. Averige of theese 12 numbers is 4.417. But February (wich is coldest is also shorter then the worner and longer july and august. Therefore annual low temerature is set to 4.5, if anyone lowers theese figures, pleese adjust the averige also. 3 is in any case wrong counting! Bengt Johanneson (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be mentioned too I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.177.197 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, many peolple here say that--122.57.177.229 (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In the article it is said that "Copenhagen has become the centre of the increasingly integrating Øresund Region with around 3.7 million inhabitants covering an area of 20,869 km² (177/km²)."

Is really the number of inhabitants and surface of that region worth mentioning? In this way it can easily be confused with a metropolitan area (which it is not). In the article about Brussels, you don't see "Brussels has become the centre of South Benelux Region (Belgium) with around 10.5 million inhabitants covering an area of 30,528 km² (340/km²).". There is a reason for that: Belgium should not be confused with the much smaller Brussels metropolitan region. In the same way: The Oresund Region should not be confused with the much smaller Copenhagen metropolitan region. There is a separate article for Oresund Region where these figures should appear. Nirro (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I will remove these figures soon, unless somebody comes up with a good reason to let them stay in the article. Nirro (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And no answer or opposition to my suggestion. I take it for a "yes" to remove those (in this context) misleading figures. Nirro (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article: -A gallery and a list of the largest projects (they need better descriptions though)-Two big pictures of Copenhagen Towers and 'Our City', they are maybe too big?What do you think?

No opinion. Simply signing this with a date (from a month ago, which is still months later than the last comment here) to make it fodder for the archiver bot. Lissajous (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen is much larger than the municipality of Copenhagen. In fact, compared with cities such as Stockholm, Malmö, Hamburg and Berlin, the municipality of Copenhagen comprises only of the very inner part of the city (The city has more than a million inhabitants, of these only 0,5 mio people live in the municipality). So, in a way Copenhagen is a city with a mayor who only by name is the mayor of "Copenhagen".

No opinion. Simply signing this with a date (from a month ago, which is later than the last comment here) to make it fodder for the archiver bot. Lissajous (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok - not sure what this was about, but as it's unsigned I'm adding a comment with a slightly old date so it will be considered for archiving. Lissajous (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

wots the name of mayor of Kopenhagen?

His name is Jens Kramer Mikkelsen. - Kaare 13:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

election soon to come

It is some time ago that the election took place. The mayor is currently former EU commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard, she is a Social Democrat and Copenhagen's first female mayor. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the municipality of Copenhagen has more mayors. Ritt Bjerregaard is the Lord Mayor.

The municipality of Copenhagen is the only municipality in Denmark with more than one mayor.

Copenhagen has elected a new mayor now, Frank Jensen. He is also a Social Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.143.55 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some consensus for automatically archiving old material from the talk page? If there is (or conversely, if there isn't opposition), I'd like to set it up to archive material older than a month - as described in (User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo). Lissajous (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that http://www.galenfrysinger.com/denmark_copenhagen.htm seems to substantially mirror the text for the WP article on Copenhagen.

Anyone know if we're somehow echoing someone elses text? The giveaway line btw is "From its humble origins as a fishing village to its heyday as the glittering capital of the Danish Empire".Lissajous (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope - it's not us. Found a little "Text from wikipedia" on the page. Lissajous (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There has only been one new line (along the southern coast), the rest are older local and/or gods-railways, that has been electrifyed and updated. Theese were built long before 1947. The Fingerplan is a deskproductwith no actual importance. And it's unknown even by politicans in the city hall. Just becaurse there is a link to a source does not mean that the source is of importance. Copenhagen TODAY is looking at Oresund and the big, but not so much used harbour. Specially south of the two central bridges have new water-close block of flats and offices beeing built. A gigantic plan to build exclusive flats also in the northern harbour and the oil-harbout at north Amager is far more of intrerest for politicians today. Please remove the obsolete Fingerplan.

Further the metro is under fast development with a circle line with 17 (or 18) stations wich of 12 (or 13)depending on the southwest part, wich is not decided yet, I belive. Thow all other parts of the cicle line is today beeing built (all the line is underground).

Unsigned, and not sure why sinebot didn't catch this, but from the logs, this was added by- ~~83.249.35.10 (talk) at 14:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obsolete" is not a criterion for deleting content in Wikipedia. If you have a source saying the fingerplan is unimportant today or was so in the past we can discuss it here or you can put it in the section as an opposing argument. I think it’s a good idea to include the new developments, but we should keep the mention of the fingerplan. Thanks --Thorseth (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Copenhagen City is very small (small surface), apart from that FREDERIKSBERG is not officially a part of Copenhagen, it's an "island" town inside the city, but i reallity it's a borough (compleeatly surrounded bythe rest of the official Copenhagen. Further the City center (with block of flats with 7-8 floors) also goes beyound the official border. The inner city = Copenhagen + Frederiksberg + parts of other communitys/boroughs like Gladsaxe and Gentofte. The inner city has about 700,000 to 750,000 inhabitants (520 000 in Copenhagen, 95 000 in Frederiksberg and more then 100,000 in the neighbour boroughs.The whole Copenhagen area has >1,9 million inhabitants on 2850 sq.kilometers. (While f.i. Stockholm needs almost 7000 sq.km. to get 1.9 million. And central Stockholm has less then 300,000 inhabitants) Copenhagen is the largest city in Scandinavia in any way You messure - only thats it's a fair comparission. And if we add western conty of Skåne (western Scania) the entire Oresundregion has 2,8 to 2,85 million inhabitants on less then 6000 sq.km./John Eriksson , county of Skåne (occupied by Sweden since 1658)

Unsigned, and not sure why sinebot didn't catch this, but from the logs, this was added by- ~~83.249.35.10 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you discuss this here. No comparison between Stockholm and Copenhagen is made in this article. In the info box, the city is equal with the municipality of Copenhagen, but there is a city definition which include Copenhagen, Fredriksberg, Dragor and Tarnby. Together these municipalities count:

Pop: 677,617 inh

Area: 180 km2

Density: 3,764inh/km2

You requested a comparison with Stockholm;

Pop: 825,057

Area: 188 km2

Density: 4,389inh/km2

Both of these two areas contain large chunks of suburbs and land without settlements. Central Stockholm is exclusively cityblocks, while central Copenhagen to a large extent is composed of block, but also vaste areas of semidetached houses and villas. This is reflected in the facts that central Stockholms is more densely populated than central Copenhagen.

