Talk:Nordic countries Voyage Tips and guide

There is a project to improve articles about Nordic countries – see the Nordic countries Expedition page.

See also: Talk:Nordic countries/Archive

Contents

It is probably true that the Nordic countries are known for the welfare state and liberalism. But I am not sure if this is so important for the traveller that it should be highlighted in the intro, perhaps move to "understand" section. "Liberalism" is a complex concept and may be interpreted in different ways, perhaps belongs in the intro if reworded something like "liberal way of life". I think the intro should highlight aspects that are most important from the traveller's perspective. --Erik den yngre (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Suggest we keep a "known for" sentence that includes for instance "natural beatuy", "wide space", etc., perhaps something about culture or way of life? Other points to include? Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict]

I think many want to see what a region known for a particular trait really looks like, and to learn what the people there are like. Thus it is worth mentioning, but perhaps not highlighted that much (and if so, at least carefully worded), so I reverted my edit.

Anyway I think the lead could tell something about why the region could be interesting to visit (and this was what popped into my mind, perhaps from the Understand section). Now only low population density and location are mentioned, the rest is way down in the Understand section.

As only some people come here to go out in the wilderness, I still think something could be told about the societies.

--LPfi (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree that society and culture should be mentioned in the intro. The welfare state and "Nordic model" are of course important traits of the Nordic societies, and is certainly relevant background information - but I think not the most important issues from the travellers' perspective. Perhaps mention something about strong egalitarian norms instead? This quickly touches on political issues so careful wording is needed. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think you're overthinking it a bit. All the stuff you've mentioned should be in there somewhere; I thought LPfi's self-reverted addition was perfectly fine as a starting point, for instance. Powers ^(talk) 20:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regardless how one defines the word "liberalism" (economic or personal freedom) it is dissonant with Nordic values and policies. In the Nordic countries themselves, "liberalism" usually means economic freedom; however, these countries have the highest tax rates in the developed world, with highly regulated markets for labour and housing. When it comes to personal freedom (which tend to define liberalism in an Anglo-Saxon context) all countries have zero tolerance against narcotics, and Sweden and Norway criminalize prostitution. Three of the countries are hereditary monarchies, and the Lutheran church has remaining privileges above other religions. There are other words that describe Nordic values better. /Yvwv (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I certainly agree that it should be in there somewhere. The extensive welfare state is important, but in my opinion it is not a key information for the traveller, perhaps more important is for instance that these countries are among the richest in the world. So it is not harmful mentioning the welfare state in the intro, just a matter of what info should have priority. I have strong doubts above the term "liberalism" as this can be perceived as a political view or way of organizing the economy (the Nordic countries are usually regarded as coordinated, not liberal, economies). If "liberalism" means liberal moral or lifestyle, then I agree, but then we should differet words. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The guide is quite comprehensive, but only at outline status. The criteria for usable regions (including "continental sections") are:

"Has links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better), and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. The most prominent attractions are identified with directions."

"The most prominent attractions" are probably quite easy to fix. There are sections on e.g. viking and royal heritage, great outdoors and northern lights. Is full listing format expected? The listings proper are now three, while I think many more (e.g. among Unesco sites) are worth mentioning.

Among the cities Oslo is usable, while the others are guide or above (Copenhagen). The other destinations are less developed:

• Gotland is outline because of its regions. Including Visby instead is probably unproblematic – that is where first-time visitors go.
• Jostedalsbreen, a glacier park article is an outline. The Get in is quite sketchy and there are no proper attractions. I think attraction listings is not what is foremost needed in such park articles, but the text describing what the park has to offer could be expanded. Our policy on tours is in conflict with the advice to always use guides; the article should describe typical tours offered (and does). Are there good examples how to handle such parks?
• Laponia is a national park system. The article is a real outline, missing most information.
• Mývatn is a usable region article.
• Nordkapp is a usable "city" article.
• Nuuksio National Park is guide.
• Saariselkä is a usable "city" article.
• Stevns Cliff is a usable "city" article.
• Sydfynske Øhav is guide.
• Þingvellir National Park is usable.

So if Visby is substituted for Gotland, then Jostedalsbreen and Laponia are the linked articles holding back the status. Perhaps Erik could improve the former. I think we have no Swedish outdoors enthusiast, so there is little hope for Laponia for the moment. Does that mean we cannot get this up to usable?

--LPfi (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will try to do some improvements of Jostedalsbreen. Some points are difficult to fix: The main attraction is the glacier itself. Man-made attractions are listed under "See". I will try to improve "Get in", but difficult because the glacier is wide and fragmented. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In March I did some improvements, any ideas for additional info needed about the glacier?`Erik den yngre (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that work. The article has improved a lot since what I wrote above. I am not sure what is needed for upgrading status (especially the "attractions with directions" bit) but I suppose the article is "usable". Price, coordinates, url and description for the cabins mentioned would be good to have. The most difficult part would be adding more prose to describe the landscape and the tours in a suitable manner, cf guide park articles or star park articles such as Isle Royale National Park. --LPfi (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Prices are difficult. There are some cabins/lodges within the park, but this are not very relevant for most visitors. Around the perimeter there are lots of accomdation. Jostedalsbreen is wide, perhaps 6-7 hours or more to drive all around, so it is difficult to describe as a place. --Erik den yngre (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Laponia is now usable, mostly thanks to MartinJacobson. Gotland is still at outline, although the change of districts have made it easier to get it to usable. Having Visby instead, as I suggested, is difficult as there already are nine cities in the list. --LPfi (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why Nordkapp is tagged as city. Nordkapp is not inhabited, although the municipality is. --Erik den yngre (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

We call most destinations "city". I am not sure "park" would suit much better. It is anyway in the "Other destinations" section, so is not competing with Visby. As long as we do not want to swap out Aarhus, Bergen or Turku, or one of the capitals, it is Gotland that has to be the destination. But it might not be one of the most important destinations, and in that case the article does not need to be usable until we want this article to be guide (which requires work at least on the national regions). --LPfi (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd happily help trying to get Gotland to usable status. I upgraded Fårö, one of four listed destinations on Gotland, to usable status today. Gotska Sandön and Karlsöarna are much smaller and therefore a bit more difficult, but I'll try to improve them as well. However, I am not very experienced in writing region articles (how much can you add to "Eat" in a small region without listing restaurants?) and I am not sure what is needed for them to qualify as usable (how can a traveler "eat, and sleep with just this information" without listing specific venues?), so any help in improving the Gotland article would be much appreciated! MartinJacobson (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Quite frankly, even after a decade or so of existence, we still somewhat struggle with some region articles; developing them and defining what should be in them. The German articles below the Bundesland level are a particular example. Gotland being an island should - at least in theory - be somewhat easier, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can someone explain to me how is Finland "The most remote and perhaps the most conservative"? That isn't really something that raises your interest in travelling there. Ä Vinnis Persön (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some people are repelled by liberal societies and prefer conservative ones, and some people prefer remote places to those on the beaten path. So my only question would be whether that's a misleading statement or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd call that misleading, at lest what I've seen, Finland is as liberal/conservative as other ones.

There are many other words to describe Finland in short. "Remote" is a relative term, which could be true to British readers, but less meaningful to Americans or Australians. /Yvwv (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If it's either misleading and/or not useful, anyone who would like to edit should go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Made a banner of a photo of the Three Country Cairn. What do you think? The current banner could be used for northern Norway or Troms instead. /Yvwv (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great work, but I prefer the current banner - nicer, higher-quality pic, and red houses are more "Nordic" to me than random people in raincoats. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The point is of course that the picture represents three of the countries. /Yvwv (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Very appropriate, thematically, but I'm afraid it's just not a compelling image, especially without that necessary context. Powers ^(talk) 21:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Agree with LtPowers. Appropriate and interesting, but because of colors/light and lack of context I dont think I will recommend a change. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

A propos User talk:Yvwv#Intercity buses in the Nordic Countries

There are many bus operators in the Nordic countries; both public and private. Currently, I however see no purpose of an Intercity buses in the Nordic countries, however. Most routes are within one country, and most operators which cross borders, also serve non-Nordic countries such as Germany. /Yvwv (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are those companies sufficiently mentioned in Intercity buses in Germany and/or Intercity buses in Europe? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict] Yes, one reason being that the land borders are in the very sparsely populated far north. Over there Eskelisen Lapin linjat (the dominating operator in the far north of Finland besides Golden line, the former post buses) has connections to Norway, but they are probably best handled in the Get in sections of Troms, Finnmark, Finnish Lapland and the "cities" in question. I suppose there are services over the Haparanda/Tornio border, but they probably go only to a nearby town on the other side of the border (Luleå, Oulu?). Is it difficult to establish such lines?

