Talk:Norway

I removed the following newly added section:

There were several incidents when children were taken from parents for no good reason by Norwegian social workers and never returned. This happens even to foreigners visiting the country. One such incident is now being solved diplomatically between Norway and the Czech Republic, with no solution in sight (the Czech mother is allowed to see her sons, also Czech citizens, for 15 minutes every six months). Other such incident was solved by Polish parents by hiring a commando to bring their daughter back (after all legal solutions failed).

I suppose such incidents are rare enough not to be relevant for most visitors – and suspect the cases are about families where there are disputes about the children (and one parent is Norwegian in the typical cases). The "for no good reason" probably depends heavily on the interpretation of "good".

We should probably include such sections only when it is shown on the talk page that incident are common, or at least that outright abuse of the legal system happens (and that this is relevant also for non-residents without close relations to Norway).

--LPfi (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree, although such incidents have been reported, this is almost exclusively relevant to residents, not so much visitors. However sad these individual stories are, I believe it doesn't belong to a travel guide. Danapit (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Leave such singular and irrelevant incidents out. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a sizeable section on 'Fun facts' for Fjords which I can't help but categorize as off-topic. Discussing Fjords is probably a relevant subject when discussing the country of Norway, but listing out all the films that were made on them as well as cultural references is not really travel relevant. Should we remove? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps they could be put in an infobox? I don't think it does much harm to keep them. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Possible a more concise version in an infobox!

WV often falls into the trap that 'more is more', when in fact endless tracts of text actually serve the traveler less because the reader doesn't want to cherry pick the important parts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't find it off topic at all (actually, almost always I read or hear the word fjord, I recall this Hitchhikers's guide quote - so please keep this part for me :) ), but infobox might be good.Danapit (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I'd call that section "sizable". I think it'd fit perfectly in an infobox, more-or-less as-is. The only problem with that is the excessive run of images along the right margin. Powers ^(talk) 02:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am the guilty one. I added all this info (including fun facts and images) because I realize that there is much confusion among travelers about the fjord concept. Fjords are after all Norway's top attraction. Perhaps a separate article to do the topic justice? To me images and maps communicate better than text. I tried to use images to communicate the extent and variety of fjords, a topic that is most difficult to comprehend for first time visitors. Fun facts can of course me removed, not a big deal, but I would appreciate a discussion on the other points. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand: Popular culture reference (such as movies or novels) can also be informative. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

How about creating a new article Fjords of Norway? Then we can remove some details from the main Norway article. Because fjords are not limited to any specific region, better treat it in a separate article rather than repeating the information for every county or region? --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That would be fine, or the article could be about Fjords, period, and also cover fjords in Alaska, Greenland and other places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

A Fjords article would be nice. w:Fjord says that there are fjords in Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Alaska, Kerguelen Islands, British Columbia, Nunavut, Washington and Chile. (there you go, I had no idea Washington state had them) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, as a matter of fact, the so-called Hood Canal inside Puget Sound is, hydrologically and geologically, a textbook example of what a fjord is. Ibaman (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

One version of New York or Hudson Valley claimed that the Hudson River estuary is actually a fjord. I don't know about that. But the Saguenay Fjord in Quebec is famous, so there's another Canadian province. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Fjords would be fine! There are also some in Denmark, as far as I know, or at least that's what they call them... Danapit (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can consider both. Fjords in general is a topic, but fjords in Norway can be treated as a destination. Travelers ask lots of questions related to fjords in Norway: Where they are, how to get there, how to travel around. These kinds of questions are largely specific to Norway because visiting fjords in Norway is very different from visiting fjords in Greenland or Antarctica. At this point I think it is most relevant to create an article on fjords in Norway, then many details in the main Norway article can be moved to that subarticle. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Consensus? If there are no strong objections to my first idea of creating a separate Fjords of Norway article connected the main Norway article, I will soon break off some details and images from the main articles. A topical Fjords article can also be created. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, Erik. Danapit (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think the Norwegian fjords can have their own article. --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. A general article would be great, but each country or region with a bunch of beautiful fjords could eventually have its own article, too. There's no harm whatsoever in starting with Fjords of Norway, only benefit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. I will then treat Fjords of Norway as a destination. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not a travel topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if makes any difference in the article to treat it as topic or as a destination, but from visitors point of view it is kind of a destination, questions like: Where is it? How to get there? How to get around? What is the weather? Similar to Fiordlands of NZ or the Alps of central Europe. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Only one region of Norway has fjords? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The point is that "destinations" have to suit our geographical hierarchy. The fjords article can be written as a destination guide, whatever that means, but it will be treated as a travel topic in our hierarchy, being linked to from the See section in Norway, not from the Regions section. --LPfi (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whatever works best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are fjords all over Norway, except in the very interior. But with regard to fjords many counties (administrative division) are very similar. Counties of Norway are in general not the most informative from a visitor point of view. Also easier to write a concise guide for sub-regions like Valdres, Gudbrandsdal or Lofoten, or for extra-hierarchical region like Jotunheimen or Alps. In Norway there is often greater variety within counties than across counties. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I am being petty, but Eastern Norway, Western Norway etc. struck me as quite dull, descriptive names. I have by now realized those are actually regions generally recognized by Norwegians themselves, but I was wondering if we could use some Norwegian names to give them a more local feel (and acquaint travellers with how Norwegians call them).

