Talk:Copenhagen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Copenhagen was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Flag
Portal
 Copenhagen falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Copenhagen is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Personally I see no point in thumbnailing the main image in this article. It makes more of a visual impact, and is not overly large. Does anyone strenuously object to reinstating the large image?

Peregrine981 13:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --Stonor 14:17, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It was just way too large at 354px; the reccomended maximum is 300, made it a bit smaller. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:18, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

23:08, 21 Apr 2004 -- Guest User: Corrected the spelling of Crown Prince Frederik (was misspelled as 'Fredrik') and added the proper link

What's the point in adding Copenhagen's name in German and Faroese? - Kaare 15:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mayor(s) of Copenhagen

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.

[edit] Chinatown

I found out about Copenhagen's Chinatown from the Copenhagen Post - http://www.cphpost.dk/get/64197.html

However, I wasn't able to find much more information about Copenhagen's Chinatown beyond that newspaper article. How much has it grown? What are the streets? Any pictures?

Please make any additions or corrections to the existing Denmark section on Chinatowns in Europe as you see fit.

I live in the "Vesterbro" part of Copenhagen, and I have never heard about a Chinatown in Copenhagen before. But it's true that there is a very small area in the Colbjørnsensgade/Halmtorvet vicinity which has a number of Far Asian stores. I'll take a look and ask around and perhaps take a few photographs. TroelsArvin 00:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Lived in Copenhagen for 24 years, and have never heard the expression "China town". There is however, "Little somalia". A few stores just behind the Grand central station does not add up to a "town" IMO.
Agree with IMO. There are no China-town in Copenhagen. The citizens seems to be allergic to foreigners and a few shops is enought to create a name for it. By European comparison Denmark has very few foreing inhabitants and still they seems to discuss the "problem" more than in other countries with much larger immigrant population. Mads
No Chinatown in Copenhagen (yet), the largest minority is Arabs and Swedes --80.196.107.246 17:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Copenhagen Post is notoriously unreliable and is primarily for the benefit of tourists. For a while, part of Vesterbro was called "Little Istanbul", but I haven't heard the term in a few years. I've never heard of a "Chinatown" in Copenhagen.
In all my years in Copenhagen, I was yet to encounter this mysterious Chinatown. Sorry. I don't think is exists. Dushkin 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

http://ibyen.dk/gadeplan/gadeplanguide/article473853.ece - Its in Danish, but itsa about the "Chinatown" youre denying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.119.1 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't in any official or non-official way called Chinatown. The Danish article says that it is a small street, which you could, with a bit of exaggeration, call Chinatown. It is, as far as I can gauge, a newspaper construct. And I have lived in Copenhagen for the past many years. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German?

The article states that the namen derives from the German name, is that just a wild conjecture or is there any real evidence for that? It could just as well be Dutch: Kopenhagen. Better actually, because merchant is koopman not Kaufmann. Low German maybe, high German, eh, no, then there would be an f. Lautverschiebung and such af:Gebruiker:Jcwf

I see what you mean. But I believe the article refers to Lower German. Dushkin 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Name was originally "Havn" (harbour - from german Hafen) and Købmand(Merchant - from german Kaufmann) - In languages such as Swedish and Icelandic, the to words are directly translated(Köpenhamn - Kopmannahofn) Niels

Jcwf is right. Since Low German was the lingua franca around the entire Baltic region in the Middle Ages (because of the Hanseatic League), the modern German name (from which the English one is obviously derived) most likely is Low German. --dllu 11:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation in English

...but note that the 3rd syllable is pronounced "hay" in English, not "hah".

Really? I've always pronounced that syllable with a "hah" sound. Funnyhat 04:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I say banana but you say banana. Potato - potato, tomato - tomato. Let's call the whole thing off.

Some say Copenhahgen and some say Copenhaygen - some of us say København.

I've lived here more than 20 years and have NEVER heard a Dane pronounce the English name in any way other than "Co-pen-HAY-gen." This is also the usage for all official mentions by the Danish government, SAS airlines, airport authority, etc. etc. "Co-pen-HAH-gen" is simply wrong, no matter how you might pronounce potato. AllanJ 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular media have an incredible effect on how Danes pronounce words in English, since it isn't an official language of Denmark. Copen-hah-gen is an equally valid pronunciation of the city [1], and in fact it's much closer to the German Kopen-hah-gen, which is where English got it from in the first place [2][3]. I've heard both pronunciations from Danes (and I'm a Dane, too), and in my opinion, saying "the way the Danes themselves pronounce the capital's name when saying it in English" is a very crude generalisation, which an encyclopedia should do without. Ghent 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In any case, Danes' pronunciation are not an authority on how English words are or should be pronounced, even English words that happen to refer to things in or of Denmark. Henning Makholm 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Generally, linguists go with how the locals pronounce a word. If Danes -- and 99% of them and ALL official instances -- use CopenHAYgen, that's pretty much your only choice. No matter how much they are influenced by popular media (and, by the way, when has popular media EVER referred to Copenhagen?) It's not a big deal to me, but I see no problem telling people that's how most Danes pronounce it. AllanJ 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, as mentioned, that it is a general and unreferenced claim. It doesn't contribute anything to the article apart from making the intro very messy. I would like to see it go. Hestemand 10:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As no one seems to object, I have cut the "rhyming with ..." and "the way the Danes pronounce it themselves ..." parts. Now it's almost possible to read the intro and only getting a wee bit confused. -- Hestemand 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe pronunciation should be moved to a new paragraph in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carewolf (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 December 2006

[edit] Currencies

The article says " It is still difficult to pay with either nation's currency in the other country, with the exceptions of Copenhagen and Malmö, where it's possible to use either DKK or SEK in a growing number of shops, restaurants, etc."

However, I disagree fairly strenuously. In my experience it is virtually impossible to pay with DKK or SEK in the other country, except in the most touristy of places, and here you will still get a bad exchange rate. Peregrine981 14:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've done it. It's possible. A very bad exchange rate though. (Made me pay 1:1) So at least I know it's possible. Also, some of the more touristy places accept Euro, I believe, but I haven't tried that just yet. Dushkin 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You can pay with DKK in Sweden using 1:1, but in Copenhagen it's is easier to pay with euroes, and that is pretty hard. Carewolf 11:30, 13 November 2006

[edit] The city and the municipality

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".

[edit] Definitions of Copenhagen and population figures

You use the term "Storkøbenhavn" (Greater Copenhagen) and translates it with "metropolitan Copenhagen". But actually there is no real definition of "Storkøbenhavn". But "Hovedstadsregionen" however is Copenhagen metropolitan area and a metropolitan area is not the same as an urban area. Also the population figure is wrong to reach a population of 1,116,979 citizens you would need to include all of Ballerup, Søllerød and Værløse municipalities but only parts of these are included in the urban area and the population of the urban area is 1,086,762 (2004). Danmarks Statistik use the term “hovedstadsområdet” for the urban area however often the term “hovedstadsområdet” is also a bit of a loose term as it is often defined the same way as “hovedstadsregionen” and that is as Copenhagen metropolitan area as I mentioned earlier. Danmarks Statistik’s definition of urban areas is stricter than e.g. the US definition of urban areas and cut off most of Copenhagen’s five “fingers”.

The table on the left is also wrong it says Copenhagen covers an area of 526 sq. km (528.26 according to Danmarks Statistik) but that's Copenhagen county and then you write the density of Copenhagen is 954/km² (but actually it’s 954.8 ~ 955) but to get that you need to divide the area of Copenhagen county (526 km²) with the population of Copenhagen municipality (502,204) and the population of Copenhagen municipality is 502,362 as of 2005 and 501,664 in 2004. I don't know where you get the number 502,204 from?


The population of Copenhagen municipality in 2004:

January 1st ................ 501,664

April 1st ..................... 502,012

July 1st ...................... 500,980

October 1st ................ 502,581

Copenhagen municipality is not even a part of Copenhagen county and you can't just divide the area of Copenhagen county with the population of Copenhagen municipality, it makes no sense at all? I see in the picture that Copenhagen county is marked with red and the population of Copenhagen county is 618,237 (2005) and it covers an area of 528.26 km².

So…

The density of Copenhagen municipality is 502,362/88.25 = 5,692.5.

The density of Copenhagen county is 618,237/528.26 =1,170.3


Also...the Øresund Region covers all of Zeland (not just the eastern part) Lolland-Falster and Bornholm and all of Scania (Skåne) county in Sweden. Otherwise you would not reach a population of 3.6 million.


Regards

Christian


I updated the demographics with 2005-01-01 data from Danmarks Statistik. For lack an easier better thing to do I put numbers for the "city" (i.e. the municipalitiy of Copenhagen) and "metropolitan area" (sum of the municipalites of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg and the amt of Copenhagen). I know the latter area includes some agricultural land at the outer end, but what to include in the count will always be a matter of judgement. Henning Makholm 17:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


For next update I propose to sum up the Københavns and Frederiksberg Kommune for the city population since Frederiksberg is fully enclosed by Københavns kommune. I also suspect the "urban" area should be Storkøbenhavn, and the metropolitan area the new Hovedstadsregion (Copenhagen Region). I am looking at various (semi)official numbers, and I think they translate the old HT region to the metropolitan area since most claim a population of 1.8million. So reducing it to the new smaller Copenhagen Region of 1.6m can't be completely wrong. Carewolf 12:37, 15 November 2006


Originally, København, Frederiksberg and Gentofte minicipalities made the City area in the use of the election system. Thats the reason why Gentofte consists of two seperate election areas.

Maybe the thing to do is to make it up like Stockholm - a city, urban and metropolitan area. In this sense, it would be some 600.000, 1.211.000 and 2.100.000.

Niels.


I just want to point out that Copenhagen's metropolitan area is the same as Hovedstadsregionen (1.83M) which consists of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg municipality and the counties of Copenhagen, Frederiksborg and Roskilde NOT just Copenhagen, Frederiksberg and Copenhagen country. Isn't that something you made up by yourself?

A metropolitan area is not just the urban area but it also consists of areas that are economic dependent on the central city. Danmarks Statistik does not use any definition for metropolitan areas but define them on abitrary county borders which is the case for Hovedstadsregionen.

However looking here: http://www.bvl.aau.dk/dansk/fase1/plancher/pendler_hreg.jpg you can see that based on the concept of at least 10% commuting into central parts of Copenhagen. Copenhagen metro areawould cover almost all of Zealand. My guess is that this area has about 2.2 million.

The urban area has 1,086,762 (2004) and the definition used by Danmarks Statistik for an urban area is:

"An urban area is defined as a built-up area with at least 200 inhabitants. In a built-up area the distance between the buildings is not more than 200 metres, unless the interruption is due to public facilities, parks, cemeteries, etc."

Also the term Storkøbenhavn (Greater Copenhagen) is a loose term that is not used statistics.