However, it could be a good idea using the (official) city definition in the info-box. What do you others think about that?

Some comments on your figures. Stockholm has over 2 million inhabitants on 6,500 km2, not "almost 7000 sq.km. to get 1.9 million". 6,500 km2 exclude Uppsala, which is within 35 minutes reach from Stockholm (and a couple of larger towns that can be reach within one hour). Copenhagen metro + malmo metro + the rest of western Skane has 2,825,085 on 7,740 km2 (not less than 6,000km2). Nirro (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User JHF1000 inserted the sentence "it (Orestad) currently boasts the largest mall in Scandinavia" referring to Field's. The source is Field's's own homepage (http://www.fields.dk/default.asp?PageID=181), which cannot be regarded as an official source.

If we compare it with Nordstan in Gothenburg it is more unclear:

Total area:Nordstan: 320,000 m²Field's: 115,000 m²

Number of shops:Nordstan: 180 Field's: approx 150

Number of visitorsNorstan: more than 35 million visitors in 2008Field's: more than 250,000 customers visiting the centre during its first week in business (2004). Extrapolation would give 13 million visitors annually (based on the first week in operation)

I cannot state that Field's would be larger in any of the above mentioned aspects. Field's is for sure one of the largest malls in Scandinavia, but probably not the largest in Scandinavia. Please do not chance until you present more official and independent sources supporting the statement.Nirro (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Copenhagen, why make questions of Gothenburg here ??? Awayanoder (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you classify Nordstan as a mall in the modern sense of the word? There are a series of characteristics that rule Nordstan out, e.g. streetnames, that it is allowed to perform political activities, the fact that it is built on the former street structure and that its based in the centre of the city. I dont know the exact meaning of "affärscentrum" (as they describe themselves) but Nordstan has little to do with shopping malls like Field´s, Itäkeskus, Mall of America and the like. --Kaare Dybvad (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To Awayanoder: We are discussing it since a user inserted a sentence saying that Orsetad boast the largest mall in Scandinavia. It may be correct that they boast, but it is far from correct that the mall is to be considered the largest one in Scandinavia.

To Kaare Dybvad: Malls have different caracteristics. Some of them are more urban and build on former outdoor street (like Nordstan (Gothenburg), Gallerian (Stockholm), Hansa center (Turku), Triangeln (Malmo)) and some of them are typically build close to highways and make up a center of them selves (Field's, Idea Park (Tampere), Skanssi (Turku), Stinsen (Stockholm)). Nordstan is a mall in caracter, but due to its size, it is also used by pedestrians who pass through it (which also happens i Gallerian). It is more public in caracter, but I cannot see why that would disqualify it as a mall. However I see your point, but due to unclarities in the "mall definition" it is quite remarkable to make such a statement. As for now, we know of one further mall in Oslo: Sandvika storcenter, which also has more shops than both Nordstan and Field's.

Further: The definition of Scandinavia varies througout the world. In german speaking countries, Finland is included. Itäkeskus has the same floor area as Field's but has 240 shops.

I think the most correct is to write that Field's is one of the largest mall in Scandinavia. Nirro (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1801 the brittish navy damanded the danish (and swedish) navys - this led to the battle outside Copenhagen harbour in 1801, Lord Nelson were if not highest in command, so present and very active. But the mission was more difficult then expected and for some reason (perhaps the news of mrurder of the russian tzar Paul I was one) Nelon never countinued to Karlskrona where the main part of the swedish navy was at the time. Nelson was also very surprised about how the danes fought the battle, and the english navy - allthow winning the battle, lost many ships and sailors.

In 1807 the navy wasn't the main issue - and the brittish surrounded Copenhagen by landring army troops, but never made any attempt to take the city. Instead the landed army used artillery and a new weapon - rockets with phosfor in the top. And since the city mainly was built of three-houses the rockets burned down 80-90% of all non-stone houses. I do not remember the exact reason for this battle, but ofcourse Napoleon was involved - at least the brittish didn't trust the danish neutrality.please rewright this part of the article since it caused confusion in other wikipedias My written english is not up to standard in this case I'm afraid /reguards Awayanoder (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Awayanoder has changed figures in the info box, claiming that Copenhagen City consists of the following municipalities: Copenhagen, Frederiksberg and Gentofte. As far as I know this city definition is obsolete. The current definition of Copenhagen consists of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Tårnby and Dragør (i.e the land of Copenhagen). This is also what is said in the article.

In order to obtain some consistency, I will change back the figures to be congruent with what is claimed furhter down in the article. If you find this wrong, I suggest you to bring an official source and thence change figures in the info box as well as further down in the article (to reach consistency). Nirro (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the text it states that there's three beaches in Copenhagen and surroundings. Only Amager Strandpark is mentioned and I guess the second is Bellevue, but what's the third? Is it Hellerup, Charlottenlund, Brøndby, Ishøj or someting else? --Santac (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2009 and 2010 Copenhagen was listed in the official Hub Culture Zeitgeist rankings - measures of the global zeitgeist in a well respected annual ranking of the world's top cities.These inclusions could be included in the international rankings listings.Links: http://hub.vg/2010zeitgeist and http://hub.vg/2009zeitgeistfrom PSFK: www.psfk.com/2009/01/hub-cultures-2009-zeitgeist-ranking.htmlwww.psfk.com/.../the-best-cities-on-the-planet-hub-culture-2010-zeitgeist. html Kaskaad (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I found this web page, u might link to it. It a nice webpage about Copenhagen with a lot of photos.The address is http://www.cph-visual.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.henriksen (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

/D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.henriksen (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add information about language and percent of each being spoken/known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.102.253 (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no section for contemporary culture and arts? For instance Colonel and Emergency Room or even some projects of Bramstrup Performing Arts and so on. Sorenonilsson (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Geoffroy Sorenonilsson (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bramstrup: http://www.bramstrup.dk/ Sorenonilsson (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that Copenhagen is "[...] considered one of the world's most environmentally friendly cities" but this claim is unsourced.

I'd like to know by whom it is considered this and perhaps even some reasons as to why, otherwise I'm not sure it's appropriate to state it as fact.

It can perhaps be read as suggested that part of the reason would be the equally unsubstantiated claims that the "water in the inner harbour is so clean that it can be swum in" or that "36% of all citizens commute to work by bicycle", both of which, if true, may contribute to someone considering it "one of the world's most environmentally friendly cities" but there are no links to show that anyone, other than perhaps whoever edited the article, actually believes it or that this person would have any reason to do so.

I'd completely remove the claims but figured I'd give someone who might have more in-depth knowledge of the facts in this case a chance to fix it before I go on mucking about too much.

--195.198.42.205 (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your quote is from the lead which is supposed to summarize the most important points of the article. There is a source to nearly the same statement at Copenhagen#Environment although the source [1] doesn't say exactly the same. Thanks for not completely removing the claim right away. If you have no specific reason to believe something is wrong and it doesn't make a negative claim about a living person then it's often (not always) inappropriate to just remove it without consulting the talk page or tagging it to give other users a chance to find sources. A possible tag here would be {{By whom}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion by sockpuppet collapsed. O Fenian (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think? Followed the London template with a small whitespace around the different photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.182.162.2 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article currently uses the first image on the right

I propose replacing it with the image below to the left:

Which picture do you think is better? 000peter (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? The current photo is much, much better. Higher quality and better angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanishTexture (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought a colour picture showing the hotel's logo and the entire building would look better than a dull, slightly grainy black and white image. I admit that neither picture is perfect though.... So I think it should probably stay as it is currently then. 000peter (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In the introduction Oresund region is mentioned. The Oresund region is a region of co-operation across Denmark and Sweden. It has a density of about 180 inh/km2. As mentioned in the introduction its population is at almost 3.8 million on an area equivalent to half of hte Netherlands. Within this area Copenhagen and Malmo might be in the process of forming a combined metropolitan area, allthough it is not yet recognized as such a one by the statistical bureaus of Denmark or Sweden. The metropolitan areas of Copenhagen together count almost 2.6 million (1.914 + 0.657). Now the figure 3.8 appears but I cannot see why that figure would be more relevant than the population of e.g the whole of Denmark. user Danish texture has compared it with the article about Amsterdam, where the population of Randstad region is mentioned. The randstad region is a conurbation (cities spread out troughout the region, density: 850 inh/km2). The whole of Oresund region is cannot be cosidered as such (bigger cities just along the Oresund strip, density 180 inh/km2 for the whole region). Furthermore it can be misleading using the figure in that context since it might easely be confused with the metropolitan area, which is much smaller.

One might include the west coast of Sweden up to Helsingborg in the conurbation, but further east, there are no bigger cities (Kristianstad is the biggest with about 36,000 in the urban area). Taking a look to Denmark, there is only one "larger" city outside the metropolitan area of Copnehagen: Næstved (pop: 42,000). There are three cities in the range 20.000 - 35.000: Slagelse, Ringsted and Holbaek. None of these are for instant situated in the islands of Lolland, Falster or Møn. The Randstad conurbnation comprises about 10 cities with a population of 100,000 or higher. Furthermore Amsterdam, The Haag and Rotterdam all have a populationen above 0,5 million (more in the urban areas). In the Oresund region only Copenhagen and Malmo surpasses the 100,000 level (also Lund and Helsingborg would be included if we count whole municipalities). These core of these four cities are not more distant than 50 kilometers, whereas the extremities of the region is as distant from each other as 270 kilometers (Lonsboda-Nakskov)

So if no proof for the Oresund being a courbation will show up, I will erase the figures (in my view very misleading).

Nirro (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There has previously been some discussion on these talk pages about the proper English pronunciation of the name of the city, whether it should be Copen-hay-gen or Copen-hah-gen.

I once read that before the 1950s the pronunciation Copen-hay-gen was the only one used in English. The pronunciation Copen-hah-gen is said to have been invented by Danny Kaye for his movie Hans Christian Andersen.