Agder and Trøndelag actually have traditional, meaningful names. Østlandet and Veslandet are descriptive, but do not repeat the obvious word "Norway" when referred to in Norwegian. This makes Nord-Norge OK as a standalone case of referring to a region of Norway using the name of the country.

BTW, the division of Agder and Trøndelag into two counties each seems unnecessary to me. PrinceGloria (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Strange that we do not even mention the local names. When we use our own regional division we should of course use descriptive English names, but when the regions are traditional or administrative entities, travellers would be much better served knowing them. English speakers should be able to recognize the Norwegian names of cardinal directions (øst for east etc. and thus remember which region is which). Using the Norwegian names will also help in the confusion of the easternmost part of Norway being far from "Eastern Norway". --LPfi (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Middle Norway is sometimes used informally by Norwegians, but it is not a very precise term. The area covered in the article is in fact called Trøndelag, an ancient and well defined name. From the visitors' perspective there is no point in dividing this area in two articles, in fact a bit confusing as Trondheim airport is in the other county just across the line. Names Trondheim and Trøndelag most likely has the same origin. I suggest we switch to Trøndelag, the proper name for this area, the name all Norwegians use and understand.

South Norway is also an ambiguous term as it is used about the Agder area (Sørlandet, the area connected by the Stavanger railway line) but also about all of Norway that is not North (Sør-Norge). Agder would be a better heading for this article.

East and West are old names for Østlandet and Vestlandet, even if Finnmark of course is much further east. I think these are difficult to translate. Visitnorway uses Fjord Norway about the West, OK for marketing but not very precise. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I take it we are in agreement so I can proceed with renaming, right? PrinceGloria (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not fully. The headings South Norway and Middle Norway can be replaced. Østlandet and Vestlandet can redirect, but these words are not intelligible to foreigners so I suggest we keep the heading as is. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think foreigners not understanding the names is no problem. We can translate them in the beginning of the article, but even if we do not, they can be treated just as names. We do so with Finnmark and probably with most regions in other countries. Additionally, the two mentioned are easy, as "øst", "vest" and "land" are used in English with only slight difference in spelling or meaning. --LPfi (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, perhaps. At least "Trøndelag" should replace "Middle Norway". Note that in Norway the terms "Vest-Norge" (West Norway) and "Vestlandet" (the west country) are used interchangeably. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the meantime, I have renamed South Norway to Agder and also merged the two Agder countries into it as discussed above, because the extra level did not add any value. Therefore, we have two cool banners up for grabs: File:Vest-Agder banner.jpg and Aust-Agder banner.jpg. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, so I merged Sør-Trøndelag and Nord-Trøndelag back into Middle Norway (not that there was much to merge, those were really stubby regions), so now what is needed is deleting Category:Sør-Trøndelag and Category:Nord-Trøndelag and moving Middle Norway to Trøndelag per above discussion. Anybody with admin rights could do that? PrinceGloria (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

What happens to the cities that link to those categories when they're deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any do, I believe I cleared both categories. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Trondheim is in Category:Sør-Trøndelag. I suppose I can delete it from there, but does it need to be put in another category? Anyway, I'll make the deletions and move. If anything gets messed up in the process, please clean it up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, taken care of, and I also deleted the "Regions" section of Trøndelag. I thought Autopatrollers could delete and move stuff. I guess not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tusen takk! I might have missed the button to delete categories, but I certainly cannot move to a page that exists, i.e. swap a page with a redirect to it as was the case of Middle Norway and Trøndelag. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, glad to help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article now says "FM and DAB + broadcasts are in Norwegian only" with the exception of some BBC and Sveriges Radio retransmissions. Is that true? I thought there was radio at least in Sámi too, probably also in Kven. It might not matter for most of our readers, but wrong information is never good. --LPfi (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

NRK, SVT, YLE and Swedish Radio has joint sampi (northern sami) broadcoast a couple of hours/week. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

afaik Norway is very cashless, especially compared to other countries (like Germany). Is it an idea to mention how common cashless payments are and make some suggestions for visitors about how they can use them, too? (I might have missed it but I dídn't see mention of that in the Money section.) Griffindd (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

About 1 % of purchases are now made with cash, 99 % with card. There is a national system for "debet" cards used by virtually every shop, transport etc. --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

isn't that something which deserves a mention on the main page? Griffindd (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

In addition, w:Vipps is becoming widespread for small purchases. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. On my mobile phone the dynamic map doesn't have all regions colored - this mostly applies for the south of the country... Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Norway's constitution is widely accepted as the second oldest written constitution still in effect. The cases of San Marino and Britain are less clear. The 1814 constitution was deliberatly and carefully crafted (from scratch) as a constitution in a single document, similar to the US. In Britain and to some degree in San Marino and even in Sweden the actual constitution is more like a patchwork. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Given that a) this is a travel guide and b) certain people dislike the word "arguably" (which would address those caveats without getting lost in the woods) removing this claim is the only "clean" solution I can think of... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

"....one of the oldest written democratic constitutions....." - That is not precise but true and at least gives some context. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can live with that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is a new trend of national taxi services appearing in Nordic countries. They have easy to use smartphone apps which make the order process clear, like Uber. They claim to have near-nationwide coverage or coverage of list of specific cities. What we should do regarding them? I think they would give additional advantage for Wikivoyage users compared to having only phone call numbers of local taxi companies, regarding that many Wikivoyage users do not have English as their first language, and may have trouble pronouncing local language street addresses. So should we include them if they say that they cover specific regions? --Vkem (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

See Travellers' pub#National taxi services. I suggest we keep the discussion there, until it is down to national details. –LPfi (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 100kr-front0001.jpg
• Femhundrelapper IMG 1771.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

• • Unless you want to argue there is no copyright on banknotes in Norway, these seem to be clear cases, sadly. –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it normal that the region of Northern Norway, in blue, is not showing up properly on the map? --96.22.228.193 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Norway abolished the state church in 2012. The state church of Norway was not merely "endorsed" by the government but in fact a branch of the civil service and integrated in the government apparatus. So the church was literally "state church". Priests were civil servants and bishops were appointed by the king, so the king was the head of the church (and had been since 1536) - this was possible because the Church of Norway is lutheran and not suboridinate to any international authority. The church of Norway is now fully independent but like all religous communities supported by the government. Church buildings are however owned by local congregations, except Nidaros cathedral which is the national cathedral and owned by the government. All this is a bit intricate and does not matter for the visitor. Erik den yngre (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think there currently is no information in the article that conflicts with that, and I am not sure we need to tell more than we currently do (mostly about old churches as sights and that "Lutheranism used to be the state religion and is still nominally followed by about 80% of Norwegians; however, many Norwegians do not attend church regularly." –LPfi (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Middle Norway" is generally not used, although sometimes when referring to Trøndelag and Møre/Romsdal combined.

"South Norway" is an ambiguous term as Norwegians refer to South Norway (Sør-Norge) as the Southern half of the entire country; whereas "Sørlandet" (the southern land or southern coast) is never referred to as "South Norway" by Norwegians. Erik den yngre (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

TBF, I only added it because the static map used it, though like you, I hadn't heard of either of the two names in question being used. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply