Talk:Nordic Countries Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

i searched under google the following: 'difference between danish and norwegian' and you wouldn't believe the pile of useless junk it came up with, but before i gave up your website came up with the simple, concise answer i needed. thanks again. —The preceding comment was added by 81.178.229.15 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 August 2004 (EDT)

Danish has influenced Norwegian a lot for about 500 years between 1300-1800, when Norway was ruled under the Danish government. Danish has a few typical sound shifts, which Norwegian lacks (except for Danish borrowings) such as *p-*b, *t-*d, *k-*g etc, usually voicing of final consonants. The pronunciation is also quite different, whereas Danish pronunciation could be compared to English, and Norwegian to German, if you understand. Also, Norwegian has a lot of dialectal differences, which Danish generally lacks. But when written, Danish and Norwegian (particularly Bokmål) are very similar, that's true. 81.232.72.148 13:13, 26 Nov 2005 (EST)

Since _culturally_ finland and iceland are part of Scandinavia, I redirected the page to Northern Europe. Hey, people: this is a _travel pages_ not a forum to have 4 different definition for Scandinavian cultural region. People want to get information to their travel, and as everyone knows, the most of the people in english speaking world thinks Iceland and Finland are part of Scandinavia - why do you want to make their travelling more complicated???? —The preceding comment was added by 80.186.246.19 (talk • contribs)

Please respect the wishes of Icelanders and Finns and read the discussion about the name here bellow, the name of this page has not been resolved! A traveling guide still need to be correct, no matter what english speakers think! Einsiol (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I vote to make this page #REDIRECT Northern Europe --(WT-en) JanSlupski 18:00, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

No. I disagree. Scandinavia, Nordic countries, Nordic Europe, and Northern Europe are different regions. Although they overlap, they are not entirely the same. Only redirect IDENTICAL articles. Scandinavia is quite clearly defined and if you are redirecting this to Northern Europe you then cannot redirect Nordic countries or Nordic Europe to the same place. Certainly Nordic Europe could redirect to Nordic countries, but not the other way as Greenland is not in Europe. Having multiple overlaping regions helps the traveler define what places are of interest. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:18, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

You have larger experience that I, but I found having four different articles on five countries very confusing. In my opinion it's better to have one good article which cover all variations, subjects (and terminology) in one place, than spread among places.

Moreover, if you look at histories of these four articles, you can see that all of them shared same text content (in a bit different forms). This is confusing, chaotic and redundant (should traveller print all four articles?). -- (WT-en) JanSlupski

Nordic Europe = Northern Europe. (WT-en) Wojsyl 18:39, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

Can somebody tell why Finland and Iceland shouldn't be included here? Yes, in geographical terms, they are not part of Scandinavia, but they for sure share same cultural heritage than other countries mentioned (especially cultural heritage between Sweden and Finland), and its common in English language that Scandinavia actually means 'Nordic countries'. —The preceding comment was added by 80.186.246.19 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

I agree that having all these little region articles serves no purpose. Scandinavia should redirect to Northern Europe, and the term should be explained in the "Understand" section there. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:42, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

Wikivoyage is not a dictionary or encyclopedia, and our Project:Geographical hierarchy says that regions should not overlap. Northern Europe is a more useful region for the traveller than "Scandinavia", so that's the one we use, and the differences between the two are explained there. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:22, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

This is quite the old conversation. For information on what has happened since, please see Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#2_proposals. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Northern Europe, as defined by Wikipedia includes the Baltic, Britain and Ireland. There for This should not be redirected or referred to as Northern Europe. Geographically eastern half of Iceland and Greenland is not part of Europe so if this is being defined geographically that those arias should not be included.

So we all agree that the definition should be from a cultural standpoint? Than what about Greenland. Culturally its connection is no less than Iceland's. The Nordic console is the only organizations that connects all these countries together politically and culturally. And by its name alone it describes the area as the Nordic Countries, not the Scandinavian Countries. And by that cultural definition Greenland should be part of this page. Many Icelandic travel companies sell tours to Greenland. Einsiol (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll ansver you questions in bullet form for ease of reading:

• I think you mean you mean the Nordic Council.
• Greenlands cultural connection is different from Iceland, since most of the population descents from a branch of the North American Inuit tribes and they do have a significant cultural influence from that. On the other hand Denmarks presence in Greenland have left a cultural connection, but not comparable to Iceland where both the ethnic and political bond points towards Scandinavia.
• Already Greenland is mentioned in the territories section, so the finer points of Greenlands connection with the Nordic countries are already covered.
• While I agree that "Scandinavia" is not technically correct it has, many years ago, in this discussion been established that this is the term that native English speakers will know and use. The page already contains an explanation educating them on the finer point of the subject. The page does say "Nordic Europe" in the explanations which I suggest we replace/augment with "Nordic countries" since that is the term used by both the Nordic Council and Wikipedia to describe the area.
• Already now both Nordic countries and Nordic Europe redirects to the Scandinavia page which means that people searching for the proper term will still find the information they are looking for.

To summarize, I understand your suggestion such that it seems that you want the title of the page to be changed to The Nordic Countries. I think this is not a good idea, since that not is the term the average English speaking traveller will expect. I do think we might spend a little effort in educating the average traveller, but this should not extend to the headline of the page. Mads.bahrt (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Moved from Project:votes for deletion by (WT-en) Evan

• Northern Europe. Made redundant by new Europe categories. All pages which linked to it now link somewhere else. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 18:28, 15 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Disagree - Page should REDIRECT to Europe or somewhere that is similarly relevant. It could be a disambiguation page if multiple pages are relevant. - (WT-en) Huttite 00:59, 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Disagree - REDIRECT, not delete. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:01, 28 Oct 2004 (EDT)
• Agree - DELETE. Nothing links to it so redirect is pointless. -(WT-en) Wikibob | Talk 16:19, 2004 Nov 2 (EST)
  • Uh, I think it's already been reprieved, that's why the discussion was moved here from Project:Votes for deletion -- (WT-en) Hypatia 16:25, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

United Kingdom is described as Northern Europe on its page, but on this page it isn't present. Is the UK northern european or not?

The map is the authoritative source -- it's not red there, so it's not. (WT-en) Jpatokal 16:14, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Agree with Jpatokal - the regional breakdown for Europe has resulted from a lot of discussion, so any changes will need to be talked about first. Updating the United Kingdom article to note that it's in north-western Europe should hopefully resolve this inconsistency. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:19, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

Scandinavia is Only Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Nordic countries are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland (And Fareoe Islands, Åland and Greenland). Check [1], [2] for ref.--83.109.119.113 08:36, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

We Know! the two main authors on this are from Denmark and Finland respectively, so while I'm not saying we can't possibly be wrong, we are certainly aware of the nuances, and not ignorant outsiders. But most English speakers people don't give a rats ass about Scandinavians definition of Scandinavia, and a happy to follow the primary international definition which includes the Nordic countries minus Greenland. coincidentally better reference points - since we are in the travel business might be Lonely Planet, Rough guide and Frommers which all to some degree messes up the purist term as well.

And to quote your own source "Worldwide, casual and unofficial use of the term "Scandinavia" is a common reference to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but also includes Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands." --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 15:58, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

For further conversation, lets keep things consolidated at "Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#Scandinavia?." --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:07, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

By the definition used in the article (including Finland apart from Norway, Sweden and Denmark), the population is actually:

• Norway: 4.7 million
• Sweden: appr 9 million
• Denmark: slightly more than 5 million
• Finland: slightly more than 5 million
• other states incl Greenland, Åland etc have small populations.

So the correct number is 24 million. (WT-en) Orcaborealis 12:10, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

See you've already changed it, but thanks for correcting it - must have been a typo from my part. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 13:30, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I think we also need pictures of Iceland and the Faroe Islands, but what would be good showcases of those two countries? Iceland is probably best represented by volcanic activity, no? So is a Geyser? Lava? or the Blue Lagoon? most representative? Faroe Islands rings Sheeps, Puffins or Steep grassy hills ending into the sea, in my head, which should we look for?