Does anyone know if this is true? --Oz1cz (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Copenhagen municipality landarea covers about 74 km2. Previus data includer both the harbour and some lakes.(Inside Copenhagen municipality exist the about 8 km2 Frederiksberg Municipality)Inhabitants 2011 around 540000 + 100000 = 640000The Urban area is an misunderstanding. "Hovedstadsområdet" includes the whole of Amager, Peberholm and Saltholm islands.Only Amager is populated (177.000 , approx 120.000 in Copenhagen Municipality and 164.000 urban area. The town of Dragør is not included as it is "cut-off" by Kastrup airport). There is no real figures for Urban Copenhagen. But the 455 km2 is not correct.An Urban area is supposed to cover areas of buildings mainly (and parks etc) but not agricultural areas or areas that is not in use for anything. The west of Amager island is only a shallow area of the sea that was "conquered" in the 1930's. Older maps proovs this. Google Maps clearly shows large areas whith nothing at all. (Not even agriculture) South of the airport (where the island isn't "won" from the sea, ther exists a little of agricultural areas. The Metropolitan area was 1999 2866 km2, but included some lakes. The 3030 km2 figures comes fom a new addition of two local train lines (south of Køge) now has been adapted to the ticket fare-zone, however the old "HT-området" is still concidered as the Metropolitan area by many. The only true figures are those of the municipalities. But the best approximations are around 300 km2 for Urban area and 2700 km2 for Metropolitan area. One reason for this is the big regional and municipal reform that occured in 2007 (in the whole of Denmark). "Region Hovedstaden" was introduced (instead of "HT-området") - however this includes the Baltic Sea Island of Bornholm but excluded the south suburbs, so this region-are cuoldn't be used for Metropolitan area. Concidering inhabitants figures are correct , but perhaps 21000 should be reduced from the Metropolitan area of 2700 km2. Also first in 2010 the sea and lakes was removed from the municipality-areas. This kins of issues is not of top priority in Denmark. But here the figures are used for comparission. I'm sure better data will come from the danish "map-departement" (Kort og Matrikelstyrelsen) whithin a few years. Please do note that "Hovedstadsområdet" do exist, but equals NOT the urban area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.33.12 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the 455.61 km2 figure for the urban area being wrong and 300 km2 sounds more right. I wrote this back in november 2008:

"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.pdfIt even says in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Copenhagen: "According to Danmarks Statistik Metropolitan Copenhagen has a population of 1,199,224 per. January 1, 2011, about 64,000 more 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.

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."

Just remember, the new 2011 area figures from DST do not include roads for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg municipalities. Anyway if I calculate the area of Copenhagen metropolitan area which consists of 34 municipalities with the 2011 area figures from DST I get 3015.9 km2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(primary to Chistian2381) Conc the Metropolitan Area, I do belive that You include the very low densitied municipality of Stevns kommune. This was however made just to simplify for the ticket fare zones on the local train lines south of Køge. In other words the Copenhagen public transport area was extended towars the south. But does this really equals Copenhagen Metropolitan Area ? This issue is not without matter, since the Stevns area is about 400 km2 but only has 20.000 inhabitants. The including of Stevns make the density of Copenhagen Metropolitan Area to drop quite a lot. I also wonder if Metropolitan areas unklike urban areas are defined by parliaments (or regional instances), or is a Metropolitan Area a geographical issue ? I wonder. Best reguards 83.249.38.156 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC) (I have no permanent IP and rather seldom edit in the english Wikipedia)

Yes Stevns is included in Copenhagen's official defined metropolitan area. Originally Vallø was a part of Copenhagen's metro area and in 2007 the municipality of Vallø was merged with Stevns and since then Stevns has been a part of Copenhagen's metro area. So before 2007 only the Vallø part of Stevns was included.

Milijøministeriet is now responsible for Copenhagen's urban planning.

As it can be seen here: http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/Planlaegning/Planlaegning_i_byer/Hovedstadsomraadet/

"Hovedstadsområdet omfatter ifølge planloven 34 kommuner: alle kommuner i Region Hovedstaden (bortset fra Bornholms Kommune), samt Greve, Køge, Lejre, Roskilde, Solrød og Stevns Kommuner i Region Sjælland."

Or here (Fingerplan 2007): http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/NR/rdonlyres/168AEF1C-EE66-4FE9-95D3-92B5D4452BFD/0/9788772797793.pdf

As you also can read here: http://www.sm.dk/data/Dokumentertilpublikationer/Publikationer%202008/Kommunal_udligning_og_generelle_tilskud2008/kap01.htm

"1.4.2. Hovedstadsudligningen

Hovedstadsudligningen er en mellemkommunal udligningsordning for kommunerne i hovedstadsområdet. Hovedstadsområdet er i denne sammenhæng afgrænset på en måde, der stort set svarer til den hidtidige afgrænsning bortset fra den nye Stevns Kommune, som fremover vil indgå i hovedstadsområdet. Det skyldes, at den nye Stevns Kommune efter kommunalreformen vil bestå af de hidtidige kommuner Vallø og Stevns, hvoraf Vallø har indgået i hovedstadsområdet, mens Stevns har ligget uden for hovedstadsområdet."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian2381 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The municipalities listed are those that make up the Capital Region of Denmark (Region Hovedstaden). The region is occasionally taken to cover the entire Copenhagen metropolitan area, but that's not a very common definition (see this article + the linked article; the Finger Plan is used on this article). I propose removing the list of municipalities - we have a map showing the districts of the Copenhagen municipality and a description of Greater Copenhagen, so I feel the list doesn't need to be in the infobox, and may confuse readers (I've already added a footnote for the time being).
What do the other editors of this article think? Peter (Talk page) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. Peter (Talk page) 14:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of odd things here. Both the History of Copenhagen and Operation Carthage articles give much higher casualties for this air raid (86 schoolchildren, vs 18 in this article). No idea which is correct, but it looks like one is wrong.

So I clicked on the reference, which was created in this anon edit:http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Copenhagen&diff=411767837&oldid=411742032

And its very unusual: "SFINX film/TV documentary "Sangbogen og de røde sko" (containing parts of the RAF precission bombing instruction film number 6) by Katia Forbert Petersen, prodyced by Anette Mari Olsen. DK&UK historical consulents Henrik Dahlman, Derek Carter. Achive films from BBC Motion Gallery, Imperial War Museum (London). Broadcasted in danish public service channel DR2 January 9:th 2011. Film covers 2/3 of the school tragedy and 1/3 First Wikipedia staff from the UK that phones int code+46 418 301 114, and proves tho have basic knowlidge of WW2 I will send a DVD copy" (sic)

That doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedic article? And does someone have a proper reference to fix this up? Bazzargh (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Culture and recreation section sounds very much like a sales pitch ... "Since the late 1990s, Copenhagen has undergone a transformation from a cozy Scandinavian capital to a cool metropolitan city of international scope in the league of cities like Barcelona and Amsterdam.[63]", "Copenhagen has a wide array of museums of International standard", etc. This should be revised to a more encyclopedic text. 212.247.53.108 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence "cozy Sandinavian capital to a metropolitan city..." certainly sounds encyclopaedic. I'm removing that. --Peter (Talk page) 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I incidentally noticed that an IP-user, 93.89.112.42, has replaced the word "of" with the letters "kuk" in two places for no apparent reason. I suspect vandalism, since this is a vulgar term in Swedish, but it looks like the user has also attempted to add a paragraph about a district in Copenhagen.

Given the other changes I find it hard to assume good faith, but I will try to rewrite the paragraph, since it might be of some use, but contains several factual mistakes and syntactic errors (the latter of which also point to a Scandinavian user).

Could the new paragraph have been added in order to conceal vandalism in the page history?

And one thing puzzles me: Although a whole paragraph was added by this user, the page history only shows that two characters were added. Does someone know how this is possible? Maybe I should ask at the village pump.

I also take the liberty to add a "citation needed" tag at the etymology of the "-bro" element in the names of quarters. I actually think that the etymology given may me plausible, but it is very contested, so it should have a source. --80.164.41.45 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment above was by me. Wikipedia logged me off while I answered the phone... --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as You state the word "kuk" is a swedish term. Not danish (it would be "pik"). But I cannot find the stated IP-number entry in the history log. I made changes conc. "Copenhagen municipality" and it seems like my name stands as the vanaliser. So I'm very thankful for Your work, Thathánka Íyotake. It's not easy to notice changes like these when editing a large article at a different place. I do though remember that the time between I pressed the "Save page" and the article coming back, was unusually long. Can it be possible to make editing in an other persons signature/IP number somehow ? If the time when the vandalism occured matches my changes , if that's the case - perhaps someone wants to discredit me !? I'm from Sweden aswell as the vandal. So I'm very greatful if an administrator can look in to when the vandalism occured. Boeing720 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I'm afraid I'm not an administrator, so I don't really have an insight in these matters. As far as I can see, 93.89.112.42 changed the page at 10.33 and 10.36 on March 5th, but I might have made a mistake when I compared the versions. Maybe the new paragraph was by you and not by 93.89.112.42? I'm not sure if two people can log on at the same time without causing an editing conflict... But maybe vandalism can be caused by a bot? I'm really not sure. I don't think there's any trouble, though. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just found some more vandalism, actually. Somehow it looks auto-generated. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My computer is set to delate cookies (and the "cookie index.dat" file if some parameters is fulfilled. In such cases my auto login stops working but my IP-range always starts with 83.xxx.xxx.xxx I will show it here. Logged in Boeing720 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And logged out 83.249.40.239 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If this was of any help. In fact i think my IP range always start with 83.249.xxx.xxx (or around 249) And thanks again for your sharp eyes. Boeing720 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I just moved a part (conc. "C. ranks 17 moste expansive city..." to correct chapter. Did not find any destruction (at top of article) - but once again it took around 5 seconds for the page to come back after saving. Boeing720 (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Copenhagen/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am going to fail this article's nomination for GA status. The most serious issue is the sourcing, but there are also quite a few other problems:

• There is a significant amount of unsourced information. Some of it is marked with citation needed tags, much of it is not. Statistics, opinions, quotes, etc. need references. This is the biggest issue with the article, and it will take the longest to fix.
• 24 (!!!) dead links, see here for details. Some (but not all) are already marked with dead link tags.
• Quite a few probably unreliable references (These are examples, found during a quick look. The number of dead links and the missing information in many refs makes it much more difficult to check reference reliability.):
  • #6 (Waymarking)
  • #17 (ageofsail.wordpress.com)
  • #73 (Tivoli Gardens)
  • #85, 149 (TripAdvisor)
  • #113 (Virgin Vacations)
• Many refs need additional information. All web refs should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, and a language specified if the ref is not in English. Book references should have publishers, ISBNs, and pages are always a good thing to have - they are required at FAC if you plan to take the article that far.
• The weighting of the history section seems off. This is a city that has been in existence since the 12th century, and yet half the history section is focused on the last 75 years. This section needs to be rewritten to provide a broader picture of what has happened in the city over the past eight centuries, a better chronology could be given, and the sourcing needs work.
• Notable residents - NO sources!! What is the criteria for inclusion in this list?
• Standardize to one variety of English - I see both meter and metre, for example, as well as recognize (American) and defence (British).
• Text should not be sandwiched between two images. This happens in several places throughout the article.

Overall, this article is quite a ways from good article status. I would suggest the nominator (who, as far as I can see, has made no edits to the article) work on this article with an eye towards proper and complete sourcing, serviceable prose, and basic MOS compliance. Although the article is in decent shape for one on a city of this size, it still needs quite a bit of work before it meets the good article criteria. If you have any questions, please let me know, Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The inflated numbers and statistics about Copenhagen, also presented in this article, is a rather interesting phenomenon. Indeed, why are Copenhagen population figures often inflated, and sales pitches are described as fact?The short answer is centuries of danish government propaganda. As the center of government, resources have for centuries been drawn away from the rest of Denmark to built government prestige projects. In earlier times royal castles, and in the modern era public transport systems, airport and subway systems. Along with inflated population statistics and sales pitches presented as fact this has in historical times given the king a sense of increased importance. Nowadays, danish government politicians use the same techniques to inflate their importance. Strangely, it is often seen that ordinary citizen of Copenhagen will reiterate all of these inflated statistics about Copenhagen. Much research has been put into understanding why. Often it is stated, that when resources are drawn away from the rest of Denmark to promote Copenhagen, citizens of Copenhagen are brainwashed by government and media to think this will also benefit them. I.e. also give them a heightened sense of importance. So, when the government sends out inflated statistics of any kind, the citizens of Copenhagen are a willing mouthpiece for government propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.64 (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What inflated statistics exactly? You, rightly, removed the description "boom town" which I agree is a meaningless, pretentious neologism. But can you indentify any facts and figures - statistics - that are inflated? And do this without removing third-party references which would suggest the statistics are real. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 10:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to move this section to the foot of the article where it should have been added. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 10:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole article on Copenhagen reads as advertise material from Copenhagen. Not as fact. Eg. an absurd number for the population is given: A metropolitan population of 1,931,467 (as of 1 January 2012). This covers most of Zealand in order to be correct. Tourist propaganda about restaurants etc. are absorbed in the text without any criticism. When foreign media prints this government information, sloppy jounalism, it is then taken as fact. It is a hopeless uphill battle to control this spread of misleading information about Copenhagen, when so many Copenhageners propagate it into the wiki pages - Actually, in the end they will probably also censor my comments here. Eventually....

You can't remove the metropolitan population statistic unless you have a good reason ... see Metropolitan area of Copenhagen for an explanation. The figure we're using is the "Finger Plan" which is an official statistic; I don't think this is an 'advertisement'. The figure is very well sourced. --Peter ^{Talk page} 11:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of both city, urban area and metropolitan area is a pretty standard way of describing populations of major cities on Wikipedia (see London, Oslo, Seattle, etc.). The population density of the Copenhagen metropolitan area is relatively high (637/km2 (1,650/sq mi)) so it's not in any way inflated compared to other metropolitan areas (actually OECD includes a much larger area in their definition of the Copenhagen metropolitan area). Metropolitan areas weren't invented by the Danish government ... It's an international standard for describing populations of major cities ...Nmc273 (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)But not used in a standard way for Copenhagen. The area includes most of Zealand. The island is 7.031 km2. The entire poplation is 2.164217 - giving a "metropolitan" population of 307 km2. Compare this to Londons 4700 km2 - and we see that it is misuse of term in the case of Copenhagen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.29.56.7 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right in saying that the metropolitan population statistic for Copenhagen includes "most of Zealand"; but this doesn't make it wrong. Check out the land area that London's metropolitan area covers! Your idea that the pop. was calculated by simply adding up the population of Zealand is wrong though. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 11:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are a bit confused. Copenhagen metropolitan area covers 3,030 km2 and London metropolitan area covers 11,391 km2 (List of metropolitan areas by population). Hamburg metropolitan area covers an area of 19,000 km², Stockholm metropolitan area covers an area of 6,519 km2. I don't see the "misuse" when it comes to the Copenhagen metropolitan area. I don think you fully understand the difference between city, urban area and metropolitan area... Nmc273 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all I am just going to say that you know nothing about what you are talking about. Copenhagen metropolitan area is only a little over 3,000 km2 and is quite modest in size compared to say Oslo (8,900 km2) or Stockholm (6,519 km2) metro areas.

The metropolitan area of Copenhagen was defined back in the 1970's and has only been slightly enlarged in 2007 and it covers far less than half of Zealand. Zealand + Amager has 2,371,042 citizens while the metro area has 1,931,467. That is more than a 400,000 difference.

Zealand (excluding Amager) is not the metro area and how could it be? Vital parts of Copenhagen is on Amager and the metro area still covers much less than half of Zealand as I stated before and consists of 34 municipalities – All in Region Hovedstaden (except Bornholm) + Greve, Solrød, Køge, Stevns, Roskilde and Lejre. At least try to get your facts straight and don't make up things which aren't true you are just not in touch with reality. The metro area is the offical one used for urban planning. You can read more about it in ”fingerplanen 2007”. Claiming the entire Øresund Region with 3.8 million to be Copenhagen metro area would be inflated.

Also you are wrong about London metro area. What you are refering to is the municipality which is called ”Greater London” yes but it´s not the metro area as it´s even smaller than the urban area.Christian2381 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The list of notable residents of Copenhagen needs editing.The most questionalbe inclusion is Bjørn Lomborg, a climate sceptic "scientist", who willingly lends his name to political interests (agriculture for example) in order to legitimize these organizations' disregard for environmetal concerns.The most glaring omissions are early trade union pioneers, who were instrumental in forging the modern welfare state.Why were they left off when a tool like Lomborg was included? 83.249.105.199 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As a capital city Copenhagen is obviously going to have some of the most "notable" Danish people living in it. However, most articles on capital cities do not have a "notable residents" section (e.g. London, Paris, Stockholm.) Surely a "notable residents" section, if they're to be used on any article, should be used for smaller towns? There's also issues of who we count as notable, how we describe them and, as the user above notes, some notable omissions. -- Peter ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk

It seems to me there's too many pictures cluttering the article, any thoughts? Should we remove notable resident and awards section? it doesnt seem to give any substantial knowledge.(talk) 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just a note of things that need to be addressed, feel free to join

• Air quality and noise pollution Even though an eco-friendly city theres still the Metro under construction with many diesel-fueled machinery, and cars). A toll pricing (reducing numbers of cars) was discussed in september 2011 but abandoned in feb. 2012 because of political deadlock. QuantoAltoPossoVolare (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Removal of Notable People section I think that every city will it's share of important people, it just seem to stand there, checked [[Paris] - it doesnt have any section. QuantoAltoPossoVolare (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've begun clean up by removing dead or dodgy sources. Within the next few weeks will replace with decent sources and overhaul the article. I don't want anybody to be offended by the cleanup which is taking place that's all as I intend taking this to GA before the end of the year.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think reference #7 needs improving. A tourist guide book is probably not good enough for this sort of info. SFKeenan (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

An Copenhagen-based ip keeps reverting back to the montage on the right. I think the one I made on the left is aesthetically more pleasing, particularly because the nighttime image is pretty pointless as you can't make anything out and it has unsightly gaps in it.Please state which montage you support below:

• Left.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Left. I prefer the one on the left as it is brighter and clearer than the "old" one. Maybe with time we could even find an improvement on the bottom component too as, though clear, it is rather dull. I strongly support reintroducing the new montage as we are after all working towards major improvements throughout the article. If the ip user is serious about a discussion, then he should register on EN Wikipedia in order to take part.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I also suggest the Panorama of Amagertorv could be substituted for the image at the bottom of the new montage. It gives a good idea of life in the very centre of the city and is a bit brighter than the image it could replace.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You guys are right, I have now created a user.

But I really, really don't think the one on the left is more aesthetically pleasing. First of all, why do we need two skyline photos? Yes I realize the bottom pic on the right one is sort-of-a-skyline-pic, but it's showcasing a prominent square, more than anything else. And it's at night. The first skyline photo on the left is not better. It's small and wide. Only the Palace Hotel is visible at first sight.

I think having the parliament on the first picture is important, Copenhagen is first and foremost the capital city of Denmark. I also like how the Parliament and the City Hall Square are the first and last photo.

Just think the left montage looks really cluttered - no spacing between the images and a lot of different angles and scales.

Can't see anything wrong with the current, but if we really have to change it, I would prefer if we add an extra row showcasing some urban life.

As for reverting back, I don't think you should change something as prominent as an article photo without at least taking the discussion.

Snayling (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the bottom photo I really have a problem with, too much glare from the lights means you can barely make anything out. I also don't like having such pale sky at the top of the images.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

---I really have to disagree, it's not about making buildings out , it's about showing one of the most important squares in Copenhagen with night lights. A good contrast to the daytime photos. As said, it's even harder to make anything out on the first photo (left collage) because it isn't very tall.

Nearly every other language on Wikipedia is using the same photo, so something must work.Snayling (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you've come on board, Snayling, and are taking a real interest in improving the presentation. First of all, I think the "old" montage was pretty good but it seemed to lack the appeal of some of the lead box pics for the other European capitals. Just because so many wikis have adopted it, doesn't mean we can do better. I'm sure we can. I agree with Dr. B that the night time photo of Rådhuspladsen is not clear enough to show what is what. If you were not told it was Copenhagen, it could be almost anywhere. I also agree the skyline photo on the top of the left montage is too slim. On the other hand I really like the photos of the City Hall (with Palace Hotel) and of Nyhavn with its Danish flags. Apart from the Little Mermaid (which we can't really include), I am convinced Tivoli and Nyhavn are the places most people associate with Copenhagen. And as I have said before, I think the Amagertorv is good too. So here's my proposal:

• Use the skyline photo at the top of the old image for the top of the new one (i.e. File:Christiansborg fra Nikolaj Kirken.jpg). If we need to save a bit of vertical space, then it could be slimmed down a bit as it is in the new montage.
• Keep the four central images from the new one: Tivoli, Marmorkirken, Rådhuspadsen, Nyhavn, maybe reversing the last two (see below).
• Place the Amagertorv panorama at the bottom.

That will mean six images in all. We no longer need File:Copenhagen view.jpg.

I also agree that the white spacing between the images is effective (but not really essential) although I am not bothered about the angles and scales. There might however be a slight gain by putting the Nyhavn image on the left and the City Hall on the right.

If everyone can agree with this, we can perhaps get some assistance in producing a new montage.--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A new try: http://peecee.dk/uploads/112013/collage1.jpg (all files are under Commons License - the Marble Church is even taken by me, don't have the time to upload every single photo to Wikimedia at the moment, hence the link)

• A less cluttered dusk photo of Amagertorv - I think the one suggested is a bit dull (does have a lot of people though - but looking at Paris, they have a similar empty square) - if we want to show urban (human) life I think that's more suited in the article itself. A (city) article photo should feature larger scales.
• Nyhavn should indeed be included. Do we really need two Danish flags and three random blue ones though - looks a bit odd? Found a quite nice photo with Nyhavn seen from an unusual angle, but still very recognizable.
• City Hall - the one suggested is of course a typical view, but not in particular pleasing to look at and doesn't, in my opinion, showcase the City Hall tower in an optimal way.
• Replaced the Marble Church photo with one of my own photos. Don't know if that's the right way to go - but if want a daytime photo of the Marble Church I would prefer the current one - or the many pretty pics out there. The skyline on the suggested collage just clutters and removes focus from the beautiful church.
• Night time photo of Tivoli.

Beside too much clutter (really my main issue with the suggested collage), I think it's important to mix it up with both day- and night time photos, nearly every city collage on Wiki does it.--Snayling (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I'm not too thrilled about the night shots either - neither the one of the City Hall Square or the one of Tivoli in the latest proposal. I also think it is problematic that the image of Amagertorv in |the latest proposal is taken with so much wide angle that the angles are all wrong. The panorama, Denmark.jpg panorama above is btw not Amagertorv but Gammeltorv (I've fixed the description and category). I think the panorama of Nyhavn below would look very good in the bottom of a collage and have started to compile some other photos that I think might work in a gallery here. I will add some more later and suggest that others do the same if they have any suggestions so that we can see all the candidates together before we make a decision.Ramblersen (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is the most serious discussion about a lead/infobox image for a city article on Wikipedia I encountered yet, and I think all participants are really constructive. As I am probably least knowledgeable about Copenhagen I only wish to make some general comments:
  • The white lines between the images make the montage look less cluttered, and easier to digest for the reader. The use of thin white lines is also convenient in creating compositions that are encyclopaedicly more relevant, even if visually don't fit so well;
  • Representing the diversity of a city like Copenhagen while also being visually clear and attractive is a real conundrum, but I think four images is better than six. Remember that this is only the innfobox image, and readers really interested in the article will scroll down and see much more images;
  • The proposal for a daylight streetlife image to replace the night aerial view I find compelling and thus so far File:Copenhagen Collage2.jpg is the better than the original, while I also like the Gammeltorv image. --ELEKHH^T 08:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehe Elekhh you didn't see the discussion on Talk:Paris!! I'm fine with File:Copenhagen Collage2.jpg too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehehe, I'm fine with this one too (not perfect cropping though) - still think a night photo and/or Gammeltorv could look great. But rest assured, won't revert back ;-) In time maybe. I'm just glad no one insisted on including the Little Mermaid!--Snayling (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Copenhagen/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Folklore1 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As I perform the review, I will update the following table. Please look below the table for my questions and comments. Folklore1 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See notes about corrections below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See notes about corrections below
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	sufficient coverage of subject
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	appropriate level of detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	consistently neutral tone
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no recent edit wars
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	17 Share-Alike 3.0 images, 13 public domain images, 19 Share-Alike 2.0 images, 1 free use attribution image
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	relevant images with appropriate captions
	7. Overall assessment.

