From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

"Smoking tobacco, or even importing tobacco is completely illegal under the Communist government of Norway"

I don't know who wrote this, but this is absolute nonsense. Smoking is banned in all public places, but you are allowed to smoke outside and in private homes.

There is no Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import for Norway because the page existed before the factbook import began.

This line makes no sense. Free everything = low unemployement?[edit]

Politically, it is dominated by a widespread and continued support for the Scandinavian model, which means high taxes and high government spending to support free schools, free healthcare, an efficient welfare system, and many other benefits. As a result the unemployment rate in Norway is low.

Where is this line? - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 14:44, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
This is easily explained - the big government employs a lot of people in their bloated bureaucracy - it's their way of making the statistics shine in their favour. If the government bureaucracy was slimmed down, unemployment would be radically high. 17:08, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

also health care is NOT free. norwegians have to pay to go to the doctor. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs)

(The following is true for Norwegian citizens and people in the country for longer than six months - for example, exchange students. If you are here for less than six months, I'm not sure what applies.): That statement (health care not being free) is misleading - you pay a fee for the doctor, who has the option of giving you a ('blue') prescription for medicine, which means you pay a highly discounted price at the pharmacy. You may also get a 'white' prescription, which means you pay full price. This seems to depend on the medicine, ie. whether the government has it listed as a 'normal', in-stock medicine, or something which will be ordered from another country, as well as on the doctor - I'm not sure how he decides and how much lee-way he has in making his own decision. You also only pay for doctor's consultations and certain prescriptions up to an amount (around 1800Nok in 2010) for the year, after which you show your 'free card' (in the past you had to apply for this, you now get it automatically), and don't pay anything. I assume that this includes hospitalization. However, it EXCLUDES dentistry (everyone will tell you this is expensive in N) and things like physiotherapy (physiotherapy has a separate "free card", which applies after you have paid around 2500Nok for physiotherapy in the year.) "Free cards" expire at the end of the calendar year. I'm not sure whether going on exchange is 'officially' considered travel (to us students it is!), so I'll leave this in the discussion.


I reduced the list to 9 per our current policy, but if it's not the perfect 9, feel free to swap some out for others - but please don't exceed 9 total cities.

For reference, I removed:

  • Sandnes - Stavanger's twin city has less going for it, but still holds attractions worthy of a side trip from Stavanger.
  • Aalesund (Ålesund) - a splendid Art Nouveau centre in the very western outskirts of Norway? Yes! Ålesund is one of the most unique towns in Norway
  • Alta - "The Aurora Borealis City", and the largest city in Finnmark
  • Bodø - the gateway to the magnificent Lofoten islands the place of Saltstraumen
  • Hammerfest - the northernmost city in the world
  • Kirkenes - the gateway to Russia is further east than Istanbul or Kiev
  • Kongsberg - old mining town, now a center for hi-tech industry
  • Lillehammer - picturesque former Winter Olympics site
I moved Lillehammer to "other destinations", replacing Hessdalen valley (which is in no way a destination for tourists)
  • Molde - jazz festival in July, Atlanterhavsveien a short drive away
  • Tønsberg - Norway's oldest town has a seaside location with a lot going for it
  • Svelvik - Small village south of Drammen, with the one of the highest concentrations of drugs in Norway.

Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 18:18, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I swapped out Drammen for Alesund, which really is quite remarkable. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:54, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Drammen - Known as industrial and grimy, but recent refurbishing has made Drammen an enjoyable side trip from Oslo.

I have made changes to the list of cities. The list contained 12 cities before I reduced it. If you don't like my selection bring up the discussion here! (WT-en) ViMy 18:13, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Hey, thanks ViMy, I'd personally substitute Drammen for something else, it's so close to Oslo and really not that interesting. How about Ålesund (a city, so doesn't really work under other destinations) or Kirkenes? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 04:09, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
ViMy, you should have proposed here first before changing things... and I'll second Sertmann, Alesund is a city and more worthwhile than Drammen. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:56, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
I picked some of the "larger" cities. And also tried to find cities all over the country. I was in doubt regarding Drammen. The reason why I mowed Ålesund to other destination, was becouse Lillehammer allready was on that list. (WT-en) ViMy 07:08, 26 September 2009 (EDT)
  • I have reduced number of cities to nine, once again. Remowe Alta witch was added by someone. Should there be made changes to the list? Remember only nine cities! (WT-en) ViMy 06:50, 4 July 2010 (EDT)

I agree that Drammen should be removed. Although not as bad as its reputation, neither is it really particularly interesting. --(WT-en) Oddeivind 14:18, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Personal opinions[edit]

I have removed this line from the article:

Buy at least one 19-30 kr hot-dog - they are referred to as "Kjempegrill" (Not only do they taste good, they also give you an excuse to go inside when you are cold and waiting for the tube) They are great for keeping the low blood sugar troll at bay. Remember to put on a lot of cucumber mix.


Could anyone tell me, why it's not a good idea to hitchhike out of the airport? Jo.

It's not a bad idea, but its likely to take time. You'll be likely to see friendly, waving faces passing you by for a couple of hours. If you have to, it pays off to be upfront asking people on their way to the parking lot --(WT-en) Jonhov 08:24, 8 July 2008 (EDT)Jon

by train[edit]

This section was rather messy with pieces of info here and there. I tried to put the main info on top and evaluations and opinions in the end. Hope this was okay.--(WT-en) Jonhov 09:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

by boat[edit]

Wihin Norway[edit]

The following senence is in my opinion wrong:

On board the ferry are a number of restaurants, bars, casinos, cinemas and also a stage show to keep you entertained during the journey.

There are no casinos on these ship, that would be ilegall in Norway. As far as I know there are no stage show either. Unless someone protest I think this sentences should be changed. I guess that the person writing this confuses Hurtigruten with ordinary cruiseships. (WT-en) ViMy 19:13, 17 January 2009 (EST)

It's not casino's, but they have those money games on all the ferries I've been on (admittedly only 3 - Moss-Horten,Strömstad-Sandefjord,Tromsø-Finnsness) where you try to make the coins drop over a ledge by dropping them at the right time - I think that's what refered to? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 05:23, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Other destinations[edit]

I swapped out Svartisen for Jostedalsbreen. Since we have no aticle for Svartisen, but we have for Jostedalsbreen. Also Jostedalsbreen is the bigest glacier in Norway. And is more known than Svartisen. (WT-en) ViMy 17:14, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

About destinations: You should definitely mention the Golden Route (
The Atlanterhavsveien as "The most beautiful road in the world" is strongly overestimated!It is a commercial trick to attract turist to this less spectacular part of western Norway. It should rather be the Trollstigen. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs)
If a day or two go by and no one objects feel free to plunge forward and make this change. Thanks for taking the time to discuss on the talk page first. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:04, 19 September 2010 (EDT)
Comment about Atlantic road made more descriptive (and fair). -- 14:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AutoPass RFID box[edit]

Can somebody add some more information (or a hyperlink to more information) about the mentioned "AutoPass RFID box" ?

Respect: real life experience?[edit]

The paragraph about 'Respect' starts with: "Norwegians are generally sincere and polite, though small talk often doesn't come easy – it's usually up to you to break the ice (sometimes literally)."

How many people have experienced this themselves? I'm wondering wheter this is just a cliché, as my experience is quite the contrary: Many Norwegians like talking to strangers, are interested in travellers, small talk happens all the time. Same for several other travellers I met in Norway. Maybe there is a difference between regular travellers and people who travel in a sporty way, e.g. hiking, cycling, skiing or by kajak.

So, does anyone have personal, real-life experience with this? 04:47, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I've spent a fair deal of time in Norway as my stepdad and his family are Norwegian, And I think it's fairly accurate description. This stuff always depend on the circumstances - but generally it's not far off imho. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 05:15, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
I think it's quite true as well, Norwegians do not seem to take the initiative in these kind of things... They are mostly on the background. Of course it's a stereotype and not true for everyone, but that's unavoidable. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 12:59, 24 August 2009 (EDT)


I have tried to balance the comments biased in favour of whaling ("don't mention it or you'll make people cross") with a comment in favour of whales. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs)

The point is really to let a traveller know that taking a point of view may be confrontational. If they choose confrontation, then that is surely their position to take. I agree that saying that Norwegians are well informed implies that visitors may not be. This probably needs to be changed, and I'll have a shot at it. --(WT-en) inas 17:12, 24 January 2010 (EST)
I think it's quite fair to imply that visitors are ill-informed. Most Norwegians I know can take all the usual arguments, rip them apart, and stuff them in the toilet in a matter of minutes, unless you really know what you are talking about, and by that mean much more than watching a few Discovery Channel features. If you've worked with whale conservation for years, you can probably manage a draw, but otherwise expect your self-confidence to take a beating. Although in major population centres you'll often find support from Norwegians with equally well informed opinions against whaling - in essence, don't get into such arguments unless you have intricate knowledge about the subject, cause most Norwegians does. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 17:31, 24 January 2010 (EST)
Seriously, this is all bordering on the obvious. If a country has a custom or a way of life that you disagree with, taking on the issue is likely to attract a controversy and confrontation, and is unlikely to win friends and influence people. If you want to have the argument and risk confrontation, do so. If you want to avoid controversy, avoid talking about subjects as a visitor that a local may take as an attack on local culture. To stereotype the visitor as unknowledgable is every bit as bad a stereotyping the local culture. Not all visitors are even going to be anti-Norwegian whaling, so even that supposition is wrong. --(WT-en) inas 17:59, 24 January 2010 (EST)

The "respect" part is waaaaay to long...[edit]

... and it also contains a lot of really weird stuff, like e.g attitudes to women who were with nazis after the second world war. Come on! This is ancient history and not something that travellers nee to worry about. Most people are to young to remember the war anyway, and Germans are treated as any other nationality. The Second World War is definitely not a sensitive issue.

Another thing, "saying thank you for almost anything". I doubt that there is any difference from other European countries here. I have travelled in many other countries and have not experienced any big difference in this area.

About being patriotic, I doubt Norwegians are more patriotic than others. This is POV.

About whaling, I dont think most people have strong opinions either way.

About racist and sexist jokes, I guess this would vary a lot with who you are talking to. I added some info here that men should be aware that many women might be offended if a man insist on paying for them even after they first have said that they want to pay for themselves. To continue insisting on paying might be considered disrespectful and sexist.

About removing your shoes, I guess this would vary a lot from person to person. I dont think this is something particular for Norway and many culures would emphazise it more, like e.g. East Asians (personal experience, once I forgot to remove my sandals).

The info on economy was wrong, and I changed it, a persons income is considered a public, not a private issue.

About nationality, one cannot say in general that Norwegians would dislike being called Swedes or Danes, many people consider Scandinavians to be the same ethnic group, particularly Norwegians and Swedes.

About the comment "Norwegians are very proud of being "the best winter sport nation in the world": Not all people are interested in watching winter-sports (or sports in general). This comment definitely needs a reference! --(WT-en) Oddeivind 05:57, 28 February 2011 (EST)

I agree with everything you say. And I would also like to add that Germans, if any, generally does not need to be reminded that WWII could be a sensitive issue. I'll let it stay for a while, waiting for more comments, but if no one protests I will change a lot of this. 18:36, 11 March 2011 (EST)
Still many visitors may not be aware of what issues are the most sensitive. For instance overseas visitors may not know the exact position of Norway during WW2. -- 13:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Get in entry requirements[edit]

In case anyone wants to know the source of my edits to include information about the visa exemption for 'Annex II' nationals to work during their 90 day visa-free entry, see this European Union document - [1]. (WT-en) Yeahtravel 09:37, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

Minimum validity of travel documents[edit]

The source of information for my edit is here -

According to which - 'You need a valid passport to be able to enter Norway.' however, if a visitor requires a visa to enter Norway, 'The passport must be valid for at least 90 days after the period for which the visa is granted'. (WT-en) Jakeseems 05:30, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Pharmacies and grocery stores[edit]

I was intrigued to learn from this article that Norway has a high density of pharmacies. My experience was the exact opposite. Granted, I haven't been there in 10 years so hopefully my information is simply outdated. But if it isn't, may I offer some advice for visitors: stores tend to be highly specialized, so don't expect grocery stores to carry anything other than your basic groceries... no OTC meds or even contact lens solution. You'll have to find a pharmacy and an optometrist for those things. No in-store banking services. Rarely even cards and flowers. For guaranteed fresh-baked goods, find a baker. The baked goods you'll find in a grocery store MAY have been delivered that same day -- and it may have been delivered several days ago, depending on how far into the countryside you are.

Anyone with more current knowledge, please evaluate. Thanks!

Grocery stores sell basic non-prescription medicine such as paracet and ibux. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Old money[edit]

In Sweden any coins 1 krona and above can be used as legal tender even if they are really old. Is it the same in Norway or can you only use the latest series? If one has the inclination to do so, is it still possible to exchange older kroner coins at the central bank in Oslo (like you can do with 50 ore for the next 8 years)?

Long and detailed[edit]

The article has become long and detailed. I am moving some details about driving to the topical page, Driving in Norway. Hope this OK. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. Keep going! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


About 77 % are members of the Church of Norway (Lutheran), an additional 3 % are members of other Lutheran congregations. Info is updated. If people are agnostic or atheist is hard to tell, the clear fact is that very few people attend church service regularly. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Norway Seafood web page link[edit]

Hi, everyone. User:Carsten R D and I have been having a rather lively debate about this link, which he has posted in the Northern Norway, East Norway, West Norway, Middle Norway, and South Norway articles. As he points out, the Norwegian Seafood Council is a public company, owned by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, so this is an official governmental website. And of course, everyone knows that Norway is a major fishing nation. But is that a good argument for posting this link as widely as possible, or would it make more sense to post it once, in the Norway article? It seems to me, once is enough, and regional articles should mention fish as a major part of the cuisine but otherwise refer readers to Norway#Eat. User:Carsten R D disagrees (see User talk:Carsten R D and User talk:Ikan Kekek for discussion to this point). What do you think and why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I like to repeat, now facing more, that I'm tired of this discussion. Why not mention that fishing is an important industry in all Norway? It does not hurt to relevant references. I will probably get support for this from both the most Norwegian tourists and residents of this view. Some just want to make this a big issue. Further discussion is wasting time, especially with a pedant that makes small matters large. Hereby all discussions are terminated from my side. User:Carsten R D User talk:Carsten R D
You don't seem to have read my remarks. Perhaps others who do will have an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in adding the link to Norway. Having it on all district articles, however, looks like too much. What's next? The link in every article from Kirkenes to Kristiansand? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, having a look at the site... what exactly am I supposed to use it for as a traveler to Norway? It doesn't tell me even where to visit the fishing industry or even where to go to eat some of this fish.
Petroleum oil is also important to the Norwegian economy, so should we also link to the official Norwegian web site for the oil industry?
With all due respect to User:Carsten R D, it would seem that he has confused the content of Wikivoyage with that of Wikipedia.
I'd actually suggest removing the link completely, or if it must be kept then one reference at the country level at most. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably borderline at best to even link in the Norway article, but it does mention the kinds of fish that are available in the country and mentions their label and quality control, which could be seen as some kind of buying advice. I admit it's a stretch, but whereas visitors usually don't take special enjoyment from consuming a country's oil, they can enjoy Norwegian fish. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Like Andrewssi2, I don't really see any point to the link at all. I might be willing to stretch and put it in the Norway article if that's what everyone thinks is best, but it most definitely shouldn't go in more than one article. Texugo (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete the link site-wide or delete from regional articles and insert in the Norway article?[edit]

So far, we have a unanimous disagreement with User:Carsten R D, with the only remaining question being whether to globally delete this link or delete it in all regional articles but insert it in Norway. I don't have strong opinions about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I await your guidance, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The link given above is to a site with a .uk domain name that quotes prices in British currency. It does not belong in any article about travel to Norway. Almost certainly not in one about the UK either.
There may be other links that do belong. Is there a museum for the industry somewhere? A program that lets young people experience life at sea? If so, adding links to those would be useful. Pashley (talk)
The site does have a .uk domain name, but it is the official site of the Norwegian public (government) seafood corporation. It's odd that it has a .uk domain name, but it is an official governmental site. Is your feeling that the fact of it giving prices in pounds sterling is the difference between its being unacceptable and acceptable to link to from the Norway article, or are there other factors in your thinking? Either way, support for removing the link from this entire site is becoming somewhat overwhelming. I propose to delete all links to this site by tomorrow unless there are further objections. If any of you would like to contact User:Carsten R D to try to persuade him to read this discussion and post a substantive reply to it, I wish you luck. I expect the other alternative will be for him to continue to ignore this discussion and then object strongly when the links are removed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is a better alternative: To remove all the links to this site in the regional articles, pointing to this thread as the reason, and then leave it up to User:Carsten R D to decide whether he thinks it's important enough to post the link in the Norway article that he considers it worth his time to make a persuasive argument here. Either way, I propose to remove all the links to regional articles by tomorrow, barring any other objection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
If removal of the links is such a big deal, I leave it up to you, Ikan Kekek, even if I disagree. But the importance of the Norwegian fishing industry in all parts of Norway and the importance of seafood should still be clearly stated in the articles. I will not waste more time on this. User:Carsten RD User talk:Carsten R D
It certainly should, and no-one disagrees about that. Thanks for your input. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Once in Norway should be sufficient. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Should be deleted from subarticles as it is not travel specific, can be included in the general Norway article, but even here it is borderline. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

State Supported Children Abduction[edit]

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)

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

Fjord fun facts[edit]

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 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)

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[edit]

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

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

Not a travel topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 16 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)
Only one region of Norway has fjords? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 17 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)
Whatever works best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 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)

Region names[edit]

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)

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

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)
I don't think any do, I believe I cleared both categories. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Well, glad to help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Radio in Norwegian only?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

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