Talk:Denmark Voyage Tips and guide

Viking Museum: http://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/default.asp?contentSection2 in Roskilde

Yes, that should definately go on WikiTravel. Maybe you should make a Roskilde page (the link does not work well, but that might just be temporarely) -- (WT-en) elgaard 11:34, 2004 Sep 7 (EDT)

I don't know if this is where I should put it but the Danish flag on the photo has been vandalized to represent the Canadian flag. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 202.7.176.134 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 18:50, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

Although the region list is geographically correct in identifying perhaps every named piece of land in Denmark, I believe a shorter list might be more useful. :) Furthermore, there's some overlap/duplication within the regions. The following is inspired by (but not slavishly copied from) the official tourism site: [1]

• North Zealand
  • Copenhagen
  • Roskilde
• Southeast Denmark
  • West Zealand
  • South Zealand
  • Lolland
  • Falster
  • Møn
• Funen
• Jutland
  • North Jutland
  • West Jutland
  • East Jutland
  • South Jutland
• Bornholm

Any additional islands would be presumed "IsPartOf" the nearest larger body of land.

(Swept in from the Pub)

Hi, I'm going to be traveling Europe, and I'll be doing it almost entirely by bike, so I was curious whether there are bike trails in various areas. If someone knows about bike trails for various areas, I think it'd be nice to see more of this, because I find it hard to find cycling path information for Europe. All the areas I've been reading so far didn't have much of anything about cycling, anyway (Norway, France, Italy).

134.84.99.96 21:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Denmark is recommendable for bikers. Drivers are used to bikes everywhere, thus its generally safe. Mayor Cities have biketrails along their roads and on trafikken.dk[2] you can find guides to the biking routes across the country. - Maybe I should add this info to the page. This page (in Danish) has links to all of europe, btw [3] (WT-en) Clcow 03:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, please do. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:34, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

If you ever need some encouragement for tedious work improving on this article, check the tweet below :o)

Image:Denmark_encouragement.png
--(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 18:49, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Great to see the work is appreciated, although you might want reconsider posting those tweets without the author's permission. For copyright reasons if nothing else. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:58, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Hi. I'm in need of some encouragement! :-) What did the notice say? The link is dead now. 86.52.48.140 23:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Look here Powers ^(talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The present region of Zealand comprises both Zealand and a some other large islands. I would like to split out from this region at the top level the other islands and call that region Lolland-Falster. The reason for the need of the change is that we now do not have an article covering Zealand and only Zealand. Any objections?, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 07:31, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

I'm fine with another structure, as long as we try to limit subsections as much as possible.... do you intend this as top level region? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 11:06, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, so there will still only be two region levels, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 11:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

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 - [4]. 195.195.166.57 17:41, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Are you serious? Specific safety advice contains this? So apparently I can do this in other countries where I have so far not seen such a warning on Wikivoyage. Captain obvious methinks!

Bob

—The preceding comment was added by 89.241.158.224 (talk • contribs)

About as obvious as the Captain gets I think :). By the way, don't ever put your hand into the mouth of a rabid dog.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:41, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Haha! ya, blatant case of captain obvious, with all the work i've done on this article, it's amazing i didn't take notice before. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 23:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

The current map[5] is really outdated, at least four years old. Does anybody have a newer map (like the one embedded in the flash on the bottom of the page[6])? Or should I try to contact DSB asking if they can provide an up to date map? Anybody —The preceding comment was added by 188.177.33.226 (talk • contribs)

Don't forget that any map we use has to be free (as in speech), not just "free" (as in beer). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:26, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

The http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Denmark&diff=2102251&oldid=2093595 edit adds a lot of information to the Terrain and Culture sections that might be more Wikipedia style information than relevant for a travel guide. I'm not that experienced a Wikivoyager myself, so I'd like some other perspectives on this. Mads.bahrt (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It might be a bit excessive, but it's not to the point where I'd revert it wholesale. This would be a perfect opportunity go in and trim the new additions down to a more reasonable level. LtPowers (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The history section is empty!

I'm not that knowledgable about Danish history, although the historical migration to England, the Vikings and .... (Lego?) probably merit a few paragraphs. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also Sweden v. Denmark is the most common war in history according to some counts. Mostly they were fighting for Norway Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Danes deserve special kudos for standing with their Jewish compatriots during World War II, although in the long history of Denmark, that probably merits just a line or so. But it's really sad to have an empty section like that. Didn't Schleswig-Holstein, or at least part of it, used to be part of Denmark? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I now wrote a bit. It is not balanced or well written, but a start. Hopefully somebody will rewrite it. --LPfi (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

To the Schleswig Holstein issue... (about which someone once said there are three people who understand it, one of them mad, one of them having forgotten all about it and one of them not caring in the least). If I understand it correctly, the Danish crown came into possession of Schleswig, Holstein and the Herzogtum Lauenburg through some dynastic rules back when those things still mattered. However, the rules for inheritance were different in the different territories and as the Danish king tried to change them for Holstein to ensure his realm would not be partitioned in future generations, Prussia pointed out that as part of the German confederation, Holstein had to follow its laws and its sovereign could not do as he pleased as could the king of Denmark in Denmark proper. Then there was an old obscure document promising Schleswig-Holstein to be "op eewig ungedeeld" (for ever un-separated) and Prussia used this to rile up nationalist sentiment. Long story short Denmark lost a war in 1864 that they had won in 1848 and the whole shebang comes under Austrian and Prussian administration and is integrated into the German Empire come 1871. However, in North - Schleswig a small majority is more Danish than German and those people finally manage to get back to Denmark through a 1918 (or was it 1919?) referendum. This was one of the reasons for the causeway between Sylt and the German mainland to be built as the main port for ships to Sylt had become Danish. To this day Schleswig contains a German minority on the Danish side and vice versa. Relations are pretty good for what I've heard. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great job! I forgot to say. I added a few details. RhinoMind (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I do not object to furnishing out this section, but Wikipedia has plenty of information on the history of Denmark. And as this site has a focus on travel-stuff I can't see it is that important. If other people feels otherwise you could simply extract stuff from the Wikipedia page. Cheers. RhinoMind (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Compare the article on Germany or the United States where much more history is covered and at least in the latter case lengthy debate and consensus building preceded the current edition. I personally tend to err on the side of too much history, but I am not sure whether the history subsection of this here article is the best it could possibly be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it is just great. Precise, short but still includes all the major highlights. RhinoMind (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There has been some editing of the lede recently and how to present Denmark and what the term "Denmark" actually comprise.

Let me start out by pointing out that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are not mere "possessions" and especially not possessions of the Danish Crown. Denmark has no colonies; the Faeroe Islands and Greenland are both officially part of Rigsfællesskabet (The Danish Realm), they participate in the general elections, has similar educational structures, welfare system, Danish is an officially spoken language, same currency and a whole lot more. They are both effectively part of the country in most areas. But they have additional self-governing structures and abilities.

It is important to stress this in the lede and do it correctly. There is a head source of Rigsfællesskabet here: Rigsfællesskabet.

When talking about The Realm of Denmark, excluding the Faroe Islands and Greenland, it is usually referred to as "Denmark proper".

I myself introduced the more expansive definition of The Kingdom of Denmark, but I actually find it more appropriate to introduce the concept of The Realm of Denmark, as the defining term of what Denmark is. The Danish Crown has only very limited political abilities and does not own or control the land, except for a few historical possessions. The Realm of Denmark is an actual institution, and it is the governing body for the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Denmark proper.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have done a little bit of editing, but F. Islands and Greenland still needs to be presented as something other than "possessions". Please comment below if needed. RhinoMind (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

As with anything on this wiki the operative question is (or should be) does it serve the voyager? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there and thanks. Good point, and yes it might serve the voyager. At least if it is explained what consequences "The Danish Realm" have for him/her. Some interesting consequences that might be worth to point out:

• Danish is taught in school and used as an official language in the Faroese Islands and Greenland, in particular in the administration.
• It might be easier to travel to these two other "countries"/destinations because of a common administration. It might have consequences for visas, work permits, health insurance, travel insurance, and many other situations.
• Danske Kroner is used as the currency in the whole realm.
• It will explain that there is actually an institution that handles these issues. The traveller does not need an audience before the Queen of Denmark to pose questions.
• other stuff ... (please help fill in)

I'm new to WikiVoyage (but not Wikipedia), so thanks for stating the point. RhinoMind (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome! Just a word of caution: No need to go into too much detail; keep things practical. Length is sometimes an issue: Things that don't affect a traveler still might be interesting enough to be worth an off-hand comment, but we want to avoid encyclopedic detail — that's for Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article hierarchy below Funen and Surrounding Islands is confusing.

To make it more intuitive, I suggest this hierarchy:

• Denmark
  • Funen (containing only the island of Funen)
  • Sydfynske Øhav (including Langeland and Ærø)
    • Langeland
    • Ærø
    • (other islands in Sydfynske Øhav)

The Funen and Surrounding Islands article would be merged to other articles. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Edit done. Please report errors. /Yvwv (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering which is more appropriate for Denmark: kr 100 or 100 kr? I see both being used, along with a bunch of other variations to confuse readers. Ground Zero (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

In Scandinavia the currency notation pretty much always comes after the amount. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's what WV:$ says, but I wanted to check. Ground Zero (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC

Well, in relation to currency exchange, the term DKK is used for Danish Kroner. I tried to stick with that in my own contributions but it was changed to kr (front and back) by other editors. Don't understand why? RhinoMind (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

For some reason there is a general aversion towards ISO codes even where they are locally common (like CHF) Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think some of these region and subregion borders need serious work.

• It doesn't make sense to have the South Funen Archipelago as a separate regions. I'm from Langeland and though "Sydfynske Øhav" is a common name for this area, no one here would count it as separate from Funen. It completely ignores the ties between Sydfyn (South Funen) and particularly Svendborg on one side and the islands on the other. In fact, much of northern Tåsinge is even suburbs of Svendborg. I suggest that the South Funen Archipelago region is merged back into Funen as a subregion, with the smaller islands merged with nearby areas (Lyø to Faaborg, Strynø to Langeland, Tåsinge to Svendborg, and Ærø staying intact).
  • My understanding is that splitting off the South Funen Archipelago was originally done because the archipelago and Funen proper (the island Funen without the archipelago) were subregions, and some people found it odd having Funen proper as a subregion of Funen. I completely understand why that seems odd, but to me a better solution would be splitting Funen proper into some smaller subregions. Maybe have Odense as its own subregion, split off Svendborg (incl. Tåsinge) and also Faaborg and Nyborg as South Funen subregion, and the rest of Funen (Assens, Kerteminde, Middelfart, and Nordfyn municipalities) as North Funen.
• I understand why Lolland-Falster is listed as separate from Zealand, but I think it is too closely tied with South Zealand to not be a subregion of Zealand. And speaking of South Zealand, it's a bit confusing that Køge is separated from the rest of East Zealand, so I think that it should either be moved to the West Zealand subregion or be spun off as a new East Zealand subregion alongside the Lejre and Roskilde areas. Otherwise the subregions in Zealand are great. If merging Lolland-Falster into it makes Zealand too big, the Capital Region might be a good candidate for a region.
• Jutland as one region strikes me as being way too big. My guess for why it's all one is because elevating the subregions might be too many regions. Although that would indeed be a lot of regions, I think it would be justified given Jutland's size. Jutland is something like two-thirds of Denmark's total area.
  • I think the current subregion borders in Jutland are terrible. We need to throw them out and begin from scratch, but I personally think that the NUTS 3 regions would be a good starting point. In Danish we distinguish between Sydjylland (literally meaning South Jutland), which is just the southern part of Jutland, and Sønderjylland, which is the southern part of Sydjylland and covers the northern part of the historic Duchy of Schleswig. I think Sønderjylland has enough of a history to warrant it becoming a region or subregion of its own separate from Sydjylland.
  • My suggestion would be to turn Sønderjylland (municipalities of Haderslev, Sønderborg, Tønder, and Aabenraa) into a separate region, do the same to the current North Jutland subregion, and have the rest of Jutland split between East Jutland (NUTS region plus Fredericia, Kolding, and Vejle municipalities) and West Jutland (NUTS region plus Billund, Esbjerg, Fanø, Varde, and Vejen municipalities). These proposed changes to Jutland might be a bit radical, so I also offer a less extreme suggestion: Redefine Jutland's subregions to coincide with NUTS regions, then split off South Jutland as a region with the subregions of South West Jutland, Sønderjylland, and the Triangle Region.

Of all these changes I propose, merging Lolland-Falster into Zealand is the one I feel is the worst, but I think all of these are mostly reasonable. I would appreciate any feedback, especially on my Lolland-Falster and Jutland proposals. - 212.130.152.24 09:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that these are good, helpful and useful divisions. I have my doubts about the divisions around Copenhagen and surrounding countryside, though. Maybe it could be done in a better and more useful way.

About official administrative regions. These divisions are from 2007, and are purely administrative. They span and cuts across different cultural regions in a disorderly way. In my mind, we should use divisions that are helpful to travellers. Alternatively we could mention and shortly describe the five administrative regions, but to base the whole article on them, would not be very helpful. RhinoMind (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

These are the regions Denmark uses for administrative purposes. I think if we use those as a basis, Bornholm should be split from the capital region. I'm also not 100% sure whether it makes sense to split Jutland some other way. Apparently tourism is different on the north sea coast as opposed to the other coast... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is a new trend of national taxi services appearing in Nordic countries. They have easy to use smartphone apps which make the order process clear, like Uber. They claim to have near-nationwide coverage or coverage of list of specific cities. What we should do regarding them? I think they would give additional advantage for Wikivoyage users compared to having only phone call numbers of local taxi companies, regarding that many Wikivoyage users do not have English as their first language, and may have trouble pronouncing local language street addresses. So should we include them if they say that they cover specific regions? --Vkem (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

See Travellers' pub#National taxi services. I suggest we keep the discussion there, until it is down to national details. –LPfi (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: This paragraph in Denmark#Visas has been changed a couple of times, and I am not sure that the tweaks were done knowledgeably:

"Citizens of all European Union member states, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland may enter with only a valid ID card and stay indefinitely with no restrictions on employment."

Earlier this talked about Schengen citizens and 90 days, which probably wasn't right. I now wonder whether citizens on non-Schengen Cyprus and Ireland (and of future new EU members) can enter without passport, and whether the paragraph tells something specific for Denmark (the earlier wording told that Denmark was special) or is just a reiteration on the freedom of movement in the EEA – which has some restrictions, and is better stated in one place than in the articles of every EEA country, with slightly differing wordings,

–LPfi (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't mind deleting the paragraph altogether since it's just a reiteration of freedom of movement within the EEA. Under EU freedom of movement rules, Irish citizens can travel to Denmark without a passport, but will just need to pass through immigration controls when flying from Ireland to Denmark. See this. I presume Irish citizens will just need to present their ID cards to Danish immigration. The dog2 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. There should instead be a link to European Union#EEA citizens (I added the link to {{Schengen}}), and the info should be there. I am not entirely confident that the current info is correct and complete; neither the page you linked to nor the Danish page linked to in Visas tells to what extent the freedom applies to EEA and Swizz citizens. The current paragraph here was misleading in that it didn't tell about the restrictions. –LPfi (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply