Talk:List of municipality numbers of Norway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move for historical record[edit]

I think this ought to be moved to List of municipality numbers of Norway (1837–2017) prior to the county reform (prior to the Trøndelag merger), as the list will be totally defaced and should be preserved like it is as a historical record. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, this is a very important list for historical purposes. I'd hate to see it butchered by the introduction of the new region structure. leifbk (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This issue has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norway and I hope that somebody will do the necessary operations. I'm way too inexperienced with admin tasks to even try. leifbk (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My opinion would probably be that the information is needed only for historical purposes, since the old municipality numbers distinguished between cities/towns and rural municipalities. The new municipality numbers would be more trivial and of less practical use to a reader (in addition the county structure, and the municipality numbers with them, may change several times in the coming decade..) Though it is not impossible that someone takes an interest in the new numbers either, so therefore my proposal of a split stands. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The numbers do still distinguish between old cities/towns and rural municipalities. In fact, more so than in 2017, since there were no more "city-numbers" for the newly merged Sandefjord. In any case, the distinction between the two kinds of municipalities appears to be completely gone from the laws. Even the law that regulated which municipalities could use the designation "by" (city/town) is now gone, and that law had, from what I can find out, no effect on the numbers. List of towns and cities in Norway already have a list of which places had been given city/town status back when it formally meant something. Ters (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is totally beside the point, which is that the list is important for historical reasons. Nobody will go back and change the numbers or municipality names on old documents, and I think that Wikipedia has a responsibility to preserve this as it is a key to access our common history. Move it elsewhere, but by all means, please keep it. leifbk (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I come across an old document referencing a municipality of the past, a list of numbers and names would not help me much, though. The document would most likely contain the name. This list could help me identify which county, which might be just as much a thing of the past. That might be useful, though. Most likely, I would want to know where the municipality was. Not just a point, but it's border. I'm not sure how Wikipedia could help me there.
As for what should be done about this list, it might be an idea to wait a little longer. I'm not sure if the emerging partial undoing of the county reform will lead to a third set of numbers, or if they will go back to the old numbers wherever possible. If the latter, it might make more sense to put the currently new numbers in another article. It seems unlikely that Agder and Trøndelag will revert, though, which means that there might be both old historical numbers for those, and new historical numbers for most of the rest. Otherwise, old historical numbers for almost everything, and new historical numbers for most, or at least quite a lot. Ters (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not updated?[edit]

What exactly was the problem with this edit by Jay1279 which was reverted by Leifbk? I don't see any removal of "historical" information, only a marking of it as such and the addition of updated information, which, ISTM, is exactly what should happen. - dcljr (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like I said above, it would be perfectly fine to save it as eg. "List of municipality numbers of Norway (1837–2017)". I don't mind if a list with current municipality numbers is created / maintained apart from this one, but this list is important for historical purposes. For instance, the National Archives (Riksarkivet) of Norway still uses the old 1947 municipality division, and the old municipality numbers and names are referenced on every single page of the Digitalarkivet's scanned and transcribed documents.
12:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) leifbk (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the information currently on the page is also in the update I linked to (except the incorrect information that a lot of these old numbers apply up to the "present"). There is absolutely no reason to not update the page along those lines. (And if someone wants to move a previous version to another title, they can find it in the page history.) - dcljr (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of municipalities of Norway has all the current numbers, so that takes care of those only interested in the present. By the end of the year, a bunch of those numbers are supposed to become historical. I'd prefer to have a list containing all numbers, past and present, in one place. With information on when that number was in use, and perhaps which numbers have replaced each of the historical ones. Most people will probably not remember when which number was in use, and it will be fewer as time goes on. I'd also welcome a snapshot of 1947 and 2017, and more if it's useful, but that would be something extra distinct from this. Ters (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin[edit]

The article claims: "The numbers originate from 1946, when four-digit codes based on ISO 3166-2:NO were assigned to each municipality." This cannot be true, since ISO 3166-2 apparently wasn't published until 1988. So, where and/or when did this numbering system really originate? - dcljr (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addressed. - dcljr (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]