As for food we have the whole Icelandic/Faroe tradition of eating sheep brains/heads and the Norwegian/Swedish tradition of eating rotten (or rather fermented) fish - Surströmming in Sweden and Rakfisk in Norway, which is all fairly unique to Scandinavia, but hmmm, pictures of this? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 08:49, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Eating sheep head is also a tradition in West Norway, in Norway this is called "smalahove". Nowaday it is not uncommon to invite friends for a smalahove-party. The heads are served with potatoes. It is normal to drink beer and aqavit to the heads. I found a picture of this at Wikimedia Commons. There I also found a picture of rakfisk. I have also uploaded my own picture of the geyser Strokkur. (WT-en) ViMy 18:38, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Danish and German is not mutual intelligible, it may be academically, but unless someone has studied German they are not going to understand a word - and that's speaking from 29 years of practical experience. I vividly remember the frequent panic in people's eyes, whenever we had German callers at my old work. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 09:57, 20 February 2010 (EST)

They are Nordic, but not Scandinavian, although Icelandic is a Scandinavian language). Scandinavia consists only of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. --(WT-en) Oddeivind 04:47, 28 February 2011 (EST)

As the second line of the Wikipedia article on Scandinavia states, ". In common English usage, Finland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are often grouped with Scandinavia." What we use here at Wikivoyage is the common English usage. (WT-en) texugo 07:00, 28 February 2011 (EST)

The point is that the common English usage is WRONG! Wikivoyage should not give people misinformation. It is also common that people say "America" when in fact they mean only one particular country (the USA), a fact that doesn´t mean that Brazil (an American country) is a part of the United States. Iceland and Finland is no more a part of Scandinavia than Brazil is a part of the United States! --(WT-en) Oddeivind 10:02, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Educating the English-speaking masses to change the way they speak is not really among our goals. I'd say it's fine to add a note in the Understand section explaining your point, but I'd say it's going to be an uphill battle to get this changed unless you have a real good suggestion for another way that countries in this given region are commonly referred to collectively. I think Scandinavia is about as good as we can come up with. Just have a look further up this page at previous users who have made the same point as you. (WT-en) texugo 10:31, 28 February 2011 (EST)

"The Nordic countries" is the correct term for these five countries, but another solution is to keep "Scandinavia" but to remove Finland and Iceland (but having a comment that these countries are often wrongly called Scandinavian among English-speaking users (mainly due to ignorance about the countries). --(WT-en) Oddeivind 10:38, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Nordic countries is "wrong" as well, since that designation includes Greenland, which we group with the rest of North America.

The first paragraph of Scandinavia#Understand already acknowledges the nuances between the terms. And this naming was fairly extensively discussed before anyway, please see this discussion and the other two discussions that are linked from there. – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:51, 28 February 2011 (EST)

The Icelandic tourist industries does not consider Iceland part of Scandinavia, but as part of the Nordic countries. If this is going to be a travel guide it might as well be correct. This should be known as the Nordic Countries, not Scandinavia. The cultural connection of Iceland is its Nordic heritage, not Scandinavian. Culturally Greenland is part of Europe, even though it is geographically part of North America. Geographically half of Iceland is part of North America. There is also a reason we have the Nordic Console and not the Scandinavian Console. Einsiol (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I note that the official tourism bureaus of Iceland and Finland are actually represented in North America by GoScandinavia [3], the Scandinavian Tourist Boards of North America. --Peter ^Talk 05:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Never heard of GoScandinavia and it doesn't even direct to the correct Icelandic Tourist board website. My point stands from above, the name of GoScandinavia does not change what the correct definition is. The Nordic console is an example of a more broad organization. Einsiol (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

GoScandinavia, a.k.a. "Scandinavian Tourist Boards of North America," is the organization serving as the tourist office for the five countries in North America [4]. And yes, it does link to the correct Icelandic Tourist board website. --Peter ^Talk 07:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Eastern Europe is defined as European Russia (Russia west of the Volga and Urals, which itself is an immense area), Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Baltic states, Romania... this is smaller than Scandinavia? I don't think this is correct and someone needs to check on this and change, if so. Scandinavia is most likely the second largest region in Europe proper, whether one counts Finland (which IS geographically and in most ways culturally part of Scandinavia) and Iceland or not.

BTW, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic are not Eastern Europe. They are part of Central Europe.

-- —The preceding comment was added by 75.175.150.74 (talk • contribs)

I dont know exactly what has been the idea of the list of cities and the reasons how the particular nine cities have been chosen, but as a Finn I dont really understand why Vaasa is the second city from Finland in addition to Helsinki to be mentioned on the list. I would suggest Vaasa to be changed to either Turku (the oldest city and previous capital of Finland, third largest by population and the European capital of culture in 2011) or to Rovaniemi (the most important city in Finnish Lappland and a hotspot for tourims).Jontts (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I just paid more attention also to the other cities outside of Finland which are on the list. So it includes capitals plus Bergen, Aarhus and Gothenburg from Norway, Denmark and Sweden. This points even more to the fact that perhaps Turku should be on the list as well. Turku has many similarities with Bergen, Aarhus and Gothenburg and they have f.e. been sister cities with eachother since 1946. All of them are quite widely considered to be "second cities" in their countries. I still don't really undestand why Vaasa has been included on the list in the first place, but mperhaps there's an explanation for that. Jontts (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not see any good reason, but a possible one: on some maps in small enough scale (Europe or such) Vaasa is at a convenient distance from Helsinki. It is an important town, but nowhere near three-in-top. --LPfi (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would say that the territories of Faroe Islands and Greenland should have their own color with the other countries. They both have their own language, culture and ethnicity.

Greenland should also be added to the map (tours are sold in Iceland to Greenland) Einsiol (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I'll get working on a larger map. --Peter ^Talk 08:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That would be strange. Greenland is not in Europe and very far from Scandinavia. The Faroe Islands I agree with, it's already on the map, it just needs to be colored on the regions list.Globe-trotter (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a valid argument to be made that, in this Scandinavia article, there should be no "Territories" section at all on the grounds that:

Greenland is increasingly culturally and politically separate from Europe (and, therefore, can not readily be considered part of Europe any more than the Netherlands Antilles can be) and

the other territories of Svalbard + Jan Mayen, and the Faroe Islands are considered by their respective countries to be integral parts of the Kingdoms of Norway and Denmark respectively and

the Åland islands although culturally, politically and linguistically distinct are theoretically an integral part of the Finnish state.

Since all three countries are delineated in our "Regions" section (and the internal links there then take one to balanced separate country articles that more fully explain their status), that may be considered sufficient mention.

However, while we do have a "Territories" section, it should be a case of "all or none" - anything else is both bizarre and difficult to justify per the argument I made at Talk:Asia#Hong_Kong. -- Alice^✉ 01:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the map, it would take very little extension to show the coast of Greenland, which is pretty close to Iceland, and is, after all, part of Denmark. --Peter ^Talk 02:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be nice. It is after all connected to the Nordic countries and the connection is certainly non-obvious, interesting and good to know if you happen to come across inuits in Denmark. Showing the coast is a nice hint. --LPfi (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the Term Nordic Europe to Nordic Countries in the explanations. That is the term that the Nordic Council uses in their English printed material. The Nordic Council is the closest thing to a political union that exists for the described region and thus the authoritative source. Obviously that term includes Greenland, but there is still an explanation that it is geographically North America. Mads.bahrt (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good move! -- Alice^✉ 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

From the geographical point of view you might also argue that Iceland is in North America, since the western part of Iceland, including the capital Reykjavik is on the North American tectonic plate. Iceland is also closer to Greenland than to any other body of land, so from the distance point of view Iceland might as well be in North America. But having Iceland as a part of North America is just silly from all other perspectives, and of no help to the traveller since he will expect Iceland to be nested somewhere below Europe, Scandinavia or the Nordic Countries. From that point of view, I think that Greenland should still be on the list, although it should stay under North America in the "part of" breadcrumb hierarchy. Mads.bahrt (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've replaced the old map with one that has more latitudes, showing both Greenland and Svalbard, while preserving basically the exact same style of Stefan's original. --Peter ^Talk 06:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The current map suggests you have to click on Denmark to get to Greenland. These are really two wildly different countries, with a completely different culture and on different continents. Greenland is in North America, not in Europe. Also, now Greenland is included, "Scandinavia" as a title is not appropriate. It already was a stretch, but Greenland is really never a part of "Scandinavia". Globe-trotter (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the article should talk about the Nordic Countries (because that's what people expect), and use that name (using correct terminology is usually a good choice). If we have to use "Scandinavia" as the title or in listings for people to find the article, then so be it, but I think redirects, parenthesis etcetera would do. --LPfi (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, now it should. I think we should just place Greenland in North America, and keep the Scandinavia grouping. Scandinavia is a very logical travel region. Globe-trotter (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greenland still is in North America—the map just acknowledges that it's also (a bit) in Europe. Similarly, Turkey is on the Europe map. I'll update the map later today to give Greenland a different color. I can also make it clickable, which would make it as clear as day that you don't have to click through Denmark to get there! --Peter ^Talk 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree we should re-name (over a re-direct) this article to "Nordic Countries". That way, ignorant folks can be educated as to their error but still find what they are looking for. Does anyone disagree? -- Alice^✉ 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Slightly against I think it's a good idea to spend a few lines educating the traveler, but I see no need to extent this to the headline if the more common term in English speaking countries are Scandinavia. As I pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, there are already redirects from Nordic Countries and Nordic Europe meaning that people using these terms will also find the information they are looking for. Mads.bahrt (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Which part of Greenland is in Europe? I thought Greenland was basically a single island and not analogous to Turkey, a country whose Asian and European parts are separated by water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I often assert totally wrong stuff ;) --Peter ^Talk 06:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greenland is part of the Nordic countries, which makes it natural to mention it in this page. If you mention it it does make sense to adjust the map slightly to indicate its position. Mads.bahrt (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, to have a north-oriented map that includes Iceland and Svalbard (which nobody argues against), then you will naturally have a part of Greenland on the map. From this point of view there is no reason to argue if it should be on the map or not - it simply is. With respect to if it should be mentioned in the article at all, I still think it's natural given its association to the rest of the Nordic countries, and the fact that it is just a short mention in the article Mads.bahrt (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of ways to handle this on the map too. We could leave Greenland grayed out, but put "(Denmark)" under the caption "Greenland." --Peter ^Talk 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I recently updated the Contact section of the Denmark article with a survey of the 3G or 4G options available to foreigners in Denmark. I have now become aware that 3, a telephone operator present in both Denmark and Sweden are selling a prepaid data package that is valid in both Sweden and Denmark with no extra charges. They only sell this product from shops in Sweden, but I think you should be able to refill it from Denmark. I think this is great information to be aware of for travellers going to both Denmark and Sweden, since you avoid the whole problem of having to get a new sim card to get cheaply connected in a new country and being able to spend your last minutes in the neighboring country instead of just wasting them. Do anybody else think this is relevant, and should I mention it in the Scandinavia, Denmark and/or Sweden articles? Mads.bahrt (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

All three - and I think we're changing the name of that section to "Connect" -- Alice^✉ 03:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I added the information with a lot of details to Denmark, since that matched depth of information about Internet connections already in that article. To Sweden I added a few sentences mentioning the fact that this product existed, since that was in line with what was already in that article. For now I don't think I will add anything about this to the Scandinavia article since it only concerns 2 out of 5 countries covered in the article. Also, it will look strange unless I take the time to write a bit more on Internet in the Nordic Countries Mads.bahrt (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greenland is now said to be "geographically and culturally" part of "(native) North America". I suppose this is true, but a bit misleading. As it has been part of Denmark for a long time, it has also been subject of Nordic influences. The Inuits have had Danish education, Danish law and probably a lot of contacts with Denmark. I wonder whether mentioning the cultural ties to native North America without mentioning cultural ties to the Nordic countries is the right thing to do. For me the current wording gives the impression the connection is only a formal (fiscal, political etc.) one. --LPfi (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the wording might be improved since there is both a large native inuit cultural heritage from ancient times and also a Danish and Norwegian cultural influence from the last 300 years. The current wording gives the impression that the cultural heritage is one-sided native North American. Mads.bahrt (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As said above, the article should be re-named to Nordic countries. /Yvwv (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

We've discussed it before and come to the conclusion that even the Nordic countries often group themselves under "Scandinavia", not least on their official tourism website, GoScandinavia.com. It's also the best-understood term in English-speaking areas. Do you have new information that might affect the previous consensus? LtPowers (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia (english) has an accurate discussion of these concepts. I think that a page covering Iceland and Finland should be labeled Nordic countries, Scandinavia can than redirect to Nordic countries. Among Scandinavians the label currently used primarily reflects a common misconception in English. The political body covering the region is called "Nordic council". Scandinavia also refers to the languages of Norway, Sweden and Denmark (plus offspring in the Atlantic). The GoScandinavia.com use the inaccurate term merely because it is better known. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would also support re-naming to Nordic countries. The re-direct deals with the more ignorant of our readers. Do we call our United Kingdom article, "England" or our Netherlands article, "Holland" ?

I'd also suggest that Estonia belongs more naturally in this grouping - but that's another discussion. --W. Frank^email_talk 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

After the breakup of Sovjet Union, Estonia and the other Baltic states have closer ties to the Nordic countries - they are also observers in the Nordic council. From a tourist perspective it is also natural to consider for instance Tallin and Helsinki on the same trip, or a ferry trip from Stockholm to Riga as part of a visit to Sweden - this can be mentioned in the general description and in the "go next section. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Such mentioning would be OK. Combining the articles would be less good, at least unless the Baltic states really join the Nordic council, for which I would not hold my breath. The Nordic welfare model, the Nordic passport union and knowledge of Scandinavian languages (even in Finland half the population is conversant in Swedish) are a few key characteristics where there is quite a big difference between the Nordic and Baltic countries. There are also more subtle issues, perhaps more relevant for a tourist from outside, where your assumptions on Nordic countries will not hold in the Baltic ones. --LPfi (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree. Not practical to merge these articles, and may give the impression that the Baltics and the Nordics are very similar. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

"The GoScandinavia.com use the inaccurate term merely because it is better known." Precisely why we use it too. LtPowers (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

From one perspective the "Scandinavia" label is functional and not problematic, there is a redirect and readers are informed that "Nordic" is the accurate term for what is covered - from the traveler's perspective the "most common English name" is fine. From another perspective it is unsatisfactory to sustain a misconception or an inaccurate terminology. Historically the concept of Scandinavia was limited to the southern part of the peninsula (plus Denmark), and encyclopedias points out that "Scandinavia is erroneously used about all Nordic countries". In Norway (and many other countries I guess), "Holland" is a common (perhaps the most common) name for the Netherlands, the Wikivoyage article is still called Netherlands. Likewise, "Burma" redirects to Myanmar (interestingly, Wikipedia still uses "Burma"). Even if Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia and the heading of the article is not a big deal, I don't think it is right to maintain an error. Regards, --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Eric. Being from a Nordic country, the title feels odd to me. I'd be glad if we could assist in correcting misconceptions, and doing it in the title is probably more effective than explaining. Using the correct title also makes it easier to link to (and otherwise reference) the correct name. But I am biased - I cannot judge whether the change would be confusing for some. --LPfi (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since we have an overwhelming consensus, I'll move the article. --W. Frank^email_talk 15:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Overwhelming consensus? No, Frank, just... no. LtPowers (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

---

• Oxford Dictionary "1) A large peninsula in NW Europe, occupied by Norway and Sweden. It is bounded by the Arctic Ocean in the north, the Atlantic in the west, and the Baltic Sea in the south and east. 1.1) A cultural region consisting of the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark and sometimes also of Iceland, Finland, and the Faroe Islands."
• Merriam-Webster "Definition of SCANDINAVIA: 1) peninsula N Europe occupied by Norway & Sweden. 2) Denmark, Norway, Sweden — sometimes also considered to include Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, & Finland."
• Encyclopædia Britannica "Scandinavia, historically Scandia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark."

Every authority on the English language will agree that Scandinavia is always Norway and Sweden and "generally" Denmark. The addition of Finland and Iceland is always listed as a secondary "sometimes"-meaning. It just speaks to the incompetence of the wiki-approach that we have to stick to the "sometimes"-meaning because someone and their buddy ain't gonna let no dick-son-nery tell them what words mean.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Have you worked on a Wiki before? Wikis make decisions based on consensus, so you just called everyone you'd presumably want to persuade "incompetent." Great move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and as I see this is your second post to Wikivoyage, welcome... Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I don't have a view on this and would support any consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

In principle I agree with Anders Feder. There is no doubt that Scandinavia is Norway and Sweden plus Denmark. One possible byproduct of the current title is that misconceptions in this regard are maintained or reinforced, that is of course unfortunate. On the other hand, Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia, WV takes the perspective of the traveler, while WP focuses on accuracy and neutrality of facts. So the current solution is acceptable, but not ideal, I would support a move such that "Scandinavia" redirects to "Nordic countries" (rather than VV). --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and I'm not suggesting that there should be two separate articles or something crazy like that; but merely the same as you suggest.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I have worked on countless articles on Wikipedia for most of the years of its existence. I am well-versed in the so-called consensus process, and I am not impressed by it. I am not trying to persuade anyone.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you're not trying to persuade anyone, what is motivating you? Just expressing your opinion while dissing everyone on a Wiki you just joined? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be trolling without being very good at it. I haven't "dissed everyone on a Wiki I just joined", and I honestly don't care if you mistakenly thought I did.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey guys. Take it easy. Let us focus on the issue. Currently there is no clear consensus to change. And we must have the traveller's perspective in mind. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The edit
"(Edited Geo tag to ensure that all of the covered countries are visible. Moved the central point west so Some of Greenland was visible since it is more relavant to the article than large parts of Russia.)"
changed the view such that I now, instead of seeing Scandinavia proper (not Finland), Scotland and the Norwegian Sea now see much of Greenland, UK and western Scandinavia.

Does the Geo tag (i.e. the parameters) make assumptions on window resolution of the web browser? Are they chosen by what the editing user happens to be using? There should probably be some advice on choosing a specific window size before deeming what zoom level is appropriate (and about how much context should be visible at that window size).

--LPfi (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can see Kazakhstan and Manitoba on my screen. Unfortunately, the tag (and the mapping software called by it) doesn't have any way of knowing how big one's screen is. Zoom level defines the level of detail, not the visible area. LtPowers (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the zoom level defines the kilometres per pixel resolution and thus what is visible in a window with a certain amount of pixels. At Template talk:Geo#Zoom level and window resolution (which is a better place for the general discussion; I should have begun there) W. Frank suggested that the assumed resolution should be based on netbooks, as these often have a slower connection than desktop computers and changing zoom level therefore is more expensive. --LPfi (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we end this nonsense and move the article where it belongs? While many people are ignorant of the difference (and even ignorant of the fact that anything beyond Sweden, Denmark and Norway exists up there), we should not. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have nothing against that, with a redirect from Scandinavia, but let's see what others say and avoid calling alternate views "nonsense," please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I support the initiative. Scandinavia is not a political entity, and hasn't been since the 16th century. /Yvwv (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was in agreement with this, and very nearly raised this proposal myself. I then read the Wikipedia thread on this w:Talk:Scandinavia#Scandinavia_is_Denmark.2C_Norway_and_Sweden.2C_and_is_an_unambiguous_term and decided to let sleeping dogs lie :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

That thread only discusses whether one can say Scandinavia. "Nordic countries" is unambiguous and correct, while Scandinavia is neither. The argument for Scandinavia is that it is much more used, which may or may not be true. I'd prefer the correct term regardless. Does using it do harm? --LPfi (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Nordic countries" is a purely descriptive term, not a proper noun; we should prefer the latter where possible. If there was a more encompassing placename than "Scandinavia" (like "Nordia" or something), then maybe... Powers ^(talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The same goes for Baltic states and many other supranational regions. /Yvwv (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Nordic countries" is a proper noun, like the Arctic sea, Channel islands, United states of America etc. (if it were only descriptive, you could use it to include Canada, but you cannot). Many proper nouns have their origin in a descriptive term. --LPfi (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

[5], [6] and I am too lazy to search for more. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nordic countries is indeed a proper noun, but I think Scandinavia sounds much more elegant even if our article comprises more than just "real" Scandinavia. Move it if you like, don't if you don't. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

(Back to margin) This depends if we should use the proper name for the region or the name most often used in English. The article includes Finland, Greenland and Iceland, all are part of the Nordic countries, but it is certainly clear that Greenland is not part of Scandinavia, the same is true for Finland and Iceland. Unlike Nordic countries, Scandinavia is not defined formally (as an association). It is still quite clear that Scandinavia is basically the two peninsulas and associated islands separated by Skagerak/Kattegat waters (the name may originate from this area, as can be seen in names Scania or Scandia). The name Fennoskandia is applied to the geological region of Scandinavia, Finland and the Baltic sea. Unfortunately, outside the area these distinctions are largely unknown, or the notion of the Nordic countries are not known at all. Wikivoyage should be written from the traveller's perspective, precise facts and terminology can be found in Wikipedia. It is of course unfortunate if the article reinforces common misconceptions, but for me it is OK to keep the name because it communicates best in English. --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't the fact that it's a synch to redirect from Scandinavia to Nordic countries blunt these concerns? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. So it is not really a big deal, only slightly annoying to Scandinavians, just like Scotland is not part of England. Currently the redirect is from Nordic countries to Scandinavia. I have changed the interwiki links to the more proper Nordic. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Nordic countries" brings about over 4 million Google search results, you cannot say it's absolutely unknown. We can redirect from Scandinavia to Nordic countries and explain at the beginning what the distinction is. Same as we redirect "Britain" to UK or Burma to Myanmar. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Let's make the move. It requires admin privileges, so I can't. /Yvwv (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see a strong consensus to move. And it was moved to an incorrect capitalization anyway. Powers ^(talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can we try to resolve this quickly, so we can fix the breadcrumbs? Right now, the country pages have been moved under Nordic Countries and the country categories are still under Category:Scandinavia, but I don't want to go moving them, if we're about to move this page again. I do not have a strong opinion as to whether it should be Scandinavia or Nordic countries - I slightly prefer the former because it means a geographical region to me, while the latter sounds to be like a cultural moniker like "formerly-Norse-speaking countries". But if it's to be the latter, as LtPowers said, it needs to be Nordic countries, not Nordic Countries. So... move back to Scandinavia or move to Nordic countries, what's it gonna be? Texugo (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think "Nordic countries" is a linguistic marker, as they include Finland, whose main language is non-Indo-European. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Nordic countries" with a lower-case c. /Yvwv (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nordic countries are geographical, cultural and political, they are closely cooperating in an entity called Nordic Council, which is older and encompassing even more than the EU. They even have common embassies, like the Nordic Embassies in Berlin. Scandinavia is geo and cultural as well, but it simply only encompasses DK, N and S, so it is an inappropriate term for the region, much like "German-speaking countries" or "DACH" would be inappropriate for our Central Europe. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

(to margin) Nordic countries is a well-defined geographical area (Scandinavia less so). For instance the Nordic passport free area was established in 1952. As a political association it is now of course much less important than the EU. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

That suits me just fine. Can we go ahead and at least correct the capitalization so we can then fix up the breadcrumb situation? Texugo (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply