Talk:Sweden

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about Sweden, 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 SEK100.

Please use British spelling.

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Sweden/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.


Northern Götaland[edit]

Götaland has been moved to Northern Götaland breaking a large number of breadcrumbs. Is this just one region being renamed and the sub-regions not yet fixed or a new reorganisation of regions that has not been discussed in the country or region pages? Willing to fix the situation but would be good to know what was intended. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Traveler100, I just noticed this too. I left a message with Ypsilon here, because I know he was involved. There are some discussions about it on his talk page, but I didn't quite understand what needs to be done either. Texugo (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Tex and T100!
The area which was earlier called Götaland is now Northern Götaland. Basically the reason was that Nastoshka thought it was unacceptable to have an region called Götaland not 100% matching the official Götaland. I had a terrifying lot of other things to do back then, so I totally forgot about updating the static map and such. I can explain it more thoroughly tomorrow (don't have time tonight), meanwhile you can have a look at the User_talk:Ypsilon#G.C3.B6taland thread and my discussion with Nastoshka there. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I find it petty. Nobody outside of Sweden would notice or care, and there is nothing "northern" about "our" Gotaland (which is the SOUTHERN part of Sweden) except for the lack of Scania. I did not even know Scania is officially a part of Gotaland. We can explain this with one sentence, no need to move everything. We've been rationalizing the Swedish regional division resulting from people taking offence from provinces vs. counties and such and had great success with it, let's not take a step back. Please revert. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I find it a little odd too, since having a "northern" something usually implies we would have a "southern" one too, but what is meant by "Northern Götaland" here is actually "all but the southern tip of Götaland", all but one province, 8 out of 9. I'd think it clearer to leave it as Götaland and give a tiny disclaimer that it technically includes Scania. Texugo (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Do as you like. The name change wasn't my idea to begin with. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
Unfortunately, I also have no time today. I will respond in more detail tomorrow if you have concerns or questions.
I suggested to Ypsilon to change somehow the name "Götaland" simply because the region did not correspond to the official Götaland and for reasons of alignment with it: voy. It still sounds very strange to me to have a region named as an official region without two very important and interesting parts, i.e. Gotland and Scania. It's the same to call an article "United Kingdom" and cut off Scotland or Wales just because they have cultural and historic differences. Or - another example - Italy without Sicily who is the only region in Italy with strong arabic influences. An article without Scotland could not - IMHO - be named UK so far as an article about Italy without Sicily is not anymore Italy. This is actuallty the same with Scania, who has been for centuries a danish region.
Someone said that nobody would care about this difference outside Sweden. This is - imo - not true at all. I've been several times in Sweden and no Götland without Scania or Gotland exists even for travellers. Reg. the name "Northern Götaland" was just one of several suggestions --Nastoshka (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure on which would be the best suitable name for this territory, but Götaland includes Scania and Gotland, so we should use a different name to avoid misunderstanding. According to this division we also have to split the Wikidata instance to avoid a wrong match with the Wikipedia's pages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody outside of Sweden cares, really. And chances are Swedish readers will go to Swedish Wikivoyage. Our regions do not correspond to official subdivisions. Historically, Scania has been separate from Gotaland anyway. UK readers, however, will probably use this guide, therefore we are very specific regarding this country. In my language we almost never use the equivalent of "UK" but pretty much always "Great Britain" to refer to the UK, even if it is wrong. Even published travel guides do so. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon PrinceGloria, but I really don't understand such objection "nobody cares". I have only general knowledges of possible subdivisions of - for instance - China and I can - most probably with reason - say that people in Italy don't care at all. Shall I create random articles on it:voy according to what people know or care about? Imho we're a project whose core are countries, regions and cities and should not support one simply wrong subdivision just because people don't care or name our articles on breadcrumb issues basis. I would not sound pessimistic but this way leads to chaos. I think we can choose not to write articles about a region of low interest or write articles about 1. official areas, 2. touristic areas (according to visit.sweden in this case should be "Southern Sweden" with Scania and Gotland included) or have an our new organization trying to avoid as much as possible ambiguous cases. --Nastoshka (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody cares if our divisions are not along the lines of official ones. It would suffice to mention in our guide to Gotaland that officially it includes Scania as well, but we have a separate guide to it, much like our guides to The Hague and Scheveningen are separate. BTW, w:Nationalencyklopedin says that the inclusion of Scania to Gotaland has been "historically inaccurate" - Scania and Blekinge used to be known as a separate "landsdel" called "Skaneland" when it was first included into modern-day Kingdom of Sweden. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the argument from both sides, remains the fact that the portion of land is different. So I've just separated the Wikidata instance of Götaland from a new one created for this new territory. Please keep in mind to update Wikidata as well when modify territories, because Wikidata has been thought to link the same exact items (no similar ones) on different projects. --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please move Northern Götaland back to Götaland, as the previous move resulted in a massive mess? PrinceGloria (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it all but would pay to double check. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking Swedish as a foreigner[edit]

"Regardless of what your native tongue is, Swedes greatly appreciate any attempt to speak Swedish and beginning conversations in Swedish, no matter how quickly your understanding peters out, will do much to ingratiate yourself to the locals."

Don't Swedes have a reputation for having fairly little patience with attempts to speak Swedish if you don't do it very well, and very quickly switching to English if someone is struggling? /Julle (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Swedes and others who (generally) speak English well, will quickly switch to English. However, I guess no matter where you are in the world, locals will consider it "cool" if you've learned a little of the local language (at least saying "Hello" and "Thank you"), and this is probably what the above sentence tried to convey. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There will be some native speakers of any language who will be annoyed at foreigner attempts to speak it, but probably more would be be happy to humor you a little and appreciate it even. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cities and Other destinations[edit]

I have a few issues with the lists of cities and other destinations.

  • First: Recently the Kiruna article was split into two articles. One for the city proper and one for the (huge) surrounding region Kiruna Municipality. Currently the city-article is listed, but I would say that the Municipality is more interesting for a traveler. It contains a vast amount of interesting destinations aside from the city, including the Jukkasjärvi ice hotel, the Esrange Space Station, the tallest mountain in Sweden and the Abisko national park. In short I think that the Municipality article should replace the city article. As a region it fits better on the OD-list than the C-list. Further, if we ad the Kiruna Municipality (a lowest level region) article to the OD-list it seems natural to remove the Abisko (a destination within that) article. Just like listing both Stockholm and Stockholm/Gamla stan it seems strange.
  • Second: The Ystad article does not fit on OD-list. By Swedish standards it is a city, and it is even larger than Visby which we have listed as a city. I get the impression that Ystad didn't make the city list and was therefore put on the OD-list as a consolation. I therefore think that it should be removed from the OD-list.
  • Third: Bohuslän (a region) should be replaced by Tanum (a non-urban municipality in Bohulsän). Many of the major attractions in Bohuslän can be found in Tanum, such as the UNESCO-listed rock carvings and the marine natural reserve Kosterhavet. I can see how Tanum is more interesting than most other non-urban Swedish municipalities, but it is not obvious why Bohuslän is more relevant than other Swedish regions such as Småland or Värmland. Finally, the Tanum article is in a much better shape than the one for Bohuslän.

This leaves two vacancies; one city and one OD. I would suggest Bergslagen as for the vacant OD-spot. It is a loosely defined cultural, economic and historical area in Svealand, known as the historical centre of Swedish mining, and contains two UNESCO-sites related to the mining heritage. The vacant city spot is trickier. There is a risk that Svealand will be over represented, wherefore I would suggest some city in northern or southern Sweden. Lund in Scania, a pretty campus city with a millennial cathedral and an old medieval irregular street pattern, is perhaps a candidate. Luleå with the UNESCO site "Gammelby", located in the northern end of the gulf of bottnia, is also a plausible candidate. Are there any other good candidates or comments on my issues? MartinJacobson (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

After a year and a half of hard thinking, I believe that the High Coast would probably fit better on our list of other destinations than Bohuslän or Tanum. I don't like the idea of featuring an entire province on the list of OD, and Tanum on its own does not seem spectacular enough to merit a place on the list. This would leave Norrland with five items on our lists. If we added Lund as a new city that would give Scania and Southern Sweden proper representation as well. The only drawback is that it would leave western Sweden rather underrepresented. Does anyone else have any input on this? I'm warning you, if I don't hear any objections within the next 18 months I might unilaterally plunge forward on this one! MartinJacobson (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutrality[edit]

I think this sounds too extreme: "Swedish schools aim to get rid of the distinction between boys and girls." I believe the schools are not trying to make pupils genderless, but rather not treat them differently based on sex, and letting everybody live as they want. The gym groups are probably mixed gender and teacher should not raise their eyebrow if somebody with a male name appears dressed in a skirt. The teachers should not, however, restrict pupils from acting in (what traditionally would be regarded as) feminine or masculine ways – other than having their eyes open for e.g. pupils acting unnecessary timid as part of a perceived gender role, and not accepting rude behaviour under a "boys are boys" pretext.

I have difficulties coming up with a good wording.

--LPfi (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. And in any case, it violates tcf. /Yvwv (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe something like "Swedish schools rigorously prohibit gender discrimination"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps. I would like to see it from some reliable source or from somebody with first-hand knowledge (as that "rigorously" may or may not be true in practice). --LPfi (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
There's actually a video on YouTube, where the Danes and Swedes have a debate on gender (with English subtitles). In that debate, the Danes adopted the position that gender equality is good enough, while the Swedes adopted the position that we have to go further than gender equality and aim to achieve gender neutrality, where distinctions between boys and girls do not exist. And there are numerous news articles you can find online about gender-neutral schools in Sweden that are trying to purge the concept of gender from society. (one example: [1]) The dog2 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I have not seen the video, but I suppose the debate is about society, not gender in personal or social context (or in raising children). If so, the Swedish position is not necessarily that odd. And the preschool of your link is not mainstream, it is taken as an example of gender neutrality taken to the extreme. Still, "All the girls know they are girls" and I suppose the personnel is still acting non-gender neutral role models. It seems even that preschool is not trying to remove the gender distinction (apart from the pronoun "hen", but the Finnish have got by never having the he/she distinction). As I read it they are letting the children choose their interests regardless of gender and avoiding emphasizing gender. That is the ideal also over here (in mainstream daycare and school, and in advice to parents), although seldom practised coherently. In normal day care the children would still read also about mums and dads, not only about giraffes without gender-specific attributes. --LPfi (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To give gender equality/neutrality any relevance to a tourist, it could be mentioned, that it is quite common in Sweden to see women in "men's jobs" and vice versa. And this certainly has something to do with how children are raised. As an example, I had a visitor from another European country, a craftsman by trade, and he told me that he had never seen a hardware store where all the employees he met were women, and also never had imagined to see a woman driving a forklift. After that we went to another hardware store and the experience was repeated. Perhaps this kind of "disclaimer" with a more hands-on approach would be a better description? Philaweb (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the video I was referring to: [2]. Unfortunately, I don't speak Danish or Swedish, so I'm entirely at the mercy of the subtitles. I guess what's important regarding this is whether there is anything that is a non-issue elsewhere that would offend a Swede. Like whether it would be offensive to associate boys with Transformers and girls with Barbie dolls, or even if it is offensive to refer to "boys" and "girls" as such instead of the gender neutral "children". And of course, if people are expected to use a gender neutral pronoun instead of "he" or "she", or even completely removed references to gender in regular conversations, it should be mentioned. The question is, how far along is your average Swede in this gender equality/neutrality thing. The dog2 (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think the tourist has to speak Swedish for "hen" to be relevant? A tourist speaking another language most probably wont notice the difference. Philaweb (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said, "hen" is mostly an interesting phenomenon, most Swedes do not use it. I can think of pitfalls where people are used to a consciously neutral language, but not much worse than picking the wrong out of "he" and "she" (which happens to Finns, who do not have the distinction). --LPfi (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The job market is certainly worth mentioning. E.g. having a male nurse and a female doctor could be confusing for some, and some could be offended by not being served by a man in the hardware shop (having the prejudice that the women are non-experts). The risk of offending is probably small, unless you make jokes about the boys playing with dolls or something like that. Most children do watch Cinderella & al. You should probably be aware of the issue if having presents for children in a host family. The Barbie doll is not necessarily that welcome, but will rather be regarded as ignorance than offence ("associating" boys with Transformers and girls with Barbies seems odd, depending on what you mean I suppose it could be offending). The "hen" thing is quite widespread, but e.g. on Wikipedia it is still banned in most contexts as controversial. Using gender neutral wording is certainly appreciated by transgender people, but otherwise not expected. Where the average Swede stands is at least partly a question of age. Most 50 years old probably think the world has become odd, while I'd guess a 20 year old is quite likely to use "hen" regularly. That said, the "gay nanny" thing is old, probably with roots in the 60s. --LPfi (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I have experienced that Swedes on workplaces are very concious about whether you, as a customer or client, prefers certain people to be served by. Swedes will most likely get offended if you verbally express this preference. Philaweb (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
That applies to every country I've ever been to, not just Sweden. If you, as a customer, refuse to get served by a perfectly competent employee simply because of his/her gender, you'll get a universally unsympathic reaction, regardless where you go. ArticCynda (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, even though I did not write "refuse", I wrote "prefer". A preference does not necessarily include refusals. Philaweb (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Even in Singapore, which is fairly conservative, it is no longer that uncommon to have female doctors and male nurses. It's just that many of the nurses are not Singaporean and come from the poorer neighbouring countries like the Philippines and Indonesia, since most Singaporean nurse eventually choose to migrate to Australia or the UK, where they are treated with more respect. Similarly, nobody will refuse to be served by a perfectly competent female employee in a hardware store, and neither will people (at least people under 40 or so) insult a woman who drives a forklift if they see one; its just very rare. So unless you're from a very conservative place like maybe Saudi Arabia, these things are not unique to Sweden. But it's true that unlike in Sweden, toys are still marketed towards specific genders, and it would still be considered odd to see a man wearing a dress (but in the case of a woman wearing a suit and tie, it's fairly normal). The dog2 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
You would presume this would show in Swedish chains such as H&M. Still they are criticised for making clothes for small girls smaller than same size boys' clothes, less suited for running and climbing, and for making "sexy" girls' clothes. Gender neutral children's cloths are hard to find, and I have yet to hear advice of going buy them in Sweden. So I suspect that the ideals of gender neutrality have a long way to go (but people wanting gender neutral children's clothing probably shows a difference between the Nordic countries and many other parts of the world). (And although a boy may be allowed to try girls' wear, no "normal" man (non-transgender, non-artist) would dress in women's cloths. There is no movement to break that distinction.) --LPfi (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Caution box[edit]

I reverted the addition of this cautionbox:

"Communist China has issued a safety alert for its tourists in the country after it said that three tourists had been “brutally abused” by Swedish police on 2 September 2018."

First of all, who calls it "Communist China" anymore? Are we stuck in the 1950s?

More importantly, there is a comment immediately below that has been ignored:

"This is not the place to push a political agenda through claimed crime risks. Warnings for tourists should be put into an international context."

Any Chinese complaint about human rights abuses have no credibility. This is a country that is creating prison camps for Uighurs, is attempting to wipe out the Tibetan culture, and imprisons or murdetlrs anyone who speaks out against the government. Its complaint against Sweden is obviously a political ploy related to the visit of the Dalai Lama, as the Guardian article notes. There is no actual threat to travellers. The Chinese tourists arrived ONE DAY before their reservation and refused to leave, so the hostel staff called the police to have them removed. We don't have to account for stupid people, and Wikivoyage should not be a mouthpiece for a tyrannical regime. (China, as an aside, is an amazing place to visit, with incredible history, culture, and food. And the people are really kind to tourists.) Ground Zero (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A Swedish prosecutor has received a report of police misconduct. He closed the case without indictment. /Yvwv (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A compilation of video clips from the incident. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6touy0 /Yvwv (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Regions #5[edit]

I'm starting to think that maybe we should restructure the hierarchy by making Scania and Gotland parts of Götaland, thus making Svealand, Götaland and Norrland the only top level regions immediately below the country level.

  1. Svealand, Götaland and Norrland are well-established in Swedish geography. The current division is very unorthodox. Nowhere except here is this five-fold division of Sweden used. "Götaland minus Scania and Gotland" is not a very natural region.
  2. Svealand, Götaland and Norrland are approximately on par when it comes to attractions (what Norrland lacks in population, they make up for in area), with some 5-7 "Cities"/"Other destinations" listed each. Compared to these, Scania and Gotland play in a lower division, rather on par with the counties listed one step down in the hierarchy.
  3. I think that the current division gives a somewhat confusing impression - Scania is part of Götaland, but then it is not? Why is it separate if it isn't? Is Scania listed separately because it is significantly more interesting to travelers than other counties? It does have a Danish heritage, but so do Halland and Blekinge? Dalarna and Jämtland also have strong regional identities? (This final point mainly applies to Scania, as one can more easily understand why Gotland would be listed separately)

All in all, I believe that the traditional threefold division of Sweden would work best. Sure, it is a bit further from the 7 2 ideal, but I don't think users of our guides care about that. I know that Ypsilon, Yvwv and PrinceGloria has been involved in this discussion previously, so I hope that you don't mind me pinging you. MartinJacobson (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That was used until 2013, when I think Yvwv further subdivided Götaland (per comment timestamped 16:40, 27 July 2013) and as you can see the division was amended many times over the next few years. Maybe best to reverse it to the three traditional parts so we don't need to open this can of worms again. Ypsilon (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I would be happy to do the changes myself, but I would need some help as I'm not very competent with Wikivoyage maps. I see that there is an old version of the Götaland map which we could re-use, but someone would have to update the Sweden country map. I see that Saqib created the original map, and that Ypsilon was able to redraw the Götaland map. Could one of you please help fix the map of Sweden? And if possible make sure that all the "cities" and "other destinations" are marked out? A job well done is always rewarded with more labor! MartinJacobson (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid all other Wikivoyagers who have the knowledge of static map drawing have left completely (or check in only once every month or so), therefore it's me who will have to do it :P and I don't have as much spare time as I used to. But I'll try to get it done this weekend. Ypsilon (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

::::Also, as the cities and other destinations listed in the article can change over time, I don't think it's necessary to list all of them. The dynamic map is better for that purpose (it was a different matter back when the static maps were the only ones available). Actually there are quite many marked out in the central-east of Sweden (the stretch from Vättern to Gävle) relative to for example Norrland so a couple of those could maybe be deleted. --Ypsilon (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As we're now starting to use a more official division, I think the smartest thing to do is to scrap the old static map use a dynamic map for both the markers and the regions. I've seen such a setup in many articles, but I've never done it before (need to spend some time to look at the wikicode and teach myself first). --Ypsilon (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes Done and interestingly the dynamic map regions from Wikidata were already in the article. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Snyggt! Thank you! Should I revert the Götaland map to the original version, or is it better to upload it again as a new file? MartinJacobson (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Revert, I'd say. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The file is in use also on fr and he, so it should not be changed without asking them (or moving the present version to a new name and change their articles to use that). --LPfi (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I see! I started a discussion at the commons file and made notices at the frvoy and hevoy Götaland talk pages. If there are no objections I plunge forward with the revert in a week or two. MartinJacobson (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest you do the reverse: unless you get an OK from both (or notice their regions in fact do correspond to the new(=old) map), copy the old version to a new name (with appropriate attribution) and use that, as simply reverting would break their pages. --LPfi (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fire ban[edit]

I appreciate the frequent updating of Swedish articles.

When it comes to fire bans, they are changed several times during summer, usually on short notice.

Is there a reliable resource for current fire bans in Sweden? /Yvwv (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

SMHI would be a pretty good one, also for various other weather warnings. Ypsilon (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In each countys article there are links to reliable sources within the warning box. SMHI has a useful map, but their map is focused on the weather, not the legality of having a barbeque in the wild. Philaweb (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
PS. As you can see from the SMHI map there are fire risks in most of Sweden, but there are only fire bans in three counties, i.e. fire risk is connected to the current weather, where a fire ban is a prohibition on starting an open fire. Philaweb (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Then it's different from here in Finland, where the forest fire warning (given for a region, in Lapland, for a municipality at a time) is either in force or not (can't be "partially" in force), and if it's in force it means an unconditional ban on open fire. Formerly the local fire department could grant you special permission to lit a fire while the forest fire ban was on if they deemed it to be safe at some particular place. "Open fire" includes both campfires and disposable grills, anything that is not isolated from the ground and/or allows sparks to escape. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing partial about this in Sweden. It is confusing though since fire bans are regulated by either the county (län) or in some counties by the municipalities (kommun). For instance there are fire bans in 11 of 14 municipalities in Norrbotten county. It can be difficult to find the information on fire bans. In Scania, for instance, it is really confusing if and where there are fire bans, and you need to look at each individual municipality to find out. SMHI only shows what the weather conditions are like. The counties or municipalities decide what is legal or not - and when. Philaweb (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I have dug a bit deeper for some more detailed information on this subject. Fire bans are officially issued by the fire emergency services (räddningstjänsten) of either the municipalities or the counties, depending on how they are organised within the county. The Scania Northwest District has fire risk forecasts (brandriskprognos) for 10 municipalities and has issued fire bans (eldningsförbud) for nine of those municipalities. Ergo, fire risk is something different than a fire ban.
There are three fire emergency districts in Scania. I have searched in vain for current information on fire bans on the websites of the Scania South and Scania Southeast districts. Not to mention the fire emergency services of municipalities in the northeastern corner of Scania that do not work as a district. Philaweb (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)