Christian

Those are most definitely NOT the same. "Hovedstaden" (the region) includes a big part of North Sealand - and Bornholm(!). The Greater Copenhagen area would be the municipalities of Cph. and Frederiksberg plus a big part of the former County of Copenhagen, all in all around 1,3 million.
I don't think people from Elsinore or Roskilde would like to be called "Copenhageners". :o) --dllu 11:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
North zealand is very much a part of metropolitan copenhagen. In fact the current definition is the Capital Region - Bornholm + East Zealand. It doesn not matter what people in Elsinore thinks. The urban zone defines the city, the metropolitan area the surrounding econimically depending area. Elsinore very definately depend economical to Copenhagen. Carewolf 14:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The population figures are getting fucked up again. The number that is currently stated as "Metropolitan Copenhagen" is infact the number of citizens in "Urban Copenhagen"; that is the international definition with distance between houses etc.. Also storkøbenhavn doesn't exist anymore and was neither equivalent to the Urban zone(which is smaller) nor the metropolitan area (which is larger). Carewolf 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you spend so much text on theoretical definitions on the size of the town. The city has slightly more than 500.000 and the metropolitian about 1,1 million. That is all a reader need to know. One of many mid-size Europeans cities, and that is the charm of the place. The rest of the text need to be shortened considerably. Mark/ Toronto

Because the urban zone of Copenhagen more than a million citizens and the metropolitan area either 1.8 or 3.5 million depending on definition. The current numbers leads to a wrong view of the city size, like yours. Copenhagen has for historical reasons been divided into various small autonomous areas, and these are useless for defining the city. The so-called "Copenhagen municipal" really only covers the mediaval city, and as you might guess the city has grown a bit since mediaval times. Stating Copenhagen only has 500.000 citizens is like stating Toronto only has 700.000 because that's what lives in Old Toronto. Carewolf 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the municipality is a lot larger than the medieval city. The medieval city is around half the area of the district of Indre By, which has a population of circa 45,000, so I would estimate the population of the medieval city to be on the order of magnitude of 20,000 to 30,000. I agree with your point, though -- none of the administrative entities define the city very well. Hemmingsen 15:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
True, the -bro districts are "only" 100-200 years old. To get back to Marks point, the text right now is very long and weaving. I agree that it should be shortend and clarified. One way to clarify should be the creation a new article "Copenhagen Municipal", so this article can focus on the whole city. Carewolf 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of splitting off Municipailty of Copenhagen as a separate article. That might be a good solution to the conflict between those who wan to write about the municipality and those who prefer a broader view. However, we still need a solid talk page consensus as to which area the demographics in this article should cover. I don't think it is of extreme importance which definition we use, but it is important to have one. Otherwise we will still have a confusing perpetuity of people who edit the numbers to fit their own pet definition (often without sources and without clarifying just what their pet definition is). –Henning Makholm 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that I was been trolled. The IP address for 'Mark/Toronto' is a swedish IP (registered by ownit.se), and the user hasn't done much else than inflate Stockholm populations-numbers. Carewolf 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox substed from template

For some reason the infobox was a template Template:Copenhagen infobox rather than directly part of the article. No other articles were using the template (it would not make sense, either), so I substed its content into the article and will momentarily request deletion of the template. For recordkeeping, the revision history of the template follows. Henning Makholm 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • 2006-04-05 15:18:22 Henning Makholm m (Remove spurious break that messed up the formatting of Copenhagen)
  • 2006-01-11 21:44:57 Fred Bradstadt (Cleanup)
  • 2005-12-27 19:26:22 Henning Makholm (Update area (from SDE), population (from statistikbanken.dk))
  • 2005-12-27 04:03:59 Bobblewik m (AWB Assisted clean up)
  • 2005-09-15 15:21:49 Fawcett5 (remove broken image link. And why is there a template for an infobox used by only ONE article. This should be substed in and the template deleted!)
  • 2005-08-24 02:12:14 Valentinian (Resized image. Danish cities don't have their own flags.)
  • 2005-06-25 00:13:52 Thjorth m (Changed longitude W(est) to E(ast))
  • 2005-05-22 11:37:09 212.242.172.159
  • 2005-05-22 11:34:42 212.242.172.159
  • 2005-04-14 09:28:44 Kaare m (Inserted the correct map, i.e. the one actually highlighting the city...)
  • 2005-02-13 03:26:40 Icairns (fix link to square kilometre)
  • 2005-01-17 06:16:07 PZFUN

[edit] The largest city of Scandinavia?

An anonymous editor, 212.10.163.153 added the following paragraph to the article:

Though Stockholm together with Copenhagen, claims to be the largest city of Scandinavia, this claim is based on a much larger area in the case of Stockholm. When comparing the metropolitan regions of the two capitals, it is evident that the Capital region of Copenhagen covers a smaller area than that of Stockholm, while, at the same time containing more people. Thus Copenhagen is both larger and more densely populated than Stockholm. Measuring the size of cities is always difficult due to the many definitions concerning metropolitan areas, suburb etc. In this case it seems most reasonable to compare what is mentioned i Wikipedia as the Danish Capital Region and Metropolitan Stockholm.

Such arguments do not belong in the main article space, so I'm hereby moving it to talk. I also reverted the same editor's addition of "and in Scandinavia" to the intro paragraph. Given that the comparison is uncertain, I think the encyclopedically NPOV choice is to make no explicit claims about whether Copenhagen or Stockholm is larger. Henning Makholm 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Copenhagen IS the largest city of Scandinavia. Stockholm use almost 3 time as much area space, so they only slightly can claim they are larger populated. It's just a dirty PR trick.

Stockholm:

  • Population City: 765 044, 4091 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 187 km2
  • Population Urban Area: 1 212 196, 3230 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 375 km2
  • Population Metro Area: 1 872 900, 289 inhabitants/km2 Area Size: 6 490 km2

Copenhagen:

  • Population City: 502 362, 5709 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 88 km2
  • Population Urban Area: 1 085 813. ?? inhabitants/km2, ?? Area Size:
  • Population Metro Area: 1 827 239, 638 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 2 862 km2

--Comanche cph 23:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph: There is no consensus for this change and you need to stop edit warring about it here and on Stockholm. You've been warned more than once about this. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong? I just pointed out some facts to this article. Copenhagen as city is like twice as large as Stockholm. --Comanche cph 00:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Yes, this is first of all a cultural disagreement between Denmark and Sweden as well as "a dirty PR-trick" on Stockholm's part, and it's a mistake on wikipedia's part too. As Comache pointed out, Stockholm can NOT be concidered the largest city of Scandinavia, which the article on Stockholm sadly suggests taken from the blue and the fact that both cities counts population differently. Is wikipedia a forum for wrong information?/Arial

True. I think the easiest is to remove such claims since it always is about drawing new lines in the sand to look bigger. There was once a proposed European standard for measuring city size, but it is also quite unfair as it estimates Copenhagen to 3.5 million people (people within 1hours reach of the city). As I understand wikipedia we are not supposed to make new material as these Swedish moderators seem to do. Fact is: both Copenhagen and Stockholm _claims_ to be the biggest city in Scandinavia, now we can either write their claims on the pages or not, but starting to argue and do our own research (based on random population statistics) seems to be in conflict with wikipedia rules. Carewolf 12:45 15 November 2006
IF you have verifiable sources that there is a controversy about this, actual sources, feel free to add those to the article as footnotes or references but I'd not want to see this silly edit war break out again. It's just odd that two new users turn up here and at Stockholm at about the same time after many months of quiet. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by verifiable sources? you already have the numbers! If you look at population in and around copenhagen and stockholm at any radius Copenhagen is larger. If you look at population of the administrative areas Stockholm is larger. It is a matter of taste and bias how you interpret that. I can only point at sources who interpret those numbers differently than you: The official tourist organization of Copenhagen: http://www.visitcopenhagen.dk/enwonen/facts_about_copenhagen.asp The official commercial promotion organization: http://www.copcap.com/composite-2466.htm http://www.copcap.com/composite-2461.htm Other various others: http://www.hostelworld.com/sampleitindetail.php?SampleItinNO=74 http://www.explore-copenhagen.com/ http://copenhagenoverview.infogami.com/

The completely neutral think to say would be that Copenhagen is the center of the largest urban area in Scandinavia and Stockholm is the largest municipal in Scandinavia.

I don't know Arial, but it is only natural to go from here to Talk:Stockholm since you redirect us from here to there. And I did not participate in any edit war, and do not intend to. Carewolf 16:34 17/11 2006

No, the completely neutral thing is to not even try to make such silly comparisons in the article. Also, none of your links appear to substantiate the claim that Lar wanted sourced, namely the existence of a controversy about whether Copenhagen or Stockholm is the "largest". Henning Makholm 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Henning has it right. if there is an actual documented controversy reported somewhere about this, report that. Else I would say drop it, there's nothing to this issue and it would be a silly edit war. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Te controversy is city size definition. There is extensive coverage of this on wikipedia Urban area Metropolitan area. Eurostat is doing an audit of European cities to get better numbers but have not yet covered Scandinavia Largest cities and metropolitan_areas in the European Union (Eurostat), but others have World Urban Areas[4] and Largest urban areas of the European Union. The conclusion of the standardized measurements is very clear. The urban area of Copenhagen is larger than that Stockholm, but only by a few 100.000. An unsurprising conclusion if you had looked at the population density numbers. Unfortunately we don't have the measurement of the standardized City Area and Larger Urban Zones for the two cities yet.
People will never agree on this one, so any comparisons should be scrapped. Both here, on Stockholm and on Nordic Countries. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think user:Comanche cph has done a great job in finding these stats and bringing this to the end. Both here and on the Stockholm page. Remember that this started when some editors claimed that the Stockholm is largest city in the region. user:Comanche cph deserve a barnstar as that guard dog he is. --194.255.124.250 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There has always been the controversy about the "biggest city in Scandinavia", mainly because that the race is so close between Stockholm and Copenhagen and that the definitions are somewhat different. And, of course, there's the rivalry between the countries ;-). Anyway, how to define urban areas is very similar for both Sweden and Denmark (a.o. the "200m-between-houses-rule") and for this definition Stockholm wins. When it comes to Metropolitan Area, it's a close race. The new definition of Greater Stockholm is quite generous, including the whole county of Stockholm, so when it comes to comparisions I prefer to use the old definition of Greater Stockholm (used up to 041231). It had an area of 3 472 km² and has a total population of 1 747 876 (061231). The Capital Region of Copenhagen has 1 593 614 inhabitans (061231) and an area of 1 985 km² if one excludes the islands of Bornholm and Christiansø. Stockholm is, by this definition, larger but is including more area. I think if Copenhagen is adding a surrounding area of about 1 500 km² (making the total area about the same as the Stockholm area) it will surpass Stockholm.
My conclusion is that Stockholm is a larger city (defined by its urban agglomeration) but Copenhagen is a larger metropolitan region. However, as it's quite a close race and as the population of the Stockholm region is growing faster than the Copenhagen region this will perhaps change within a period of 10-20 years. Sounds fair ;-)? --Pjred 09:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Am returning to the Scandinavia pages after having spent some weeks travelling in Scandinavia this summer (rain-rain-rain). Am a bit sorry to read all texts and discussions on the size of Copenhagen in comparison with Stockholm. Someone, or a few, in Copenhagen seems to have a low Copenhagen-self-esteem and need to make it bigger. Copenhagen, like the other Scandinavian capitals are mid-size European cities. All nice in its own small way, but certainly not a European major metropolis. But that is the reason for most visitor to go there, to feel the lower paze and less congestion. Be happy with that and try not to make it to what it is'nt.

Mark/Toronto

A number of things: First, please sign your messages with ˜˜˜˜ . I don't know what you mean by mid-size, most cities in europe are around 5000-50000 people, that's a mid-sized city, very few cities in Europe more than a million citizens, probably less than 50. Third, if you are going to argue on the subject (or any subject on wikipedia), please use verifiable data rather than loose statements based on personal experiences. And to answer your vague personal experiences: What makes Copenhagen special is that it has retained its 'town feel' despite its size and dominance in the region. Carewolf 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

From this article, it sounds like there is nothing to do there unless you are lesbean or gay... kind of strange twist of understanding the word "culture".

I disagree. The article has one paragraph about gay life and five about other culture; also, it has two sub-sections about sports and the cuisine (the latter one could stamp gay, if one wants to). In my own opinion, gay life should be expanded further, as the city does have a very active gay scene; however, there are other, much more prominent biases/unsourced statements in the article that should be addressed first. Ghent 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair eough, but I also agree that it could also do with a bit more info on theatres, opera houses, clubs, parks, museums, art galleries/collections, concert halls, architecture, sights and attractions. Daen 23:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found this Copenhagen a little better. I do not see a direct connection between culture and sex orientation, in other words I really do not care about one sexual preferences and so do not consider them as cultural heritage. I am going to Scandinavia next week to see something new, straights, gays and lesbians I see everyday here, in Cambridge Massachusetts and could not care less about their private lives.
I think any culture is based on religion, I think one should have difficulties to understand any cultural artifact without knowledge of Bible (for Europe, at least) and history.
I do not consider cuisine, sports, gays, straights and lesbians as a cultural attributes of a geographic location.

If you found the Wikitravel article better, it is because you're seeking information on Copenhagen for tourist purposes, and not encyclopedic information like that on Wikipedia.
If you look up culture on dictionary.com, it says that culture is: "The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought". As far as I know, sports, the cuisine, as well as sexual behaviour patterns are all covered by that definition; they are products of human work and thought, and they are what are associated socially with Copenhagen.
I could happily agree that the article might need even more information on other kinds of culture; the information already there is perfectly valid, however. I hope that you will enjoy your trip here. Ghent 10:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Daen that it needs more information about theatres, opera houses, clubs, parks, museums, art galleries/collections, concert halls, architecture, sights and attractions. Not mentioning Tivoli Gardens, Copenhagen is a crime. --Maitch 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that such a great city doesn't have a better article. The culture of Copenhagen is so unique, I love the city for it's culture, architecture and overall feeling. Defenitively the capital city of Scandinavia. Greetings from Gothenburg! --Krm500 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The culture section looks like something ripped straight out of a tourist leaflet. - JHL

[edit] New category for the nordic/scandinavian capitals?

I would like to suggest a new category for the capital cities of Scandinavia/the Nordic, including Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, Reykjavik and Stockholm. (I've posted this message on the talk page for each city.) Comments, anyone? /M.O (u) (t) 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving layout

I would propose that the moderator of this page, improves the lay-out of the page. Comparing the Copenhagen-wiki with wikis of other capitols (Stockholm, Paris and even a city as Aarhus), I personally think it has somewhat of a boring appearance. Put in some more pictures of the city and its sights - especially aerial photos, photos from Strøget, the town hall square and perhaps of the mayor would be great. Furthermore give a more comprehensive description of the city's history, its importance for this part of Europe and its delevopment. A wiki about Copenhagen should of course not be a commercial, but it shoould be considered that many people from outside of Denmark get their first impression of the city, checking this Wiki.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.26.107 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-25T17:08:12

You seem to have some things backwards. A Wikipedia article has no "moderator", no owner, and no editor-in-chief. If you have ideas for improving the article, just be bold and carry them out. Just be sure that what you add fits at least approximately with our three core content policies of verifiability, a neutral point of view and no original research. Don't worry if you don't hit them absolutely straight the first time - others will correct your text soon enough if it reads wrongly. Henning Makholm 16:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

where is this section? is anybody working in Copenhagen? ...

Sure I am working and living in Copenhagen, but what kind of facts is needed in the Economy sections? It seems a bit random in the other city wiki-articles. The key figures are that Copenhagen is the 3rd most expensive city to live in in Europa and has an average GDP in top 10. The danish statistics don't have much info on economic numbers but have numbers on average apartment size and living conditions. carewolf 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Economy includes major employers and major industries in the city, a breakdown of the workforce. is the city's economy growing? its contribution to the national economy. Michellecrisp 13:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natives

There seems to be a lot of editing in the notable natives sections. What is required to be counted as a native? I saw H.C. Andersen and Tycho Brahe being deleted because they were not born in Copenhagen, but is that a requirement. Because both have lived a significant part of their lives in Copenhagen. Should Karen Blixen be deleted too, because she was born north of Copenhagen and lived most of her life in Africa? Carewolf 14:20 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is an issue here. A "native" to me means someone who is not only born there, but currently lives there. Lars Ulrich has lived in California since he was 17, and should not be considered a native now, should he?. Perhaps we should change the name "Notable Natives" to some other heading, but what is appropriate?? // Brick Thrower 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would consider a "native" of somewhere to be someone who lived in the city/country/area in question for the major part of his/her childhood. So, according to my understanding, Lars Ulrich would count. Karen Blixen is a borderline case; I have refrained from removing her because today Rungsted could be argued to be part of (a rather inclusive notion of) Copenhagen. By the way, the 17 years she spent in Africa hardly constitutes "most of her life"; she died 77 years old. That being said, I agree with Hemmingsen that perhaps the category would suffice. It would not hurt either to be more clear about the inclusion criteria for the category, though. Henning Makholm 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we even want a section like this? Apart from the issue about who belongs on the list, is having a list here any better than having a category, Cat:People from Copenhagen? Hemmingsen 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The section certainly doesn't make sense unless there is at least some criteria as to who goes on it. I would say people should be born AND have lived a large part of their lives there. Karen Blixen spent was born outide Cph. and spent most of her adult life outside Denmark. Peter Schmeichel has lived in England for the last 15 years, etc. --dllu 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A native is somebody who comes from that place and possibly who grew up there. It doesn't necessarily have to be someone who spent the majority of their live there or even became famous there. Andersen is a good example. I consider him a native of Odense, even though he spent most of his adult live outside that city. Whether or not a section like that is needed is another matter. BeShaMo (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007 Denmark Riots

I am reiterating my notification to you about the article March 2007 Denmark Riots. An anon is reverting this as "vandalism", though it is just a notification. --Hojimachongtalk 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (April 2007)

It would be interesting to see information on the climate. Personally, I was wondering how often it snows there. -- Beland 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most geo articles contain weather. Why doesn't Copenhagen? Scbang

[edit] External links

The external links section in this article is huge. Can someone who knows the subject check and trim the list? See Wikipedia:External links for criteria. Rl 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Henning Makholm has been cleared it now. I propose new external links should be approved here. Carewolf 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Two links seems to reappear often http://www.copenhagen.se and http://www.copenhagenet.dk . Both a tourist portals, I doubt either of them qualify. Carewolf 08:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link, for approval

Infofacts 10:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I would like to add an external link, http://www.copenhagen.se to this page. The website contains information about Copenhagen, Sights, Hotels, Culture etc etc. It is not a commercial site, i.e. the website and the Editorial Staff do not in anyway represent any other companys that are mentioned in some of the subpages. Yes, there are google-adwords on the page, but since it is a free services for all visitors this is reasonable. Some of the current external links refer to pages with a lot more ads on them (e.g. http://www.visitcopenhagen.com)

The site is in both Swedish and English. When I added the link the first time, I did not have an account here. After some weeks the link was removed by some other user. So I added it again, really without knowing the procedures you guys have for editing a site. Then 'Carewolf' removed my link, calling it 'linkspam' and warned me that he/she will permanently block me as a user on Wikipedia if I continued to add the link again.

So I would like to discuss the site here, instead of fighting a "revert war" with Carewolf. Please take a look at the website, http://www.copenhagen.se and leave your comments here. To Carewolf; Perhaps you are the main writer of the page about Copenhagen, and I really think it's a great article. I have read a lot about the guidlines for publishing on Wikipedia, e.g. adding new external links. The guidlines even state that adding an external link is to be considered a 'minor change' to a site, it could even be done without showing it in the history of the page's changes! This I have not done!

I think the link is suitable and meets the requirements, but I will discuss it here with Carewolf and everyone else interesting in this matter.

First of of all, thank you for taking the time to discuss it here instead of revert warring. As for the link, since wikipedia is neither meant to be a travel guide nor a directory of links, I think one external link on tourist information is enough. And although copenhagen.se does have fewer adwords, it also has less information than visitcopenhagen.com. At a cursory browse-through I didn't spot any information present in your link but not in visitcopenhagen.com, but I did see a lot of information in visitcopenhagen.com that I couldn't find in copenhagen.se. Additionally, since visitcopenhagen is the official tourism site, it should be preferred to another site of equal quality. So sorry, but I don't see much benefit to the encyclopedia by adding your link. Hemmingsen 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see that the link would add encyclopedic value to the article at all. The visitcopenhagen link is relevant because it may be considered to be the official website of (one facet of) the subject of the article. Non-official sites, such as your one, should not be linked unless they provide information about the subject that cannot be gotten from the official site and cannot possibly be worked into the Wikipedia article directly. See also the external links guideline. –Henning Makholm 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but no I was not the first to revert your addition. The only reason I used the threat of block was because you continued, and you appeared to be using multiple accounts. Btw, maybe the link would make more sense on wikitravel? Some wikipedia articles also has a list of external links that has been removed on the talk page. Carewolf 08:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and arguments and thank you for taking time to discuss it here. Carewolf; I have only one account, though. It must have been that I at some point edited the page from a computer at my work (i.e. the differnt ip-addr.) Infofacts 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population statistics

Historical population is excessive and not consistent with almost all city articles in Wikipedia. Michellecrisp 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved them to the municipality article. Maybe they should be deleted, but I like them, so I am not going to do it. Carewolf 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

I notice this article is rated as good article. I do not think it is as complete as other city articles as it:

  • lacks sections on economy, governance, media and climate
  • lacks substantial references.

see WP:WIAGA and compare to say: Sydney, London, Berlin. Michellecrisp 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

also lacks information on physical environment and education. It clearly fails WP:WIAGA. Michellecrisp 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24-hour party city

I am bit sad to see that removed. While it might seem redundant compared to Berlin, Hamburg or south european cities, it is quite rare in north europe. Most other cities in Scandinavia or even the UK has specific closing hours, where it is impossible or very hard to find places to drink or go clubing after. In copenhagen all clubs are open to 5AM, the big ones to 9AM, and some to 12AM. This makes Copenhagen very unique in Scandinavia, and even unique compared to UK cities. I have met many foreigners coming to Copenhagen, just for the fact that it is a 24-hour party city. Carewolf 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this page could benefit from a general facelift, when comparing it to other city-pages, or even the Copenhagen-page in German. Some panoramas, more pictures and some more elaborate information about the city would really give the page something extra. Of course, it shouldn't be a commercial, but the general impression at the present, is not very good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.47.138 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copenhagen municipality

I've created a new article dedicated to Copenhagen municipality. I hope to use it to clean up this article to be more about the city and less about the central municipality. Please go to Copenhagen municipality and help edit. Carewolf 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population consensus

To avoid future edit-wars, and be able to clean up the mess the current Population section. I would like to propose a consensus on population statistics.

First we have a number from Danmarks statestik which covers the Urban area of Copenhagen given the definition of no more than 200m between houses (currently called metropolitan in the article). This includes several municipalies from the old Copenhagen Country and some of them partially. I propose with use this definition minus the the partial municipalities so we have a definition we can use and verify ourselves. This currently means the municipalities of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Gentofte, Albertslund, Ballerup, Brøndby, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Herlev, Hvidovre, Lyngby-Taarbæk and Rødovre.

Second we define the metropolitan area as Danmark statestik does, that is Copenhagen region - bornholm + east zealand (Solrød, Greve, Køge, Lejre and Roskilde).

Third we forbid any size comparisons with other cities or areas, unless there is a clear margin of at least 20%.

What does you think? Carewolf 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to avoid prefer to avoid using any definitions based on us choosing a list of municipalities. If Statistics Denmark defines the metropolitan area, as you've described it, we should definitely do the same, but if we don't have a good source for the urban area, I think we should leave it out of the article entirely. Selecting a list of municipalities and stating that it corresponds roughly to the definition based on the 200m distance seems to much like original research to me, even if it is plausible. But as an alternative to leaving it out entirely, maybe we could use a combination of old and new numbers for the different areas, stating the date for each one?
Regarding size comparisons, I agree. In my humble opinion, we should probably avoid size comparisons with any non-Danish cities. Hemmingsen 12:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As Hemmingsen, I don't think we should select a particular "Wikipedia list" of municipalities. It is easier in terms of both maintenance and verifiability just to select a variable published by Danmarks Statistik and give that number unedited. The "continuous built-up area" definition is the one that makes most sense to me; as far as I can see, statistikbanken.dk presents just that number in Folketal pr. 1. januar efter byer og tid as "000-01100 Hovedstadsområdet i alt", with a population of 1,084,885 as of January 1, 2006. I don't see any need to try to break this down in municipalities and re-add them on our own.
I agree with keeping this article free of size comparisions with non-Danish cities. –Henning Makholm 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, that is the exact same number I got by adding the numbers up for those municipalities. What we are missing right now is the area, do you have that in the book? (I assume you need the book, because I couldn't see the number on the webpage). Carewolf 08:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Which book? As stated, I got the number I quote from statistikbanken.dk - one has to interact a bit with the database interface, and I'm not sure one can link (reliably) directly to the result. Unfortunately statistikbanken.dk seems to be down at the moment, so I cannot create more detailed instructions right now. In any case, if the number is the sum of entire municipalities, I was wrong about what it is; I remember seeing subtotals along the line of "part of Ballerup municipality that lies within Hovedstadsområdet". –Henning Makholm 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Årspublikationen 'Statistisk Årbog'. This is where the numbers are offically published. Carewolf 08:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Statistisk Årbog is downloadable as pdf (at least the 2000 to 2007 versions) via this page. Henning's number is in 'Befolkning og valg' (2007 version) on page 28 and 31 as the population of "Hovedstadsområdet". The definition of "Hovedstadsområdet" is in 'Definitioner og ordforklaring' on page 566, and if I'm reading that correctly, it includes the following complete municipalities: Albertslund, Brøndby, Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Herlev, Hvidovre, Lyngby-Taarbæk, Rødovre, Taarnby and Vallensbæk. Adding the populations of these I only get 1,023,307, so I am tempted to conclude that parts of the surrounding municipalities are included as well. I don't get your list of municipalities to add up either (ending at 1,018,023). I might be missing something obvious, but this certainly confuses me. (As an aside, if we don't get the same result by adding individual municipalities, that's probably a good argument against doing so ;) Hemmingsen 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
We got almost the same numbers, I just messed up my notes, and looked at the official urban population I wrote down for comparison. I got 1.019.797 for the urban municipalities and 1.825.814 for the metropolitan area. Carewolf 06:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. The remaining difference is probably me mixing up the numbers for 2006-01-01 and 2007-01-01 or something like that (I've forgotten exactly which it was that I used). Hemmingsen 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copenhagen location map etc.

I like the location map with municipalities marked with red color, but Taarnby municipality with Copenhagen Airport (Kastrup Lufthavn) bordering the Municipality of Copenhagen to the southeast is surely missing the red color(and don´t forget to color the Saltholmisland(population in 2004:8) belonging to Taarnby .In its built-up highrise residential areas bordering Cop. municipality, this municipality is just as densely populated as Cph. muni., except of course Københavns/Kastrup lufthavn. Apart from that, I find this city-article has too little information and lacks excellent pictures(see German WP article with picturepanorama of Cph.) to be called excellent.Bornsommer 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Öresundregion

I removed the text that Copenhagen is the center of Öresundsregionen and that Öresundsregionen would be the largest metro-area in Scandinavia. First of all: Öresundsregionen is not a metropolitan area. Second: Copenhagen is not the center of this area. There are two main cities in this region, namely Copenhagen and Malmö (on the Swedish side). Third: If (and only if) the Öresundsregionen would be considered as a metro-region, it would not be the largest metro-region in Scandinavia. If we would count in rural areas in that way, we would have to consider all areas which have many commuters to the Stockholm centre. This area is about as big as Öresund, and it is more metropolitan-prototypical since it has only one singel nucleus (hardly any people commute to Copenhagen from other parts of Skåne than from Malmö) So Copenhagen has influence only on the Danish side (and perhaps a little on Malmö) and Malmö has influence exclusively on the Swedish side. This means that Öresund has two nuclei. Nirro 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All your points are wrong. First: The Øresundregion is defined as a metropolitan area, it is always referred to as metropolitan area, a metropolitan area is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Second: Seriously you wouldn't call Copenhagen the center of the Øresundregion? I find that surprising. Third: Copenhagen and the Øresundregion and it has higher populationdensities than any area around Stockholm. You can't make a fair comparison between Copenhagen and Stockholm that Copenhagen doesn't win, simply because the population density is larger, sq-km by sq-km Copenhagen always wins. Stockholm is only larger in the sense of larger administrative areas; be happy with that. Carewolf 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Carewolf, you are a partly wrong and I have to point out that this is not about winning a match between Copenhagen and Stockholm. The most essential is to avoid incorrect fact without any sources in the article... Now to my point...
(1) The population density of The öresundsregionen is about 172 /km2. Metropolitan Stockholm has about 1,76 M on 3472 km2 (507 /km2) or if you count the whole län/amt: 1,93 M on 6500 km2 (about 300 /km2). The average density of Germany is 236 /km2. According to you, all of Germany could be considered as part of the Berlin metro area? This is of course not the case since most part of Germany can't be regarded as to be within the metropolitan structure of Berlin

(i.e commuting, economic influence etc.). You claim that Copenhagen is the center of a metropolitan area that include all of Skåne. I don't find any support for a view that all parts of Öresundsregionen could be defined as a metro region of Copenhagen since it lacks the vital metropolitan structures. The administrative definition of Öresundsregionen includes all of Skåne, Sealand, Mön, Lolland and Bornholm, this area has a population of 3,6 million. Carewolf, could you please provide us with solid and neutral sources confirming Öresundsregionen to be a metro area. If so, I am content.

(2) You say that one "can't make a fair comparison between Copenhagen and Stockholm that Copenhagen doesn't win..". By winning, I suppose that you mean being the largest of them two in terms of population, or am I wrong? Comparing these two cities aren't easy since there are different methods of measuring. City area, län/amt and kommun(e)borders are in fact irrelevant since these are administrative areas that could include a lot of vast rural space.
In Copenhagen, Stockholm and in other cities of Europe, we use the term urban area as a populated area were buildings in general aren't more distant than 200 meters (50 meters is also used in GB). This is a non-administrative definition and corresponds to Hovedstadsområdet (Copenhagen) and Stockholms tätort. The population of Hovedstadsområdet is 1.084.885 (2381 /km2) and has 455,61 km2 . In Stockholms tätort, there are 1.252.020 (3336 /km2)and has 375,25km2. In fact the urban area of Stockholm has a higher population and is more densily populated than its Danish counterpart. We also have to consider the fact that in the Stockholm Urban area, some, very nearby areas are excluded (Lidingö, Täby, Nacka and some other areas are disqualified by 100-200 meters). Including these urban areas, Stockholm Urban area would count 1.462.000 citizens approximately on 450 km2 (3250/km2). Not including these nearby areas, Stockholm Urban area is yet more populous and more densily populated than Copenhagen Urban area. Our conclusion must be: Considering a fair comparison (i.e Urban area) between Copenhagen and Stockholm, Stockholm has a larger population and is more densily populated. However, Copenhagen is situated in a region (i.e Öresundsregionen) which has a higher population density than any other Nordic areas, but compared with areas in Western Europe it is not very dense. If we changed the Urban area definition to: Buildings should not be more distant than 400 meters (instead of 200), the Copenhagen Urban Area would possibly be larger than the Stockholm Urban Area. But according to the present conventions, Stockholm Urban area is larger.
Med venlig hilsen /Nirro
130.237.171.141 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I couldn't find any sources that Öresund is a metroregion and none has provided such sources. However, fusion between the metro-regions of Malmö and Copenhagen could of course now be regarded as one singel metroregion which would then be more populated than Stockholm. This can be seen in the Largest European metropolitan areas. I changed the text to fit this source, I also added the facts that Copenhagen is situated in Öresundsregionen wich is the most densily populated area in Scandinavia.
Kind regards /Nirro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.171.141 (talk) 16:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I saw than Rasmus81 had changed the text about the Copenhagen matroarea as being equivalent to the whole of Oresund region. There is also a link to the article about the Largest European metropolitan areas. According to that list, the Malmo-Copenhagen metroarea has 2,379,237 inhabitants. The whole of Oresund Region has has about 3,600,000 inhabitants. The conclusion must be that the metroarea of Malmo-Copenhagen is not equal to the Oresund region. However a correct statement would be the following: Malmo and Copenhagen together form the largest metropolitan area in Scandinavia - This metropolitan area is situated in the Oresund region.Nirro 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malmö

I pointed out that Malmö is a Swedish city, otherwise it could possibly be confused as a Danish city. --Red w 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes from danish wiki

I had a look at the Copenhagen article in danish, and notice they distinguish between "Region Hovedstaden" and "Hovedstadsregionen". Basically Capital Region is called "Region: Capital", and the old larger region is called Capital Region. That distinction is really hard to do in english. I just like to point out we have merger of two different terms when translating. Carewolf (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is also hard to do in the Scandinavian language(s). If the term "Hovedstadsregionen" - Capital Region is no longer in use, should it then be mentioned in wikipedia at all? For sure the old region corresponds much better to the metropolitan region. One suggestion is to let (the administrative) Region Hovedstaden be Capital Region and translate the former (and now: non-adminstrative) Hovedstadsregionen as Metropolitan Copenhagen. Nirro 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The definition is one big Danish mess :-) --Rasmus81 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a mess alright, but Hovedstadsregionen and Region Hovedstaden should not be mixed. Køge is part of Hovedstadsregionen but not of Region Hovedstaden, and it is the other way around with Bornholm. In addition, Region Hovedstaden is an administrative entity, while "Hovedstadsregionen" is simply an area defined by Statistics Denmark. Valentinian T / C 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference listing

I've been trying to fix up the Reference listing and have looked over the edit page several times. can someone help? thanks Michellecrisp (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it now :) Michellecrisp (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps the best definition of Copenhagen city and suburbs?

Statistics Denmark list so-called landsdele (lands) in Denmark. According to this, the landsdel of København by (Copenhagen city) includes the municipalities of København, Dragør, Frederiksberg and Tårnby, with a total population of 656 582 (2008-01-01). There is also a landsdel called Københavns omegn (Copenhagen suburban) which includes the municipalities of Albertslund, Ballerup, Brøndby, Gentofte, Gladsaxe, Glostrup, Herlev, Hvidovre, Høje-Taastrup, Ishøj, Lyngby-Taarbæk, Rødovre and Vallensbæk, and with a total population of 504 481 (2008-01-01). This gives a total population of 1 161 063 (2008-01-01) for Copenhagen city + suburbs. Statistical summaries can be found here. The definitions of landsdele in Denmark can be found here (excel-file). It seems that a landsdel is mainly a statistical definition, without administrative purposes. Statistics Denmark write (roughly translated): "To meet statistical needs it has been necessary to divide the regions further. This has been done in so-called landsdele."

What do you people think, can this be used to settle the question about the definition of the city and metropolitan area, or does it just make it even more complicated? --Pjred (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copenhagen as a Conurbation

This page, in its very opening paragraph, needs to state that this page is about the conurbation or urban area that is Copenhagen, as opposed to the municipality/administrative division that is Copenhagen. Most pages about cities are about their central administrative area, this seems to be about the entire urban/metropolitan area. In this case, it really needs to be clearly stated. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)