Talk:Fjords of Norway

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Topic or destination?[edit]

I see that the article has been changed from destination to topic. To me it is not a big deal, but from the visitors point of view the fjords of Norway is a destination, not a topic like hiking. I find it more natural to treat it like Jotunheimen or Alps. See previous discussion under Norway. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose to revert to the previous classification as extra-hierarchical region. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Do what you think is necessary with the content, but this is not a destination article or extra-hierarchical region. As its title suggests, it focuses on a thing, and "fjords" is no more a region of Norway than "beaches" is a region of Florida. Texugo (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not a big deal, but as I said the fjords of Norway can be compared to the Alps of central Europe or Himalayas of Asia. It is not about fjords as a general phenomenon or "thing". Norway's administrative division (counties) are largely subdivisions of fjords because they totally dominate the landscape of Norway (except some areas in the interior). This often difficult to explain to first time visitors that imagine fjords as some isolated thing. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's about the phenomenon itself, but it is more analagous to the beaches of Florida in that, rather than an otherwise defined area, it's just simply the whole coastline or most of it. While the Alps or Himalayas would be represented as a shaded region on a map, the fjords themselves would be just a contour around the outside of the map. This is not a region. Texugo (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess we will not agree about this. Fjords is a pervasive aspect of Norway's geography from the Russian to the Swedish border. While not a formal administrative division, the fjords forms a region just like the North American prairie. In Norway this is clearly reflected in the names of areas/counties that together constitutes the fjords region, for instance Sognefjord is the fjord (the body of water) but also the surrounding area, the Nordfjord is a body of water and the area, etc. - fjords can not be distinguished from the land itself. Fjords are not merely a contour around the map. Foreign visitors have a trouble understanding this. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
To the extent that it comprises a single "region", that "region" comprises basically the whole country minus the East Norway heartland, but the point is that we aren't writing a new article to cover that "region" itself as an alternative to the way the country is broken into region articles. We are, instead, focusing on a topic, a geographical feature found throughout the country. Even from the name of the article, it is easy to determine that it is a topic and not a region article. Texugo (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(Back to margin) Well, I still disagree. It is of course perfectly fair to say that this is about a natural attraction, but it is really about much more than the body of water itself. It is much more than a specific feature such as waterfalls or wild animals. This is what we more often than not explain to foreign visitors: Typical question is "where are the fjords?" and the simple and accurate answer is "everywhere". Virtually everything, particularly in western Norway, is created or defined by fjords: mountain ranges, waterfalls, rivers, valleys, peninsulas, islands, lakes, climate. This I have to explain better in the article as you rightly suggest. This is of course not really a big deal as the substantive content of the article is the same, but it would give a more accurate image if we could call this a destination (within Norway). Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And yes you are right, the Norwegian "fjordland" covers large parts of the country, roughly half or two-thirds I would say. --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)