Talk:Molde

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

By all existing standards, Molde is a city, not a town. English definition (precense of cathedral) is satisfied, US and Norwegian definitions (a status thing) are also satisfied, so please don't change it back to town.

Merge

Absolutely! There is no need for a separate Famous residents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed, tagged for prod - there is no point in a redirect as there are no incoming links JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of people from Molde

The article List of people from Molde has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per suggestion merged to Molde no incoming links except redirects to delete when prod expires

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a city

In the US there are no guidelines as to whether a place is a city or not. It is all about what it is agreed upon, what the town/city council wishes, and what "looks good" on the sign. In Britain, it automatically becomes a city if a bishop resides there.

Norwegian, historically being a rural society, have fewer terms for these things than does English. Norwegian BY means both "city" and "town", whereas TETTSTED is a modern, inaccurate term that translates both "town", "village" and "hamlet" in English.

Locations like Molde, Bergen and Larvik are best translated CITY, while Otta, Kløfta and Drøbak will be classified as TOWNS.

As somebody who lives in the area, and regularly visits Molde, I have to take exception with your representation of Molde as a 'City'. I suppose that many editors on Wikipedia live in cities, and a such will recognise what a city is.
A City is a place with a large population, many streets, etc.. etc..
Molde is a beautiful little one street town which enjoys the title of 'Town of Roses'. Why can't Wikipedia recognise that Molde wants to be known as a town??
Such inaccuracy is very harmful to the reputation that Wikipedia should deserve, but because of such inaccuracies is likely never to have.
Signed: A truly pissed of lover of the Town of Molde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.2.204 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are not very well versed in the common usage of 'town' and 'city'. AS the bishop of Møre resides in Molde, the proper designation is city--Sparviere (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Series

Regarding 'Series of fire', it's the English grammar I'm thinking of. As far as I know, 'series of' always has to be followed by the plural form of a noun. It might also be a good idea to change 'destroying' to 'destroyed' for correct grammar.

--Cunningpal 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another word I would question is 'struck', past of 'strike'. We 'strike' a match, to produce a flame by friction, but striking a fire from a bomb doesn't seem to be the right use of the word. Actually, "Strike the fire" (a campfire) means to put it out.

Here is how I would write the sentence. I won't put it in the article, but leave it to you to modify as you want to. 'Air raid' doesn't need a hyphen. Do you use www.onelook.com as a dictionary source? It's a good site.

A second fire, or rather, series of fires, ignited during German air raids in April and May of 1940, destroyed about two thirds of the city.

Cunningpal

Cunningpal! You might be entirely right, or partly wrong. The debate is seething among my colleagues in the department, but no consensus yet! Some advocate that the plural form of "series of fire" IS "series of fire", since series is intrinsically plural (i.e. “one series” – “two series”). Also, this follows the pattern of “brother in arms” – “brothers in arms”, and “one kind of ice cream” – “two kinds of ice cream” (and not “ice creams”). Or, according to the opposition, since Molde was bombed for two weeks, there surely must have been more than ONE fire, hence “series of fires”. Verdict is pending.

Regarding strike/struck there seems to more of an agreement that a fire CAN strike from an incendiary bomb, just like fire can strike like a match, or from a bolt of lightning. Furthermore – “struck” in this sense does not necessarily refer to the act of striking two surfaces, but “inflicted upon”, like “Many Californian towns fire-stricken after the great bushfire”, or “Fire struck one of Seattle's monorail trains outside…” (headlines on the news)

As for you other suggestions – they will be corrected! Thank you

--Sparviere 14:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look up 'series' in the Encarta English Dictionary on the Web. It gives some excellent examples and an explanation of 'series' in its singular and plural use.

I can guarantee that no literate person whose mother tongue is English would follow 'series of' with a singular noun. 'Series of fire' is just not correct English as it is spoken and written.

Cunningpal 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I AM literate, and DO have English as my native tongue, but I am still not quite convinced. However, since you seem certain, and I am not, it is hereby settled, and the necessary changes will be performed. Thanks for following up! --Sparviere 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment in WW2

German Wikipedia says that the city was bombed by the RAF in 1940. Can't read Norwgian but it seems it says something about the RAF as well. In contrast to that the English version says that the German Luftwaffe was responsible for the bombardment. What's true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmbeck1982 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]