Formatting and language conventions
For articles about Norway, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00.
Please show prices in this format: 100 kr, and not kr. 100, or NOK100.
Please use British spelling.
State Supported Children Abduction
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).
Fjord fun facts
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Fjords of Norway
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Go ahead, Erik. Danapit (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the Norwegian fjords can have their own article. --ϒpsilon (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Go ahead, Erik. Danapit (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
Middle Norway - admin help needed
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)
- What happens to the cities that link to those categories when they're deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Radio in Norwegian only?
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)
- 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)
Cashless payments in Norway
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)
- 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)