Talk:Finland/Archive 2005-2017

Scandinavia

08th March... sorry if doing edits in a bad way, but who ever wrote the "mistakenly referred to as a Scandinavian country" was dead wrong, Finland is one of the scandinavian countries, although the Fins and Finnish are not necessarily scandinavian by heritage. I deleted that remark.

Nope. Strictly speaking, Scandinavia is defined as the peninsula where Norway, Sweden and Denmark are , and Finland is not a part of it. But I'm fine with deleting the comment, it's academic hair-splitting and not really relevant for the traveller... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:52, 8 Mar 2005 (EST)

Finland is not a Scandinavian country and the majority of the population speak Finnish, a language that is not at all related to the Scandinavian languages. Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden and Denmark. --(WT-en) Oddeivind 10:28, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Finland is partly Scandinavian country. Only Käsivarsi area is part of it but still, you can't say that Finland is not entirely part of scandinavia. Ä Vinnis Persön (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe, strictly speaking, that Scandinavia is just Sweden, Norway and Denmark. If one adds Finland and Iceland, it becomes the Nordic Countries (Pohjoismaat, Norden). ϒpsilon (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Bitch Slammer

Newly added p removed: Another traditional way of masking the flavor of vodka is by mixing it with sweet sparkling wine, the name of the mixture can be roughly translated into English as the Bitch Slammer.

I've never heard of this, and Finns aren't much into "sweet sparkling wine" either — and it can't be terribly traditional since grapes don't grow anywhere near Finland. What is the Finnish name of this? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:12, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)

I've also never heard of this. According to drinksmixer.com:

The Bitch Slammer was invented in Russia by Toni Pinto and Fernando Peeman. In recent years the drink has increased its popularity among Yuppies in central and northern Europe, and is now a staple of the consulting, insurance and mobile industry subcultures.

Looks like it's a Russian drink originally, so no reason to keep it here. -(WT-en) Nick 13:18, 18 Nov 2004 (EST)

Toni Pinto and Fernando Peeman are 100% not Russian names. They are either Finnish or Swedish. 81.211.12.150 08:14, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They aren't Finnish or Swedish either... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:22, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Toni is a traditional Italian (and also Finnish) name, but Pinto is certainly not a Finnish surname. It sounds like Spanish/Latin American, but considering the name Toni that person can also have Italian origins. Fernando is also a common name in Spanish-speaking countries, but Peeman isn't (I think it sounds English)... But even though these guys were originally from Mediterranee or another Latin language speaking country, who says they can't have immigrated to Russia and invented the drink there? I think a reliable source to confirm the origin of this drink is needed to check that out... But I agree, at least the drink isn't Finnish since I've never heard of it (and I'm Finnish), but just to check wether it can be included to Russian drinks or not.

Finnish National Parks

I opened a new Finnish National Parks under "Other Destinations" since there are plenty of them, they are worth a visit, they don't merge into one region. (WT-en) Sininen 23:17, 17 Apr 2005 (BST)

Scandinavia

My text: Whether Finland is part of geografical scandinavia does not matter. We belong to political and cultural scandinavia and every Finn thinks s/he is scandinavian. Therefore we are.

Quote: In Helsinki, nearly all people you could possibly meet as a tourist speak English very well. Especially younger people in the larger cities understand English fairly well.

My text: That's just rude. Do you think they don't teach english outside Helsinki?. Do you think we don't get tourist outside Helsinki? I assure you that every people tourist can has to meet in Finland knows how to speak english. Only the old people don't know, but since they don't work anymore, why would you be in contact with them.

People can speak English outside Helsinki too, especially in the bigger cities, but the truth is that many people in the more rural areas are not that interested in learning the language. Ä Vinnis Persön (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sauna

When I spent a year in Finland I was told it was not a matter of course to be invited into someones private sauna. And I bet Finns would not frowne at a foreigner who would refuse to go to sauna. Wearing bathing suits: I saw some finnish boys (aged 10-14 perhaps) in sauna with bathing suits when we were invited to a neighbours sommer cottage's sauna. I was confused but when I asked later, my finnish friend said this was not too uncommon, they just didn't want to be naked in sauna together with a stranger. (We took turns as usual in such cases: ladys first, then men.) (WT-en) jschneider

Agreed on all points. An invitation to someones home does not necessarily get extended into someones private sauna, not even among us Finns. And it is surely not considered generally rude for a foreigner (or a local, for that matter) to politely decline this option. Many Finns do humorously consider it their sacred duty to offer the "real sauna experience" to visitors, and try their best to talk them into having a sauna. Nevertheless, this should not be taken as something of a "must". (WT-en) Niksu 03 June 2006

Well, it's a "must" in the sense that you haven't been to Finland if you haven't tried a sauna, but otherwise I agree and edited the section accordingly. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:44, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

Edits by 192.100.124.219

So, with a heavy heart I just reverted most edits by 192.100.124.219 . Please remember that this is not an encyclopedia: eg. Salmiakki-Kossu should not be described as "something enjoyed by young adults", which says nothing and is equally applicable to bible reading seminars, but as "lethal", which it is. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:00, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

See above. Instead of reverting stuff willy-nilly, how about getting an account and discussing what points you object to? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:34, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

And yet again... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:35, 17 August 2006 (EDT)

Skinheads

Is it really worth mentioning that there have been rare and isolated incidents of skinheads attacking people with dark skin? Immigrants and refugees from countries like Somalia commit far more violence and crime that could be considered racially, ethnically or religiously motivated, but this isn't mentioned (I'm saying that if you're going to point fingers, then at least point them in the right direction). It's also a strange non-sequitur to claim that racially motivated violance towards non-whites has decreased because cities have become more cosmopolitan. The whole segment about skinheads is asinine and should be removed entirely.

Do you have any stats?Ä Vinnis Persön (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bilingualism

Finland is officially bilingual, but the English Wikivoyage isn't, and listing everything in two alien tongues is pointless. I suggest a simple rule: give both names for the town itself, but for all other towns, streets, attractions etc, use only the primary language in that county (== the one listed on top in street signs). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:20, 12 December 2006 (EST)

I disagree. It might be even useful to have the both forms, for example "Stockholmsgatan" or "Berggatan" are far easier to be remembered at least by an European or American reader, when compared to "Tukholmankatu" and "Vuorikatu" respectively. I have heard of German tourists using the Swedish names when traveling in Helsingfors due to the virtual similarity of the Swedish names to the German ones. And also for a English-speaking tourist "Berg" or "Stockholm" probably say more than "Vuori" or "Tukholma" ;) 153.1.21.18 10:39, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Being a native speaker of Finnish I can't comment on that claim, but maybe somebody else can. What is for sure, though, is that listing all names in duplicate also doubles the space required, and that a tourist in Helsinki is never going to find himself in a situation where knowing the Swedish name would be more useful than knowing the Finnish one. It's particularly useless for things like "Tampere (Tammerfors)", where the alternate name is already available behind the link. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:05, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Also being a native speaker of Finnish I can't be sure that those are useful. But listing all names in duplicate doesn't actually double the space required - for except the place and street names themselves, of course. Is that really undesirable, when the both names are 1) official and 2) the lower names in signposts might be easier to memorize than the upper names and 3) it gives the tourist more freedom? Don't know much about being a tourist in Stadi, but IMO listing the both names can actually make navigating the city easier. When there's the option to choose which names they use, the tourist can themselves make their mind about the matter. And no problem at all, if the tourist wil use primarily the Swedish names and there is eg. an advertisement promoting "Temppelinaukion Kirkko at Lutherinkatu 3", the tourist will just search for this name from their map. Personally I would advertise that church as "Church at Tempelplatsen, Luthersgatan 3", but I'm not responsible for that. :-)

Sure, the other official name for a Finnish city is behind a link, but then we might end with a tourist who is like "what the heck is Turku" (when shortly mentioned in text), when they only have heard the Åbo version of the name. And believe me, there are foreign people (not counting Scandinavians), who know Åbo better than Turku. OTOH this is based on my personal experiences, but I once saw a guy who was like "Turku, what is it? [...] Oh, it's the same as Åbo!" (WT-en) Ultrix 04:32, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Mf. It can get pretty ugly though: look at Brussels, which is full of listings like "Musées Royaux des Beaux Arts-Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten, Rue de la Régence-Regentschapstraat 3, at Place Royale-Koningsplein", and where I've also been arguing that French should override Flemish. If the names are radically different, like Turku/Åbo, I'm not going to complain loudly if you put the 2nd name in parentheses, but I definitely don't want to get into a Kaisaniemi/Kajsaniemi-style mess here.

And a data point: the official English-language Helsinki Tourism page gives all addresses only in Finnish. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:42, 20 December 2006 (EST)

It seems that we're going to agree soon. The Brussels page looks a bit messy, maybe it would be better for the article that the names are mentioned in one of these ways: "Primary / Secondary", "Primary – Secondary" or "Primary (Secondary)". I guess it's OK if I take back the second names like "[M] Rastila / Rastböle" or "Aleksanterinkatu (Alexandersgatan)", but not adding unnecessarities like "Kajsaniemi"? Or would it be better to add a short list of place names in both languages into the "Understand" section? At least places like "Suomenlinna" should have their Swedish name with them for historic purposes, there might be even a historian reading the article and wondering, why the historic Sveaborg is only mentioned as Suomenlinna, which is a far more recent construction (see Wikipedia for details).

And another important reason for mentioning the both street names: http://crest.abo.fi/nwuml04/howtoturku.html – less confusing for tourists, if they research the map before the trip, if they don't have to wonder about "Annankatu" suddenly transforming into "Annegatan", when they can easily see here in WT that they are the same, only in two different languages. But we would still probably need a list of Finnish place name generics in Finnish and Swedish, translated in English. (WT-en) Ultrix 05:15, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I'm OK with a short table about the street names, but the thing about place names is just way too much info for the main guide (OK for phrasebook though). And I'm OK with adding the parenthesized forms into the city lists, if and only it's made clear that it's only for radically different names. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:13, 20 December 2006 (EST)

OK. Those generic forms could be moved to the Phrasebook if it's better be there. But what is a radically different name? Lahti-Lahtis clearly isn't, and Turku-Åbo clearly is, with Pori-Björneborg, Oulu-Uleåborg, Kokkola-Karleby, Korsholm-Mustasaari, Savonlinna-Nyslott, Kauniainen-Grankulla and so on... But what about Karis-Karjaa or Tampere-Tammerfors? They are quite similar, but not enough similar to be recognized as the very same place. And should the parentheses be limited only to bilingual places? I could create a table about street names and place names to Helsinki article, and to the text introducing the surrounding municipalities I could add their Swedish names in parentheses. But not today. ;) (WT-en) Ultrix 07:32, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I'll arbitrarily suggest that if the first three letters are the same, it's fairly obvious. And I really don't want to get into the street names — I still don't see any reasons why a traveller would ever need the second name, in the way that they might need place names if perusing bus timetables etc in the 'wrong' language. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:54, 20 December 2006 (EST)

 : Nonwithstanding any political issues with this, when i was visiting Helsinki, i found the Swedish names are really useful. As a Dane it's indefinitely easier to cope with the Swedish names, than the long (hard to pronounce) Finish names. I oriented myself on the Swedish street and city names, and looked for the Swedish names on buses - as they were all listed on the city map i bought when i arrived. Granted, I am a Dane who understands Swedish - but i think most speakers of Germanic languages would feel much the same way. (WT-en) Sertmann 06:45, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

What's about places with a Swedish-speaking majority like Ekenäs (Tammisaari)? In those places Swedish is the first language, so the Finnish names shouldn't appear here, right? --89.49.126.239 17:29, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Fine with me, as long as the Finnish name is given for the place itself. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:38, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I disagree. From a tourist point of view it is good to know the Finnish name when asking advice on how to get there. Before I read this discussion I didn't know that Tammisaari translates to Ekenäs so I wouldn't have been able to give directions to there. I think this applies to all places, the Finnish name should be listed.

Of course Swedish is more easy to pronounce and remember, but I once talked to a Swede and mentioned Uleåborg, she didn't understand, and when I said Oulu, she understood what I was talking about. It also depends on the area, some areas don't have Swedish at all, or then Russian or Sami repectively.

Big bilingual boxes

I've shrunk the street names into an infobox and shunted these here until we can figure out what to do with them. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:22, 27 December 2006 (EST)

A list of some generic forms in Finnish street names

Finnish	Swedish	English
Katu (KAH-too)	Gatan (GAH-tahn)	Street
Tie (TEE-eh)	(VEH-gen)	Road
Väylä (VA-UU-la)	Leden (LEH-den)	Freeway
Kuja (KOO-yah)	Gränden (GREN-den)	Alley
Polku (POLL-koo)	Stigen (STEE-gen)	Path
Tori (TAW-ree)	Torget (TORR-yet)	Market
Kaari (KAH-ree)	Bågen (BAW-gen)	Bow
Puistokatu (PUYS-taw-kah-too)	Parkgata (park-GAH-ta)	"Park street"
Puisto (PUYS-taw)	Parken (PARK-en)	Park
Ranta (RAHN-tah)	Kajen (KAH-yen)	Quay

Other generic place name forms

Finnish	Swedish	English
Maa (maah)	Land (lahnd)	Land
Kaupunki (COW-poon-kee)	Stad (stahd)	Town/City
Kylä (KEW-la)	By or Böle (bew, BER-leh)	Village
Linna (LIN-nah)	Borg, Slott or Hus (bor-REE, slott, hoos)	Castle
Mäki or Kumpu (MA-kee, KOOM-poo)	Kulla, Backa or Backen (KOOL-ah, BUCK-ah, BUCK-en)	Hill
Satama (SAH-tah-mah)	Hamn (hahmn)	Harbour
Haka (HAH-kah)	Haga or Hagen (HAH-gah, HAH-gen)	Pasture
Niemi (NI-eh-mee)	Näs, Udd (nehs, oo-dd)	Peninsula, cape
Saari (SAAH-ree)	Holm or Ö (holme, er)	Island, holme
Kari or Luoto (KAH-ree, LU-aw-taw)	Skär, Lot or Grund (SHA-r, loot, groond)	Skerry
Vuori or Vaara (VU-aw-ree, VAAH-rah)	Berg (BAR-ry)	Mountain, hill
Tunturi (TOON-too-ree)	Fjäll (fyell)	Fell
Pelto (PELL-taw)	Åker (AW-ker)	Field
Metsä (METT-sa)	Skog (skoog)	Forest
Suo, Neva or Korpi (SOO-aw, NE-vah, KORR-pee)	Kärr, Moss, Myr (CHA-rr, moss, mewr)	Marsh, Swamp
Laakso (LAAHK-saw)	Dal (dahl)	Valley
Ranta (RAHN-tah)	Strand (strahnd)	Beach, Strand
Lahti (LAHH-tee)	Vik, Lax (veek), lahks)	Bay
Meri (MER-ry)	Hav (hahv)	Sea
Järvi (YER-vee)	Sjö, Träsk (sher, tresk)	Lake
Joki (YAW-kee)	Å, Älv (aw, elv)	River
Koski (KOSS-kee)	Fors (force)	Rapids
Puro (poo-raw)	Bäck (beck)	Beck
Harju (HAR-yoo)	Ås (AW-ce)	Ridge
Kartano (CAR-tah-naw)	Gård (gord)	Mansion
Kirkko (KEERK-kaw)	Kyrka (CHURK-kah)	Church
Asema (AH-seh-mah)	Station (sta-SHOON)	Station
Sairaala (SA-ee-raah-lah)	Sjukhus (SHOOK-hoos)	Hospital
Poliisi (PAW-lee-see)	Polis (paw-LEES)	Police

Note: In Swedish names there might also be a grammatical -en or -et suffix after the stem.

Fine by me, although are you sure that katu/gatan = road and tie/vägen = street but not vice versa? According to Wikipedia, article "Street": The word “street” is still sometimes used colloquially as a synonym for “road,” but city residents and urban planners draw a crucial modern distinction: a road's main function is transportation, while streets facilitate public interaction. And from the "Road" article: In urban areas roads may pass along and be named as streets, serving a dual function as urban space and route. (WT-en) Ultrix 09:00, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia's weird then. In my book a tie is bigger than a katu, and a "street" is bigger than a "road". But whatever... (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:53, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Finnish beer and a few other notes

Although we Finns tend to consider our beer pretty watery, I think we may be exaggerating a bit calling it tasteless. Finnish beer actually fares quite well as lagers go even though it doesn't have very much hops. Didn't edit that though as I'd rather open it for discussion.

I made a few other edits here and there. Mostly updated VR prices, updated ferry info (Tallink bough Silja and SuperSeaCat became separate, Tallink also offers fast services) and also added the distinction between Finlandia Vodka and Kossu as they really do taste different with one having sugar and the other not. Real vodkas never have sugar, which gives them a very neutral taste when compared with Kossu (I evidently drink too much). (WT-en) Lcpitkan 16:03, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Draft Swedish policy

So here's my shot at a policy for handling Swedish in articles about Finland.

• Article titles use the name of the majority language in that county.
  • Examples: Helsinki, Mariehamn
• First sentence of article always mentions the other language's name if different, even if the name is similar.
  • Example: Helsinki (Swedish: Helsingfors) is the capital of Finland...
  • Example: Mariehamn (Finnish: Maarianhamina) is the main city of the Aland Islands...
• The first time a place is mentioned or linked to in an article, it can include the other name in parentheses if it's unrecognizably different (arbitrary definition: first three letters are not the same).
  • Example: Turku (Åbo) is one hour away by train.
  • Counterexample: Kaisaniemi is a station of the Helsinki metro.
• Listings (attraction names, street names, etc) use only the majority language.

Comments? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:04, 9 February 2007 (EST)

Sounds good, however in listings I'd adopt the same policy as in Wikipedia:Helsinki metro (=list all names, even "Kaisaniemi (Kajsaniemi)"). And when a place is mentioned the first time, the "second language" name should be omitted only, if hugely unnoteworthy or obvious (like Kaisaniemi (Kajsaniemi) or Konala (Kånala)). In my eyes both municipality/town/city names should be used when talking the first time of bilingual municipalities or bigger cities regardless the obviousity (eg. Helsinki (Helsingfors), Vaasa (Vasa), Karis (Karjaa), Tampere (Tammerfors) and Mikkeli (S:t Michel), but not Ähtäri (Etseri) or Larsmo (Luoto), as the second language names for small, unilingual municipalities are really unnoteworthy.

When mentioning street names or districts, both names should be used (as in Brussels article), but only when first mentioned. Also here should the "unnoteworthy or obvious" rule be used, so no Kaisaniemi/Kajsaniemi and Konala/Kånala shit here. Note that places like Munkkivuori (Munksberget) and Munkkiniemi (Munksnäs) sound quite similar, so here mentioning the both names are necessary, even when they share the first six letters. And it may not be obvious for everyone that Rastila and Rastböle are the same thing (in bilingual signposts "Rastilan leirintäalue – Rastböle camping(område)".

For street names both names should be used, cf. "Yliopistonkatu (Universitetsgatan)" in Helsinki/H:fors and "Kattpiskargränden (Kissanpiiskaajankuja)" in Kristinestad/Kristiinankaupunki. A secondary name can have some understandable and useful information (like universitet = university in my example) that the primary name does not have (how many non-finns understand the word yliopisto?), and to be clear, the secondary names should always be used – at least when mentioned the first time.

If you want another good examples of useful secondary names, here it goes: Puistokatu – Parkgatan, Tähtitorninkatu – Observatioriegatan, Laivastokatu – Maringatan, Kansantie – Folkvägen, Urkurintie –Organistvägen, Hopeasalmi – Silversund (in English-speaking world it'd be Silver Sound), Puistola – Parkstad (everyone who understand German or Dutch understand even the "stad" part, meaning "town")...

So it looks like we need a external POV here, when the other wants to adopt the "keep" policy for bilingual names and the other wants to "get rid" of them, to bring to a head. :-) Don't get me wrong, I'm not some desperate Finland-Swede with a nationalistic mission but a normal Finn interested in toponomology (the science of place names). My principle is that as Swedish and English are related, and Swedish names are generally easier to be learnt and even understandable for a English-speaker, and they both appear on maps, they should be at least mentioned. My personal agenda is even more radical: when I write my own texts, I use primarily the Swedish names even in the parts of "Svenskfinland" where they consist a minority, for a number of reasons. First, linguistic reasons – because English is related with Swedish, and many Swedish place names would pass even in (Northern) Britain (like Forsby, Bergholm or Sandbäck, which would be Sand Beck in Yorkshire).

193.166.85.161 15:55, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Sorry, but I oppose practically everything listed above. I don't want to double the size of every listing with everything in both languages. I don't want criteria like "hugely unnoteworthy or obvious" because that's not measurable. And your slant as a native shows through when you're saying that Konala/Kånala is "hugely obvious": no, it's not, unless you know how to pronounce that bizarre "å" thing.

We're writing for travellers, not toponomologists. We should not be aping metro articles on Wikipedia, because we're not writing the definitive encyclopedia article on the metro, we're writing a travel guide for the city it's in. And for that travel guide it's IMHO totally sufficient that the traveller is told the first thing on every sign — which is the name in Finnish. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:23, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Well then, if Konala/Kånala is not obvious, I guess then also the Kaisaniemi/Kajsaniemi pair is not obvious, as in many languages (such as in English and French) the j letter is far from letter i. But then again, if a "normal" anglophone tries to pronounce either of these forms, chances are that they go wrong. You're right – obviousity and noteworthiness are not simply measurable – they are arguable, and to be solved via a common agreement.

You're also right in that this is not for toponomologists but travellers, nor is this any -pedia, but then again, is this as a travel guide supposed to be to used by people who only want to see the top 10 sights, restaurants and shopping malls? I don't know about people in general, but at least when I myself am traveling somewhere as a tourist, I want to know everything about the local culture. If the local culture has a minority culture (like Sámi people in northern Lapland or Ainu people in Japan), I take it as a challenge to learn to use the both name forms for places. Small fragments of seemingly useless information might be of use, at least in pub quizes... ;) It's hard to believe that only very few people would be like me, just wanting to see the superficial things and staring only at the names hanging on the upper side of the signs.

If we tell a traveler just to stare and remember only those upper names, I wonder what will happen, when they first visit a town where Swedish is a majority language (eg. Karis or Pernå) by car, and then want to get back where they started. Of course, most likely they will soon find out, that the HELSINKI text ist just below the HELSINGFORS text, or TURKU below ÅBO, but – well – the "just stick with the upper names" principle fails here, adding confusion and a question "now, which names should I actually follow?". This applies also to minor names (like Koskela-Forsby and Sideby-Siipyy), where it can be even more crucial to know the both names – pairs like "Helsinki Helsingfors" and "Turku Åbo" are quickly learned, as they are repeated nearly everywhere.

Sorry that I wrote my previous message unlogged, I wrote it so long that the server managed to threw me out. And also sorry for not coming up with better arguments, I'm dead tired at the moment. :) (WT-en) Ultrix 17:17, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Getting in by boat from Sweden

It is mentioned in the Get in -section that 18 is the ultimate age limit on cruises. However, at least with Viking Line (http://www.vikingline.fi/info/agelimits.asp) it is possible for even younger to take one-way trips (which ought to be the case when talking about GETTING IN). I have done it, left Finland from Turku on friday evening and came back monday morning in Turku, and I was 17. 81.197.10.108 08:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Regions/Provinces/Areas

The section explaining "regions" can be a bit confusing since the word "region" does not only refer to an area but also refers to the 20 relativly new actual regions (like Tavastia Proper, Päijänne Tavastia, Central Ostrobothnia, Ostrobothnia, Kymenlaakso and so on ). Right now the part called "Regions" headlines the six provinces drafted in 1997. Maybe the title could be changed to "Areas" or simply "Provinces" and in the different sections about the provinces the actual regions could be included? What do you think?

One should be aware that while travelling in Finland you often encounter road signs that tell you which region you are entering , therefore travellers would find the regions much more useful than reference to old regions or provinces. The new regions correspond very well to cultural, dialectal and economic variations within Finland.

(WT-en) Christian B 03:05, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

I have now changed the title "Regions" to "Provinces" on the page. I will start including the various regions within the provinces on their respective pages. If someone thinks it's a bad idea, please let me know.

(WT-en) Christian B 16:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm OK with calling the section "Provinces" and covering the regions under the provinces, that's what we already do on the Finnish WT as well. However, on the top Finland page the province listing already mentions the important regions, like this:

1. Oulu — Kajanaland (Kainuu) and the northern part of the historical province of Ostrobothnia (Pohjanmaa), named after the technology city of Oulu

...so there is no need to repeat the same information in the next paragraph! The road sign picture adds little value and throws the page alignment out of whack. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:20, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

In that case I think the descriptions on the provinces should change. The description on Oulu adds nothing of value to a foreigner compared to the other descriptions. I think a explanation on the regions is in order since people in Finland identify themselves according to them and not according to the provinces. No one says that they live in "Western Finland". They say they live in Ostrobothnia or Karelia and so on. The cultural boundaries within the country are much clearer when you look at the regions. The idea is to describe the country, right? So a explanation on the the regions in relation to the provinces would probably be of a lot of value to a foreigner looking up travel info on Finland.

(WT-en) Christian B 12:34, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Detailed descriptions of Oulu province belong in Oulu (province), the main page is just supposed to define the region's area. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:56, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

I understand that. I meant the short description. (WT-en) Christian B 11:33, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

So what do you propose, eg. for Oulu province? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:37, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, the thing about the city Oulu could stay. I just feel that all references to any region in those descriptions just don't have any value. The names of the regions do not describe the province in a useful way to a outsider. Finnish Lapland has a description that sounds short and good. Something along those lines is what I was thinking. But someone who knows the area should come in with some good ideas. I don't know the Oulu province that well, but there's got to be more to it than Oulu, right? (WT-en) Christian B 17:11, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Defining "important"

There are a couple of cities on the front page of the aticle about Finland, and on the edit page one encounters the following text: "only 7 to 9 of the biggest and most important for the traveller, please". Now, what defines "important"? Why is Lappeenranta and Jyväskylä included and not Rauma and Vaasa (both have a connection to UNESCO world heritage sites). I think all places have some points of interest, but maybe that city-section on the front page should be deleted. It's unfair and very hard to define. Take Espoo and Vantaa as examples. They're both cities apart from Helsinki, but both have important travel destinations in the capital area (you can't even avoid Vantaa when travelling by air to Finland).

(WT-en) Christian B 03:18, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

I also don't like the use of the word "important" here and have changed it. The main considerations in trimming lists of cities on country articles are: 1. get a geographically representative sample (i.e., try to select cities across the country's regions) and 2. include cities based on their relevance to the traveler (i.e., if it is reasonable to assume that a reader would expect to see a link to a certain city on the country page, include it). The limit of 9 is fairly arbitrary, but is an established practice across all guides, especially for country articles. It is quite necessary because it prevents contributors from otherwise cramming entire country guides into one article. I hope this helps! I can't explain anything specific to Finland, however, because the only place I know well is Helsinki! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 03:34, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

The list had quietly grown to 11, so I've cut it down to 9 again. Sorry, Seinajoki and Lappeenranta, but both are hardly tourist hotspots. Jpatokal (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

war

You cant talk about second world war in Finland? yeah right...has anyone ever had any problems when talking about it? thats strangest thing I have heard for a long while. Maybe the Finnish civil war part could be acceptable. on the other hand finding foreigner who has actually heard about that, could be quite hard. -Mika

Agreed. I've removed it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:51, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Provinces are useless

Hi all, although I'm not an foreigner, I can see problem with using provinces as the subdivision for a travel guide. Provinces are a division existing only for the convenience of the state government, and even they are currently considering abolishing them altogether. They are internally heteregeneous in the contexts of culture, dialect, economics, transportation, and population. People don't identify with them; dialects are spoken criss-cross between the provinces; etc. Basically, they exist only as just another bureaucratic step between Helsinki and a local office of a state agency. Using them in this context makes about as much sense as dividing the United States into federal judicial circuits.

As for what should replace them: options are basically regions of Finland (maakunnat), old counties of Finland (vanhat läänit) and historical provinces of Finland (historialliset maakunnat / linnaläänit). Each has its benefits and drawbacks. A quick rundown:

• Regions
  • Benefits: Go into fine detail, often have a good single capital with influence unambiguously reaching to and only to the area
  • Drawbacks: Go into too fine detail - too many, small ones too obscure; capital may be nationally insignificant (Keski-Pohjanmaa, for example, has only Kokkola)
• Counties
  • Benefits: Survive in telephone numbering areas, well-known in Finland, calling code often used by Finns to quickly identify general location, have well-defined capitals
  • Drawbacks: Not official anymore - borders not marked on the ground; potentially too many and small ones too obscure
• Historical provinces
  • Benefits: Best subdivision of local identity and dialects, regions are subdivisions of these, a good large-scale division for economic discussion
  • Drawbacks: Not official since 1634

--(WT-en) Vuo 12:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I think all the options are bad, including the current provinces, but I don't see any of the alternatives being better enough to warrant a shift. The differences in dialect, scenery etc just aren't that big, and the big plus of "Western", "Southern" etc is that they're very intuitive to our target audience -- people who are not familiar with Finland -- whereas Ostrobothnia, Tavastia and whatever are not.

BTW, regions are already supposed to be the next layer of the hierarchy after provinces... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Now there's no provinces at all anymore so could someone edit the section to either maakunta/landskap-regions or new avi-areas? Avi-areas are even less useful than the old provinces, but the only differences to the old system are that Western Finland was split in "Western and Inner Finland" and "Southwest Finland", Oulu Province was renamed "Northern Finland" (even when there's Lapland further north) and Middle Ostrobothnia was ceded from Western Finland to Northern Finland. However, I suggest to use the current provinces, because they're those that people identify themself with. And they're what are shown on the highway signage. 88.115.205.16 15:20, 4 February 2010 (EST)

At this time, I don't really see a need to split our Western Finland in two. I would support renaming "Oulu (province)" into "Northern Finland", although as you note that's a little confusing since there is an "even more Northern Finland" as well. For time being, Keski-Pohjanmaa (Middle Ostrob.) remains within Western Finland, so no changed needed in that respect -- yet?

Incidentally, here's a good map of the new "avis": (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:01, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Turkish Airlines?

Is Turkish Airlines worthy of special mention in the Get In section? It is not a budget airline that I know of and almost all major European airlines provide equivalent or better service from Finland (Helsinki). (WT-en) Lcpitkan 11:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I don't think it requires a special mention. Nuke at will. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:02, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Outline?

Why is this an outline when it is supposed to be a Star? -(WT-en) Ravikiran 00:36, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

It was demoted to outline per recent discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Country_guide_status#Usable status too strict? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:09, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Finlandization

Since there's a bit of Cold War going on in the history section...

Long story short, if you had to choose whether Finland was "West" or "East" in the Cold War, the answer is "East". The famous "YYA" treaty of 1948 ensured that, had WW3 broken out, Finland would be on the Soviet side, and it also was forced by the Soviets to refuse Marshall Plan aid from the West. Contrary to your assertion that it was "never controlled or occupied by the Soviet Union", the Allied Control Commission under Zhdanov ensured that Finland was more or less directly under Soviet control from 1944 to 1947, and Porkkala plus a bunch of islands were leased to the Soviet military for quite a while afterwards. Finland did not oppose Soviet wishes in any foreign policy issues, and there was heavy internal (self-)censorship to avoid upsetting the Soviets.

All that said, Finland was indeed never Communist nor a formal member of the Eastern bloc, since it did not belong to the Warsaw Pact. I've tweaked the wording to make this a bit clearer. (WT-en) jpatokal 21:21, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Regions

Why are some of the regions listed Finnish first, Swedish second like "Uusimaa (Nyland)" but some the other way around like "Kajanaland (Kainuu)" or "Tavastia (Häme)"? Apart from some Swedish-speaking areas, no one uses the Swedish names for regions. --AIiskola (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual assault primarily by immigrants?

I'm skeptical on general principles because immigrants are constantly scapegoated around the world, often just because they stand out in a crowd. Show reliable statistics, or I'm going to delete the claim. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nuked. Can happen anywhere, and blaming immigrants, while very Finnish, is unhelpful. Jpatokal (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Regional map

The region map has a mistake, it says "Oulo" instead of Oulu. If someone is able to fix that easily, it would be nice even though it's just a "small detail"... —The preceding comment was added by 86.217.85.148 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for finding the mistake. Fixed. Danapit (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Playing around with the districts

Reading the ongoing discussion about the subdivisions of Germany, I started thinking about Finland's subdivisions. The uppermost layer as of now is based upon this administrative division, which in addition to being officially outdated doesn't serve the traveler in the best possible way. I suggest two (or rather four) major changes. 1: Finnish Lapland and Oulu the province could be merged into a "Northern Finland" article. Then Northern Ostrobothnia could be divided into three parts because there is a ton of municipalities in it. 2: Western Finland is relatively big. I suggest to rename Eastern Finland to "Finnish Lakeland" and move Central Finland there. As of now there are links to all cities and municipalities in the province articles (I've put them there a few months back). And because someone is gonna suggest it anyway: I would not want to see them cut down and/or artificial sub-regions to be created just because of the 7+-2 rule; as a lot of things a traveler will encounter in Finland involves the name of the municipality (addresses, names of train/bus stations ie. schedules, road signs...). ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ypsilon, in principle, why not? But sorry, I didn't understand what 4 changes you have in mind exactly. How many and which upper division units you suggest and which regions would each include? --Danapit (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, with my proposal implemented the end result would look like this:

• Southern Finland: leave it as it is now
• Finnish Lakeland: what now is in Eastern Finland + the Central Finland article
• Western Finland: as it is now, obviously minus Central Finland (possibly cut the rest into two parts)
• Northern Finland: Coastal Oulu region, Southern Oulu region, Kainuu and Northern Oulu region, Finnish Lapland
• Åland: leave it as it is now

As a side note for Danapit and anyone else who has traveled in Finland - don't you also wonder how the heck the hilly and swampy outback northeast of Oulu where you can meet reindeers and even bears officially is called "Ostrobothnia". At least I start to think about the flat fields around Seinäjoki and Vaasa? That's why I'm suggesting scrapping the Northern Ostrobothnia name. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposed solution looks very good, it'll be an improvement. The only doubt is the number of Oulu regions, you propose 3, I think 2 might be sufficient, but I must admit I am not familiar with the region NE of Oulu. I just see we don't have much content there yet. Danapit (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's merge the northeastern part (Utajärvi, Pudasjärvi, Taivalkoski and Kuusamo) with Kainuu and rename that one "Kainuu and Northeastern Oulu region" (similar to the Vantaa setup). Unsurprisingly that part of Finland is pretty much a mixture of Lapland and North Karelia, The rest of Oulu can then be split into two as above. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, why not. Danapit (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We will also need a new region map... It would be great if each region could have a map, as well. I'd love to learn how to do WV maps, but haven't got any time for that right now. But we should also update the list of regions at the Regions map Expedition at one point. Danapit (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I could make the changes to the current region map. And it would definitely be useful and nice to have a map for each region. I taught myself basic map making in a week (when making the Helsinki maps) but I'm not that good at it. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made a new map, but let's wait for a few days in the case that somebody would show up to complain about the intended changes. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I plunged forward and made the changes. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks great! Danapit (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thx! And hopefully the new division is more logical too. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Maps for the districts

ϒpsilon, do you have any plans to create maps for regions in near future? --Saqib (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I've totally forgotten about the maps. Let's say, give me a few weeks. Even if I am not a map making expert nor very good at Inkscape, making maps myself is the only way to learn. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started Finnish Lakeland map. Labels and roads need to be added yet. --Saqib (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done! Did you make it from the beginning or did you use the map source from the Finland article and color the regions? If you used that original map I think it's easy to add roads and places, you'll just need to make them visible, right? For the labels: in your map the green-blue area to the east is North Karelia, the purple area to the west is Central Finland, the green area is South Savonia and the pink area is North Savonia.

Last night I was offline and fiddled about with the map source, and managed to make maps for all regions - South, West, Lakeland and North. It was surprisingly easy (for a newbie) :), took like 5-6 hours. However they are still not ready for upload either, but I will probably get them finished this weekend. But at least for the Lakeland, let's use your version - it looks better. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've created my map from scratch using this source. Can you upload your Lakeland map on Imgur so I can have a look at it. Perhaps we can collaboratively work on Finland region maps. --Saqib (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job, Saqib! The Lakeland map is really lovely. Would it be too much trouble to add all cities from the article? Savonlinna, for example, is a touristy place. And maybe other destinations. And (this is really unmodest ;)) I was always hoping to see locations of national parks in the region maps. The question is whether to mark them as dots or as areas. Dots would be easier and I can provide coordinates, if it helps, or at least a list. Do you plan to include national parks in your maps, Ypsilon? THANKS! --Danapit (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments Danapit. Sure, I can add as many cities as you want and national parks too. Let me know the names of national parks located in the region please so I'll get co-ordinates for them. --Saqib (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

National park	Land area (km²)	Visitation (2009)
Koli	30	127,500
Repovesi	15	74,500
Linnansaari	38	31,000
Petkeljärvi	6	19,500
Pyhä-Häkki	13	17,000
Leivonmäki	29	12,500
Patvinsuo	105	12,000
Isojärvi	19	10,500
Kolovesi	23	7,500
Tiilikkajärvi	34	7,500

Yep, it seems to me the list is complete. Danapit (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Saqib (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Good day, Danapit and Saqib. I've now uploaded my versions of the maps for each region Commons. I didn't add them to the district articles yet, as there are probably some things still needed to be done. Now an OS upgrade yesterday partly screwed up my computer, including the app for my 3G Internet dongle, which means that I won't be able to log on as often as normal (insert swearing word of choice here), and I have currently a lot of things to do outside Wikivoyage anyways. So whatever you wish to change on/add to those maps - the fastest way will probably be to download the svg and make the changes yourself.ϒpsilon (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ypsilon, Saqib, it's great to see your progress with the maps!

Ypsilon, sad to hear about your IT troubles. Hope your Mac recovers soon. The maps look great. I must take some time to see what can be added still.

Saqib, thanks for the changes. I just suggest you add "NP" after each national park name and perhaps use a green symbol? These are actually changes I would be able to do myself, just want to be sure you agree as an author. Danapit (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ypsilon, me too recently upgraded to OS X Mavericks and I've created map for Western Finland as well. Danapit, I've made the changes you requested, please have a look at the map. --Saqib (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The maps look good. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Order of regions

I looked at the regions in Western Finland and Southern Finland and I think the order is problematic: When looking at the map and trying to find the corresponding text, I do not find a logical order. The colours are distinct enough (but are they exactly the same in the list?), but a logical order would help. Also getting from Central Ostrobothnia from the list to its location on the map (not in the centre) is quite confusing. I think going from south to north, from north to south, clockwise or something like that would be best, perhaps choosing geographic logic so it is logical in some other sense too (e.g. capital region first). --LPfi (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

For Western Finland I think it would be logical to arrange the districts in the article from north to south, for Southern Finland probably from west to east. I'll do that now, you or someone else can of course make further changes. The colors in the article are supposed to be the same as in the map as they are defined by the same hexadecimal code. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

ISIC discounts on buses

To get student discounts on buses you need either a Finnish student card or Matkahuolto's own card. The Matkahuolto pages about getting the latter discuss only Finnish students and students in Finland. It seems you do no more get it by showing the ISIC card. Is there something I have missed? --LPfi (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

LPfi, I believe that must be true. About 2 years ago when I came to live to Helsinki for some time I surely attempted to get a student discount with a valid ISIC card issued by a German university. But I couldn't get the discount being told by the officer I would have needed a Finnish university ID. --Danapit (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. I suppose ISIC was enough some years ago (and the author unaware of the change). I delete the passage from the article. --LPfi (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Mites?

In Stay healthy it says that "mites can become a major annoyance, if walking bare-footed." What mites are these? I do often walk barefooted in the summer and have not noticed any such "annoyance". Ticks (one kind of mite) are handled in the next paragraph and do not rely on bare feet. --LPfi (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, no idea :) I guess it is a candidate for deletion. --Danapit (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Those would be shards from a glass bottle that some moron has smashed on the beach or, even better, under water? Jokes aside, I'll remove the sentence - it probably applies to some tropical countries but definitely not Finland. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Festivals

The festival section now is about the rock festivals and similar events, except for Tangomarkkinat, which I think is quite different. What about folk music (Kaustinen) and classical music? Many towns have chamber music festivals, and e.g. the one in Kuhmo is probably well-known in all Finland.

Most of these other festivals are of course very modest in comparison with e.g. Ruisrock, but not mentioning them at all seems wrong. They would probably need a section of their own, as the text ("festari", tent accommodation) would be misleading.

--LPfi (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Medical scams?

I wonder about the warning about medical scams, added recently. There have been a few cases of false doctors and nurses, but to my understanding the persons were working in the normal system, trying their best (usually having medical education, although not the needed exam). And really, with less than a dozen (?) cases in total, I think visitors have no reason to take precautions. --LPfi (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Finland: 100 years of independence

Finland is celebrating its 100 years of independence next year. I suppose we should check the lists of events and include some of them in our articles. Because of the celebrations, Lonely Planet has chosen Finland the third best destination in the year 2017. This may draw some more eyes also to our pages, so we should also check what embarrassingly week articles we have about regions and important destinations. --LPfi (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's surprising, in Finnish news they didn't mention that the 100 years' celebrations was the reason.

One thing I've thought of for quite some time is to create articles for all places in Finland (you've for sure seen the huge number of redlinks we have in all region articles). In that way, there would be an article to add any point of interest in Finland without having to resort to the region article. This would of course not mean an article for each and every little municipality from Alavus to Ylitornio but clusters of smaller places could be combined into one article (Rural Montgomery County is an often quoted example). For this, the w:Sub-regions of Finland might be used as a guideline to some extent.

Granted, the existing articles might need some pruning, though as someone regularly looking at articles of destinations from all over the world, I would't say the articles of Finnish destinations are that bad on average.

However, I'll be quite busy at least for the remainder of the year on and off wiki so I'm afraid I won't be able to help with anything big immediately. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The celebration being one reason was explicitly said in the HS and STT/FNB news.

I am not sure creating subregion articles is the way to go. If you are going to Tankavaara and looking for someplace to eat and sleep, you will not appreciate the article giving advice about restaurants in Utsjoki and accommodations in the Teno valley (i.e. some 200 km away). I am not sure we will get enough contributions to weight up the investment in infrastructure.

I think it is better to leave those redlinks. A listing or two in an otherwise empty destination article is not much better than the redlink. Having decent articles on the main destinations and a couple of others is more useful than trying to cover all places.

--LPfi (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The main website of the celebrations is at suomifinland100.fi. The events are hidden behind confusing headers, here. Events will still be added, but you can find those already registered. Use e.g. the link for "areas". --LPfi (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Language requirements

I removed the proposition that both Swedish and Finnish skills are needed for most works. As I understand it, that requirement is for governmental (and some municipal) work that require academic degrees, and even then foreigners are often exempted. Even in a bilingual city like Turku half of shop assistants and bus drivers lack knowledge in Swedish (or, in the former case, deny their skills). I doubt the Estonian and Polish on building sites are tested for their Swedish – or even Finnish.

Is there a need to mention requirement of language skills at all? Few people would expect that knowing the local languages is not an advantage when seeking jobs. I suppose the language is a lesser problem than most people would suppose, given that few of them know the country's majority language.

--LPfi (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)