Talk:Finnish national parks

Separate article

I noticed a merge template was added to this article. I don't see the reason. We have an article for US, UK, African, Canadian national parks, why not Finnish? Obviously, the article needs more content, but the topic has a high potential. Danapit (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitively agree. There is no reason to have forty park listings in Finland, when many come to visit cities only. On the other hand a foreigner does not necessarily know in what provinces to search for the parks of interest.

The question is how this article should be developed. The above mentioned other articles are mainly lists, with a useful but short introduction. They are not restricted to national parks. In this article there are also stub Do, See, Eat, ... sections. Some of that information fits better in Hiking in the Nordic countries, but for those mainly interested in easily available service (visitor centre, nature trails, guided tours, souvenirs), this article may be better.

I think all parks and some other protected areas should be included and have a link regardless of whether the article exists (they should be linked from destination articles also, and this page can provide the article name to use). There should be a few sentences about every park, as the names tell little even if you know Finnish.

--LPfi (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As it is a travel topic, it probably doesn't need a strict template, so we don't have to include Do, See, Eat, ... sections. I think the parks should be sorted by regions. It would be great to have a map of Finland with all the parks in it, too! And I agree it could also contain other protected areas, which could be stated and explained in the introduction. Something like the UK article... A complete list of all parks (and protected areas) with a brief description sounds great. Danapit (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I included other protected areas (those listed at outdoors.fi) and took the images of w:sv:Lista över Finlands nationalparker (I think they are suitably varied and tell quite something about Finnish nature). It seems like adding the one-liners will be a long time project, surprisingly time consuming. How much should one tell? I think we should redlink most areas where there are lodging facilities or where also quite ordinary people might want to stay, unless they should be described together with a near-by national park (which means linking is best done while writing the one-liners). Areas that are not destinations by themselves should be linked to a nearby destination.

It is probably good to sort by region, but I am not sure what division to make. The 1997–2009 provinces are used in Finland, probably because the article was written in that period, but I am not sure it is the best division (it was just a failed attempt at reducing bureaucracy). I think the map should be quite easy to make. Perhaps I finally should learn SVG (i.e. don't hold your breath).

I also put some more in the stub sections. I think having the information there is not terribly important, but not disturbing either. Perhaps some such information is even valuable.

--LPfi (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ad dividing by regions: why not to use the 6 large regions from Finland article? I can imagine ideally we would have a map for each region showing all NPs and other protected areas. I have seen at the Regions map Expedition that the region maps might be produced one day, so the maps for this purpose could be made at the same time. Danapit (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that, although it will be some work. I have developed an allergy against those six, as they in many contexts are presented as the provinces of Finland, although they are not any more, and were not but a short time. There are other divisions that better fit the mental model of most natives (but the young?), but maybe the number is about right, and having the same division as in Finland is of course good. --LPfi (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure whether an all-country map, possibly for each type, or regional maps with all types is better. I think regional maps for each type would unnecessarily add bytes and use space. One problem with region maps is that their shape is less familiar and the relation between a point at the country map and one at the region map may not be obvious (if I am in Jyväskylä, what parks in Western Finland are near?). --LPfi (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Region (sub)sections

I now sorted "Other protected areas" by region.

Adding images to each subsection was perhaps not too good, as few of these other areas have images on Commons. I had to take those which I found, instead of having good variation (there may be more, as I looked only where I thought I would find something).

The list feels much more manageable now, but the section became very short (there are more areas that could be included, but they might not be worth considering on the national scale). Perhaps it would make sense to have regions as main headings and types of areas as subsections. Then descriptions of the different types of areas should probably go above the lists. There may be a problem with some regions having few of some areas, which may make separate headings odd looking - but one would like to easily find e.g. all national hiking areas.

--LPfi (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I sorted all of them. Does not look too bad (at my monitor, at least). There are some more links and descriptions to add and the images should be chosen and placed with some more thought. I think I will leave the article for a while, though. --LPfi (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationalparks.fi URLs

It seems nationalparks.fi has started using Sámi names instead of the Finnish ones, perhaps only in Utsjoki though. For broken links for wilderness areas and huts, one might want to check whether substituting the Sámi name (converted to ASCII by substituting a for à and ä etc.) brings a working link. In some areas not all pages are available in English (or Swedish), so using luontoon.fi/whatever instead of nationalparks.fi/whatever may make them work. In Finnish the np suffix is absent and owh is spelled out as autiotupa. –LPfi (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Markers

Should markers be added, so the park can still be located if the mapshapes decide not to load? (reason why I've done this in Tasmanian national parks). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably. I have given up with mapshape problems, I just hope they go away some day.

And yes. Markers would be good also otherwise. One problem might be with redlinks and URLs: We should link nationalparks.fi where we don't have an article of our own, but I'd still want the redlinks for areas that should have articles. This, the URLs should go after the listing where we have a redlink.

(The external links now all go to nationalparks.fi, I think. There are probably areas worth mentioning that are not maintained by Metsähallitus and thus not listed by them. Those are harder to find. I should probably add some that I have stumbled upon, but I don't remember them now.)

–LPfi (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've started adding the markers to the national park sections. I don't know whether it should be done on the others though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be done for all of them, but I'd prefer one colour per type rather than one colour per region – both on the map and in the sections you still see in what part of the country they are. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the colour so that it is now one colour per type. tbh the only reason why I even thought of doing one colour per region was merely because I had used that format in New South Wales national parks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Lean-to site

An IP editor added a link to Laavu.org. The link as given (show all) did not work for me. The site seems valuable, but it is in Finnish only, and I am not sure showing a list for all of Finland is that useful. Perhaps it could be added in some form somewhere (but not thrice, as in the reverted edit). –LPfi (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It didn't open for me, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)