This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are absolutely no sources for any of that info. There needs to be some sources cited or else it's all opinion. I also wonder how important it is to include all that info when wikipedia has a page for Gardemoen
Is there a source for it being the most on-time? It seems to directly contradict the wikipedia article on Gardemoen that says it has problems with fog and freezing rain.
Sorry for all these edits, I accidentally deleted my first comment.
--109.189.37.229 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The infobox reads "Oslo within Oslo" beneath the map, but the map is really of Akershus. Is this possible to fix?
It looks like this text is hard-coded into the infobox_kommune-template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.23.90 (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional info : As mentioned above, the map shows county (and city) of Oslo in red, placed within the county of Akershus marked in grey. TorSch (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (no.wiki)
Writing "K" instead of "Ch" began in the (late?) 19th century. It is virtually impossible that King Christian[!] IV should have chosen to call the city "Kristiania".
S.
Of course he did not. And in fact, we started to write his name Kristian IV at the same time as we started to write Kristiania. Kristian IV's gate is not far from Karl Johans gate (Was it ever Carl Johans gate?)
G.
If I'm not mistaken, the spelling of Christiania was changed to Kristiania in 1875.
The original name of Oslo was restored in 1925 but it doesn't say why.
The reason was that Kristiania was named after a king of Denmark. With the independence, the Norwegians wanted to rid themselves of the Danish and Swedish influence, hence renaming a number of towns and cities throughout Norway: Fredrikshald became Halden, Fredriksvern became Stavern and Victoriahavn became Narvik. All these names are the original ones. Don't forget that Oslo was called Oslo for more than 600 years before Christiania came around.
In fact 'Oslo' continued to be the name of the part where the old city was situated before the fire in 1624 and the development of the new city across the bay named 'Christiania'. In 1925 'Oslo' became the name of the hole ciy while the former district of Oslo was renamed 'Gamle Oslo' mening 'Old Oslo'.
None of the mentioned names are "original". Basically, they're reconstructions of supposed Old Norse or local dialect names of the places were towns were erected. The towns themselves had their Danish (or more seldom Swedish) names from the start. These days some of the renamed towns are trying to get rid of the anhistoric, nationalist names, and get the old town name back. Oslo is a special case: The mediaeval city by that name was abandoned in 1624, what was left of stone buildings were used as quarries, and the grounds were levelled and used for pastures. Christiania was a brand new city, to which the citizens of Oslo were partly encouraged, partly forced to move. Official city history has always focused on the "national heritage" aspects, merging the history of the mediaeval city and the modern one. Only lately the historians have recognized that it's actually a matter of two different cities. There was a parallell case one generation earlier, when the mediaeval town of Sarpsborg was abandoned after being destroyed by the Swedish army, and the citizens were moved to the new town of Fredrikstad, which was easier to defend. The man behind this plan, King Frederik II, wanted to do the same thing with Oslo (also destroyed in the war and needing better protection), but the citizens rebuilt the city before the King could act. Only after the city fire in 1924[citation needed], his son Christian IV, visiting Norway at the time, managed to put the plan into effect. As for Christian, there was no fixed orthography in his days. The spelling of a person's name - even the King's - would differ from writer to writer. I think Kristiern was still a rather common spelling back then, though the international form "Christian" might already have become the most common one. The fixed spelling of kings' names dates from later times anyway. Though it's still common in most countries to translate the names of royalty – thus "Christian" would be the correct spelling in English. Same thing goes for city names: They're usually translated as far as larger and/or internationally known cities goes. Finally: The name "Gamle Oslo" is a recent construction, connected with the administrative reforms of the 1980's/2000's. This administrative unit is much bigger than the mediaeval city. The area until 1924 known as Oslo was called "Gamlebyen" (Old Town) from 1925, and still is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.9.184 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
People simply wanted to go back to back to what it was before / like the previous better / found it more practical / disliked it being named after a Danish king or something, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:c440:20:1116:69b0:624:2a81:99f5 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Population numbers Oslo metropolitan area and Oslofjord area
1.5 million people seems a very high number for the metropolitan area. That would imply a large area, with considerably distances involved. Also, the claim that 2 million people live around Oslofjord seems as a too large estimate. If you count all counties bordering the fjord - Oslo, Akershus, Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold (Telemark is not in this region and does not border the fjord), you get just over 1.7 million people, and that includes all people in those counties - even though some of them, as in Buskerud, lives far from the fjord, up in the valleys. Orcaborealis 13:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
According to Oslo Teknopol: "1 524 412 av dem bor i Osloregionen. Dette tallet inkluderer innbyggerantallet i Oslo og de 55 kommunene som er med i Samarbeidsalliansen Osloregionen" (English translation: 1,524,412 of them lives in the Oslo region. This number includes the population figures for Oslo and the 55 communes/counties that participates in the Oslo region Cooperative Alliance.). I could partially agree that it might be a little overboard to include this full number in the metropolitan area of Oslo, but at the same time this does include mostly people that might have Oslo as a place of work/important city centre, so it might also be justifiable. -- A-ixemy 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
To quote my edit on the Bergen page, "Is it at encyclopedia level to use the concept of metropolitan area at all as long as there's no tradition for using it in Norway, and no clear definition of what it's supposed to include"? Narssarssuaq 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That there's no tradition, as in like older than year 1800, may be correct. But tradition is not relevant for 2006. What I'm referring to/talking about, is the fact that there has been talk of "Stor-Oslo" since at least 1980, I believe. This is old enough to warrant such a definition, which in english would be "Osloregion" or "Oslometropolitan area." So, in my opinion, yes, it is at encyclopedia level. --A-ixemy 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You could be right. If there exists a consensus of what "Stor-Oslo" includes, do include the figures. If not, an interval could be included, though effort of course should be but into making the article as brief as possible on this point. Narssarssuaq 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Statistics Norway use the term "tettsted" / urban settlement instead of metropolitan area. --84.208.198.182 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a definition used by Statistics Norway that is called Stor-Osloregionen (Greater Oslo Region). It has an area of 6 920 km² and a population of 1 121 020 (051231). This definition included the area around Drammen earlier but defined Drammen as a separate area from 2005. Probably the best official definition of Stor-Oslo so I will add this figure to the article. --Pjred 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
22% of the population are immigrants? I will assume this to be false, until somebody backs it up with a good, trustworthy link. Maybe if one considers all children of immigrants, and children of these people again to be "immigrants". But that's a definite maybe! And furthermore, they ain't immigrants if they're born in the country. I think this link should be removed if somebody doesn't provide hard facts that support it very soon...
There lots of ways to define "immigrant". The most common one have been "a person born abroad, or with at least one parent born abroad". This is a very wide definition, that very well might result in numbers like the one mentioned. Most immigrants in Oslo are Scandinavian anyway, and hardly distinguishable from the native population. Anyway, the statistical definition of the "Greater Oslo Region" is said to be "dynamic", so numbers migh change dramatically if a couple of houses decreases a gap between what's until then is considered inside and outside...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.9.184 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that the present king, by official definition, is an immigrant. --Hordaland (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
A propos area: why is the urban area smaller than the city area, when the former has a larger population? Giese (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Not A Beautiful City?
"...the city as a whole is not usually considered beautiful, even by most of its own residents."
– I have rescearched this a fair bit, and neither I, nor those who I´ve questioned agree to this quote. Oslo is indeed considered beautiful, at least by most of its own residents. Mostly due to Oslo´s vast areas of "green zones", which is quite unique compared to other capitals of Europe.
– Martinor Wed. 26.07.06
Agreed, and it's definitely POV. For example, in my opinion and with my tastes in architecture and city planning, it could actually be the most beautiful city in Norway. Narssarssuaq 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be a reference to the trash problem in the city. Unfortunately, it is common a common problem that people throw away trash on the street and elsewhere... [1] --Jambalaya 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed this claim as it was unsourced, definitely POV, and didn't add anything to the article. jax 11:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not really POV, littering IS a problem in the city. --Jambalaya 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think info like this is usually added elsewhere on Wikipedia. Narssarssuaq 07:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oslo is generally considered a terrible place in every way - looks, culture, people etc - by everyone in Norway who isn't actually from Oslo, including most outsiders who have moved there. I think this has a lot to do with Oslo symbolizing central authority in a country where people loathe central authority, and have always done so. It's more or less a part of Norwegian culture (outside Oslo) to hate Oslo.
In my opinion, Oslo is a beautiful city - though the "gateway area" around the railway station, the first place people see, is so terribly soulless as to confirm all prejudices outsiders have against the city. --Misha bb 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)(Who's an outsider that have moved to Oslo)
Yeah I pretty much agree with that sentiment, Misha. The area around the central 'square,' Jernbanetorget, isn't exactly the most inspiring cityscape in the world (to put it mildly). But there are many more charming environments to be found outside of it. I also think most 'native' Oslo people try to stay out of the most central area (i.e. around Jernbanetorget) as much as possible - I certainly do. There are even a few fairly hidden nice places in Oslo, which I'm sure tourists never see. Telthusbakken/Fredensborg, Ullevål Hageby to name just a couple. Problem is, there is usually nothing outside of a few nice buildings or a nice sight to see on such places, so there isn't really a reason to go there for most, including tourists. -- A-ixemy 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Does this information even belong in an encyclopedia? Beautiful or not, who is supposed to decide? I am terrified to read statements such as "Oslo is generally considered a terrible place in every way" above. In Wikipedia policy this kind of statements are called weasel words and should be avoided. By the way, I was born and raised in Oslo and find beauty and ugliness both, just as I do in other cities around the world.Wameya (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been living several times in Oslo. I would say it has some nice places, but in general it is not partcularly beautiful, but not particularly ugly either (at least not compared to a city like Manchester in England). But I guess it should not be included unless someone has any reference to statistics. --Oddeivind (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
i have walked around in many areas of oslo and it looks terrible. inconsistent architecture with old and new side by side in places. only a few places look good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Untitled
The terrorist that carried out the attacks in Oslo/Norway in 2011 should not be listed under "notable residents". This is disappointing that people like this are getting recognition for their crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.21.88 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oslo vs Norway
Why Oslo has more info than the Norway article? You norske need to take care of Norway article too and quit being uansvarlig. Ikke legg bilder som er tatt midt i vinteren med sky, det er viktig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Outdated information
"It is usually placed in Trafalgar Square. For the 61st time, this spruce will have been lit by the Mayor of Oslo, Fabian Stang and The Lord Mayor of Westminster, Councilor Carolyn Keen, between 6 December 2007 and 4 January 2008, and it has received yet more special attention than before, expressing environmental concern."
The info is outdated, and it is too selective (covering only one of sixty-one instances), and the wording is non-encyclopedic.--Novotal (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Climate and weather
In the climate section there are (representative?) examples from particular years (2008 and 2009). This might have been topical two years ago, but is it still today. Does a particular heatwave (with no records?) in 2009 tell us something about the climate in general? I don't think so. And is the water temperature in the summer of 2008 interesting (no ref. btw). I don't think so. It would be much more interesting to read about more typical average values. I suggest these sentences should be erased. Nirro (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As nobody opposed agains my proposal above, I now erase these irrelevant texts. Nirro (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The original edit uses the BC/AD format. Kindly avoid inappropriate reversions to other formats. — LlywelynII 04:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Fastest growing city in Europe?
In the intro it can be read the following "The population currently increases at record rates, making it the fastest growing city in Europe". And the source is "aftenposten" [2], whose alleged source is UN (but no link). According tol the article, Grater Oslo grew from 818,000 in 2005 to 888,000 in 2010. This corresponds to an annual growth of 1,64%. According to the article this is tha fastest in Europe.
But if we take a closer look at e.g the Stockholm figures we can see that the metropolitan region grew from 1,889,945 in 2005 to 2,054,343 in 2010. This correspond to an annual growth of 1,68% [3][4]. Looking at the urban area of Stockholm, the population grew from 1,252,020 to 1,372,870 (annual increase of 1,86) [5].
The Stockholm municipality grew from 771,038 in 2005 to 847,073 in 2010. This corresponds to an annual growth of 1,9% [6][7].
I am no aware of others cities' figures but one cannot exclude the possibility that there might be other cities apart from Stockholm that are faster growing than Oslo.
I suggest the sentence is changed to The population currently increases at record rates, making it one of the fastest growing city in Europe
I agree with the proposed change. Iselilja (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Pronounciation
The soundfile pronounces it Oshlo. I'm Norwegian and I Pronounce it Oslo, as does most of the country. Only the south east norwegians pronounce it this way. I really don't want the southeasteners to represent the Norwegian language with their ridiculus accent.--DnivyØ (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But Oslo is in the south-east. It does make sense to have a pronounciation that is representative of the city itself, and not how somebody in another part of the country would like it to be pronounced. That you think it is a "ridiculous accent" is hardly relevant. Eskil S (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Too much images in citiscape/architecture section
Can someone who knows much about architecture write more in this, so that we can spread the images more, and is it also okay if we delete some of them too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhår97 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is/was messy. We should consider both numbers of photos (currently 6, which might be ok), size of photos, + quality of photos. There is at least two I would like to change: Aker brygge (for a clearer one from Aker Brygge) and Jernbanetorget. I would suggest to insert a photo of Oslo Exchange market building and/or the Oslo council house. I also think we should consider the other photos in the article. We don´t need two photos of the parliament (in addition to the one that is already in the infobox). I removed one from the history section, and replaced it with the castle, which was in the politics section, but actually fits in better in the history section. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I also think that it was a bad picture of aker brygge, but all the other i found were no better. Maybe you can try to find a better one? Also i believe jernbanetorget is probably the best example besides aker brygge of oslos modern architecture. Can you please tell me why you want to remove it. The ones i personally want to remove is akershus festning, and maybe get a better picture of oslo opera house. The stock exchange market isn't a unique and impressive example of architecture, taken it is only two floors and resemble a lot of other buildings. I can't find any photos of anything called the oslo council house on google and i therefore don't know what you are refering too. And last, the reason i undid your edit was because, as you i dont think the parliament belongs in the history section, but so doesn't the castle either. I would suggest we keep both images in the politics section (maybe add the city hall somewhere) and replace the parliament with something more historical.
Then we have an agreement to remove one of the parliament photos (among the two of us, but I wouldn´t think there should be strong opposition to that from any other). I wonder why you didn´t think the royal castle didn´t suit the history section? It is an historic building, just as must as the parliament and it is mentioned in the text. My suggestion is to either have it in the history section or in the 6 photo gallery. I don´t think it is particularly relevant for the politics section. What I meant with "council house" was actually city hall. It could be included in the politics section, but I don´t think there should be more than one or two photos in that section. And preferably just one. For my taste, there is a tendency to photo-overload in the article. The problem I have with the photos from Aker Brygge and Jernbanetorget is not the motive per se, but the quality of the photos - too blurry. I prefer this photo from Aker brygge - maybe less cozy than the one we have now, but clearer. For Jernbanetorget I don´t have an alternative, clearer photo, so I would just prefer another motive. (I have suggested the stock exchange, another suggestion would be the castle if you don´t want it in the history section). With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
i've changed the aker brygge photo. the jernbanetorget photo is taken from google street view, but you can't really see it except if you look on the lower part of the picture. I have so far not found any pictures that is better than it for some reason, but i'm going to oslo soon, so if it is a problem of quality i can take a better one. What i ment with the castle not fitting well was not because the castle do not have anything to do with the history of oslo. I was thinking more on the visual experience the reader gets when reading this article, that is why i'm mainly focusing on the images Over 80 percent of people use their mobile for internet. In mobile view this image is the first one they'll see. I dont see the castle as a particulary "stunning" image, and therefore i believe that it takes a better motive to give people a better impression of oslo. As for the city hall it was just a suggestion as i already have put it in the picture collage, and due to some people saying it is an ugly building (I don't think so) maybe we don't need another picture of it. The reason i started this discussion about it beeing to many images in cityscape/architecture section is not actually because i want fewer pictures. I believe all the pictures in the gallery represents different arcitecture in oslo in a good way. What i would like though, was for the text in the section to be longer so it would be possible to spread the images more and don't have them in an own gallery. The two barcode images is pictures you could find in the gallery, but i think fits really nicely in the history section. I actually want to add more pictures, But i cant do it because i want to preserve the visuality of the article. An example of an image i believe would fit in the cityscape section is the one below. i believe that if we crop away the top half of the image it would be a nice panorama using the "wide image" template.File:Oslosmug.jpg
Ok, I see you have thought this well over. So, you might be right we should have a photo of the parliament in the history section. (Allthough I think the photo of the castle is nice because there is some greenery there and people walkning) I would then prefer to have the city hall in the politics section, as it´s a relevant photo for politics. And regardless if people like it or not, it is considered a landmark for Oslo and to be good architecture (Arnstein Arneberg). When I am talking about "photo-overload", I am also referring to photos relative to text. The article could do well with more text in certain sections. But even with some text expansion, I believe some of the photos need to be in a gallery; too many photos in each section will look messy. Wide panoramas, however, often work well, because they can be places under/in between sections. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Population
I think the population figures have been messed up by 83.108.248.222's edits. Could someone look into this? no they cant
I believe you're right.
According to Norwegian encyclopedia Oslo has over 800000 peope in it.
http://www.snl.no/Oslo
Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 08:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC).
Be aware that even in Norway there are discussions going on how to refer to population numbers. Most towns and cities are referred to by the population living WITHIN CITY LIMITS. With this figure Oslo has less than 600.000 inhabitants.
To list cities ranked by population, figures for total population are used, disregarding city/county limits. A population figure of 800.000, say 900.000, will only be reached when surrounding "kommunes" in Akershus County are counted in. TorSch (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (of no.wiki)
I think you are confusing Oslo the city/komune with the 'Oslo region', and the Oslo region contains 1.5 million people. 85.165.91.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
The population numbers in the article are contradictory. Under the urban region heading, numbers seem largely correct, although it would be better to stick to the latest official statistics. A problem of this heading is the title "urban region" which is not standard. I suggest the contents be moved to demographics. The other problem under this heading is the lack of an area measure for the Inner Oslo Fjord Region. Without an area measure, it becomes practically impossible to judge the relevance of the population number. The total area for the five counties mentioned is 26,697 km2, about twice the size of Tokyo´s metropolitan area. Some infobox numbers are incorrect and contradict the figures provided under the urban region heading. For city, it should be 623,966 (which is the population of the municipality of Oslo). For urban, it should be 925,242 (the latest official population of the urban area or tettsted). Population densities should likewise be amended to 1,374/km2 and 3,192/km2 respectively. Oberoende (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Norwegian WP mentions the population number for the municipality (official administrative subdivision) 626 953 per 1 april 2013, while the "urban settlement" (as defined by Statistics Norway) had 925 242 people by 2012, and finally Greater Oslo Region had 1 502 604 people 1 april 2013. There is no official definition of the latter however, it is however mentioned in a 2002 white paper. Compare for instance how population numbers are listed for London (city, urban, urban zone and metro). --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Crime
Maybe there should be a new section in this article about crime in Oslo..? The recent years prostitution, drugs, violence and gang activity has been rising, and is more often mentioned in the media. As far as i can tell, Oslo is the most unsafe city in Scandinavia at the moment, and I think this should be mentioned at some point in the article. Arguments?
Well, that is certainly a relevant topic. But making a whole section would perhaps overstate the importance (undue weight, WP guidelines), after all, Oslo is a very safe city by international standards. I am not sure if Oslo is really the most unsafe city in Scandinavia. Infighting in gangs does not affect the general public. In addition, WP is not a travel guide. Perhaps crime could be included in a section on social/living conditions? Regards, Mondeo (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The new crime section should definitely be edited for spelling and grammar, as it is written in terrible norwegian-english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.127.228 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
General discussion about rape and women's rights does not belong in this article, pasted here: "The Official Committee on Sexual Assaults ''(Voldteksutvalget)'' have reported that around 90% of rape incidents in Norway go unreported, and that there is about 1% chance that the rapist will be convicted. Activists have claimed that women's lack of [[due process]] in rape cases is seriously affecting women's rights in Norway.<ref>{{cite web|title=Aksjon rettsikkerhet for kvinner|url=http://www.krisesenter.com/innlegg/avisinnlegg_januar_2000.html|work=Avisinnlegg|publisher=Krisesenteret|accessdate=15 August 2012|author=Aksjon rettsikkerhet for Kvinner|coauthors=Kvinnefronten, Krisesenterforbundet, Krisesentersekretariatet, Sosialistisk Venstreparti, Miljøpartiet De Grønne, Likestillingssenteret og Alternativ til vold.|language=Norwegian|year=2012}}</ref>" --Erik den yngre (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Does the source really support the claim that there annual "spikes" in sexual assaults? The wording seems to exaggerate the crime level. Some statistics and comparisons to other cities in Norway and Europe would make this section less subjective. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that there was a tabloid flair in this section. I removed some of it. We need a no-drama, encyclopedic presentation of the overall crime situation in Oslo. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm (WP:ENGVAR)
The UK template at the top of the page was added by Marek69 in 2009 apparently without justification or based only on his recent edits. The actual first edits to the page were in American English: cf. "college". — LlywelynII 04:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Norwegians generally speaks and write American English (due to the influence of American television), but there are no strong national TIES to either variety of English, but based on WP:RETAIN it is reasonable to have this article written in American English. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
"Oslo within Oslo"
The picture of "Oslo shown within Oslo" should be removed, switched, updated or relabelled (for example to "Oslo in relation to Akershus").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:c440:20:1116:69b0:624:2a81:99f5 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Second that. The map actually shows Oslo (i.e. city and county in red) surrounded by Akershus. I can't find the proper edit link, so if anyone knows how to fix it, please do so. Thank you.68.35.64.19 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I NEED HELP IN OSLO
I badly need the dates of birth/death for HARALD ALFRED HANSEN of the Royal Norwegian Air Force, who married EVA ROSALIE PACKER, nee HALL in London in 1943; any suggestions please? 2.27.132.226 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Climate and temperature records
The climate and record table is based on observations at Blindern, site of the University and the Met office. However, other observation sites show slightly more extreme temperatures, for instance this summer Blindern had a new July record at 33.4 C, while the old high is still 35 C from another site. So perhaps should be specific about which site numbers refer to. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The table in the climate section says "Climate data for Oslo (1961-1990)" but the table seems to include newer data (records). Should the table notes mention that some figures have been updated? Should there be specific references for each record (when these are updated)? --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Ring 3 an expressway?
Ring 3 (national road 150) is a beltway or ring road, while it has "controlled access" (no at-grade crossings) it is not formally classified as a motorway by the national road authority (speedlimit is 70 kmh). So the word "expressway" is somewhat misleading. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