Districts

This section contains two lists of districts: "10 official districts" of "Copenhagen Municipality" and "Districts of Copenhagen". Please explain the difference between the official districts of the municipality and the other districts of Copenhagan. Bear in mind that I have never visited Copenhagan and know little about Europe. Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've linked Municipalities of Denmark now to clarify the difference with districts and have reworded the latter to neighbourhoods which would be a closer rough equivalent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Municipal government

See the sentence containing "representatives of the council who are given civic duties". Are civic duties actually assigned to the representatives? Or does the sentence need some modification? Folklore1 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a basic overview of the city government, the source states that each representative is given a civic duty to perform and I think the sentences says this, it's very clear I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See the sentence containing "Enhedslisten - the Red-Green Alliance was". This is unclear. Does the sentence need one or two mdashes, or some other modification? Folklore1 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

One's the Danish name, one's English [2], I've placed in brackets now.21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See the sentence beginning "All members of the council are elected every four years; in". Do you think the text would flow more easily if it was broken into two sentences where the semicolon is currently located? Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make much difference but I've changed to a period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"The accounting firm Deloitte" was responsible in 2013, but how long does the firm's contract last? Will the article need revision next year if a competitor outbids Deloitte? Unless Deloitte has a long, multi-year contract, you may want to revise or delete the sentence identifying Copenhagan's auditors. Folklore1 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. The source states Deloitte is responsible, that's all that is needed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Law and order

"The Copenhagen Fire Department" might be a good spot for a paragraph break. (An optional suggestion for improvement, not necessary for GA status.) Folklore1 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Environmental planning

"carbon-neutral" or "carbon nuetral"? Please be consistent. Folklore1 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See "Copenhagen has been rewarded". Does this mean Copenhagen received some sort of prize? Or should "rewarded" be changed to "recognized" or "praised"? Folklore1 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed to praised. I believe it has won awards but praised does sound better as you say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Population

See the sentence beginning with "However, we know". Who is we? Folklore1 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reworded.

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See "about 1.21 million (1,213,822 (2012)) inhabitants". When parentheses bump into each other, the text gets a bit hard to read. (This is an optional cleanup suggestion, not required for GA status.) Folklore1 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reworded.

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"increased rather rapidly leading" needs a comma to clarify it meaning. "rather" is unnecessary and can be omitted. Folklore1 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Religion

The sentence beginning "However as of 1 January 2013, at 61.6%" is confusing. Please reorganize it so that its meaning will be clear. Folklore1 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reworded slightly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"The second most important" should probably be "second most significant" or "second largest". Folklore1 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed to significant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Transport

I removed the reference titled "November - Københavns Lufthavne". It linked to a web page that did not support the October 2013 record of 2.2 million passengers. However, there was another reference at the end of the paragraph which supported this statistic. So the bad reference does not need to be replaced and this repair is  Done Folklore1 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

References

When I clicked on the link for "Ørestad Gymnasium Best Building in Scandinavia 2008", I got an errors message labeled "oops". Folklore1 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What ref no. was that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question as well as the reference. The original site, Forum AID, no longer exists and there have been no further awards since 2009. Even the Design site which was quoted is no longer reliable.--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference citing "Vi vil forbedre københavnernes sundhed" has a dead link.

 Done New link.--Ipigott (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I need this to verify the sentence in Healthcare: "The city has targets to encourage people to exercise regularly and to reduce the number who smoke and consume alcohol." Does the target actually call for reduction in the number of people who drink alcohol, or a reduction in alcohol consumption? Folklore1 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It says reduce the number doesn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Must we really do this one point every day? It's getting rather tedious. Why not just complete the review when you have a moment and then let us attend to it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am performing the review as I find time and recording my observations as I do so. You are welcome to respond to my notes as I write them, or wait until I am finished. At the end of the process, I will start the customary 7-day hold period, but I will extend the hold if requested. If everything in my notes has been resolved by the time I finish my review, we can simply go straight to a GA approval. Folklore1 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to put it on hold. Why would you do that? We'll happily address your points, but please do try to be a bit more efficient with this.. I don't mind you taking your time with it, but I'd prefer to address in stages. I'm sure we're both busy and would prefer to edit in stages rather than one point every day over a longer period.. Thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why don't you just wait until there are enough comments for you to edit? The reviewer is kind enough to post points, who cares at what intervals they post them. You choose when you address the points. So again, if you prefer to address in stages, do so, that has nothing to do with the reviewer. Mattximus (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look as if there's much alternative... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead links

Three references have dead links. I have attached tags to identify them in the References section. Folklore1 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have put the article "on hold" for seven days to allow time to repair the three dead links (which I have tagged) or replace the references. Except for the tagged references, I think the article is ready for GA status. If more time is needed, please let me know. Folklore1 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the dead links and also for your other useful comments on the article. I think everything is in order now.--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Folklore1 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)