If there are international companies involved on the Finnish intercity lines, they hide behind old Finnish trademarks (except Onnibus).

--LPfi (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

No I was asking, whether the two mentioned articles currently mention those Nordic bus companies relevant to them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for awful threading (I tried to complete Yvwv's answer). For your second question: I do not know how big or important the currently mentioned companies are, neither do I know that about those in Sweden. I think the article needs quite some expansion before I can tell what really belongs there. --LPfi (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is snus use that common? In Finland selling it is illegal and I suppose few people outside the Swedish speaking regions close to Sweden use snus (3 % total). Smoking has gone down radically regardless (10 % of the young smoke daily, 5 % of highly educated adults, 20 % of all adults). Is tobacco use now much more common in Sweden than in Finland? And does Denmark, Iceland and Norway share the Swedish snus culture? I thought Sweden was alone on this. --LPfi (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

In Norway it is common. About 25 % of 16-24 years of age use snus daily or now and then, more common than smoking tobacco. 25-44 years snus is also more common than smoking tobacco. --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Forbes says that Singapore, Hongkong, Zurich, Tokyo, New York etc are the most expensive. Copenhagen ranks 9th. So "very" expensive depends what you compare to. Some things are actually free or not particularly expensive by international hotel accomodation for instance is not expensive compared to major cities. --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comparison is difficult (depends what items are inlcuded), but the comparisons I have found list Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm along with NY City, Zurich, Tokyo etc on top. So it does not seem fair to say that the Nordics are much more expensive than these major cities. --Erik den yngre (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been to all the Nordic countries, but I am from Singapore, have lived in New York City, and been to Tokyo, Hong Kong, London and Reykjavik. From my experience, the price of food, hotels and consumer prices in general was the highest in Reykjavik among all these cities. The cost of living index that you see in magazines typically includes rent as well, so if you are living there, that would be different, because Singapore, New York City, Tokyo, Hong Kong and London are all very densely populated and have astronomically high real estate prices (for instance, Singapore has about the same population as Denmark, but squeezed into an area smaller than Hong Kong). And not to mention that the cost of buying a car in Singapore is ridiculously high because the government levies very high taxes to control the car population. But if you are just visiting as a tourist, at least from my experience with Iceland, I think it's fair to say that the Nordics are more expensive than a lot of these major cities. And based on accounts from friends who have lived in London, they actually say that food is a lot more expensive in Norway. The dog2 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the expensiveness really depends. The right to access can enable a rather cheap vacation and while alcoholic beverages are expensive, nobody forces anybody to partake. Public transit is a good option for getting around in many places and not outrageously priced, but if you intend to stay in city center hotels and drove you're gonna have an expensive time of it. I think we should not give a blanket statement so much as lining out where the expensive and the cheap parts are. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I tried to look at comparisons as tourist destinations, that is, prices for the things short term visitors typically buy or pay for. There are many webpages that do such comparisons and rankings (not sure how reliable and systematic all of these are so I tried to look at serious newspapers/magazines).

• Daily Mail
• [www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/The-worlds-most-expensive-countries-to-visit/ Telegraph]
• Backpacker index

Venice, Amsterdam, London, Paris ranks among the Scandinavian capitals. These rankings also depend on exchange rates. After the finance crash in 2008 Iceland was relatively cheap, but I guess now back near the top. Actual costs also depend on style of vacation: Americans often rent a car also for a city stay, while this is less common in Europe partly because public transport is good (better than self-drive and often faster than taxi). So I think Hobbitschuster's point is important: We should be more specific about what is expensive and not, and what does not matter for the average visitor. For instance a taxi from Oslo airport is very expensive (there are lots of complaints about this, some first time visitors think it is a scam), but there is usually no reason to take a taxi (the train is twice as fast and one tenth price). Erik den yngre (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it depends on what your travel purpose is. For instance, rent does not matter for the average visitor, so whether a place is cheap or expensive can differ drastically depending on whether you are a tourist or living there. If you live in Singapore as an expatriate, then the price difference between Singapore and Oslo will shrink substantially compared to if you're a tourist because rents in Singapore are a lot higher than in Oslo, so that that would have to be taken into account too. But if you are just there as a tourist, you can eat relatively cheaply (~US$3 for a meal at a local food stall), so you may find Singapore to be a cheap destination as you don't have to worry about paying rent. The dog2 (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

True. The list published by Daily Mail emphasises items on the visitor's shopping list (rather than cost of living for inhabitants). While the list may have some flaws, it does focus on the right things. To be fair and informative I think the article should mention what is particularly expensive and what is not. Such comparisons are difficult for instance because quality also differs and the price tag may not include the same. For instance, breakfast is usually included in hotel rates in Scandinavia but for instance not in North America or France (according to my memory). And as mentioned above, I would not include cost of taxi in a comparison (as Daily Mail did): Everybody needs a place to sleep, but there are many alternatives to taxis. To complicate further: Norwegians for instance tend to emphasise alcohol and good weather (sunshine) on vacation because it is expensive/less available at home. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's my experience too that the Nordic countries are expensive compared to the rest of the world, with Norway and Iceland more expensive than Denmark, Sweden and Finland. I can't remember finding a non-Nordic country as a whole particularly expensive, even Switzerland would be about on par with Finland.

Places like Paris do certainly have tourist traps, but this doesn't mean the country as a whole is particularly hard on your wallet. On the other high taxes and wages are major reasons making the Nordic countries expensive, hence goods and services aren't really cheaper in non-touristy places. Nevertheless, Nordic countries might not be so expensive for locals. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

In terms of expensive places, I'd say Australia is rather expensive too, most certainly compared to the US, UK, Canada and Japan, but not on the same level as Iceland. And speaking of alcohol, Singapore is actually more expensive than Australia, but Iceland is even more expensive than Singapore. When it comes to food, if you go to where the locals eat and avoid the tourist traps, you can actually find cheap food in Hong Kong and Tokyo, and something reasonably priced in New York and London, but everything in Reykjavik was expensive even if you avoid the tourist traps. Of course, I acknowledge that the fact that I speak Cantonese and Japanese will probably make some of the real local places in Hong Kong and Tokyo more accessible to me than to most other foreign tourists. And from what I understand, citizens of the Nordic countries get free healthcare and free education all the way up to university, which helps to offset the high cost of services and groceries, but obviously a tourist wouldn't be a beneficiary of these.

But anyway, perhaps we can say that the Nordic countries are very expensive for tourists. I guess that would be a fair statement, as it excludes people who are living there as expatriates, for whom the situation would be a lot more complicated. I can say that in Singapore, even though hotel breakfast is not included by default, you can easily get a cheap breakfast at a local coffee shop or hawker centre for something like $2 (~US$1.50). The dog2 (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think we can. For the record, the only thing I found "a little" expensive in Singapore was the Singapore Sling at Raffles, while riding the MRT and eating at hawker centres were almost free ;). Australia was pretty much comparable with Finland (slightly cheaper than other Nordic countries). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the average visitor, yes, Nordics are very expensive, but I am not sure if we need use that phrase if we anyway emphasize: "particularly when it comes to services, lodging, taxis, alcohol and tobacco". This reads: The Nordics are generally expensive and some things are even more expensive. I think it is more informative to be specific, then we can also avoid blanket statements. Visitors should be able to use this for planning ("should I go there?") and for being prepared ("what should I avoid when there?"). Visitors should certainly not avoid the Nordics because taxis are expensive, and hotels are about the same as elsewhere in western Europe.

I removed this claim "making even major world cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York City and London look cheap by comparison" because I think it is an exaggeration. Instead I wrote: "generally comparable to major world cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York City and London". Erik den yngre (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

One feature that makes the Nordic countries stand out from other "expensive" destinations, is the absence of really cheap options for dining, drinking, lodging and services. Even if you are far from business and tourist districts, a restaurant lunch (even a hamburger) will likely cost at least 6€, and a hairdresser who charges less than 20€ is likely to get a visit from the tax agency. /Yvwv (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

In New York City, you can go to the Halal Guys and get a meal of rice with lettuce, tomato with chicken or lamb, and a coke for US$5. In Tokyo, you can go to a noodle stand and get a a bowl of udon or soba for ¥300 (~US$3-4). In Hong Kong, you can get a bowl of congee in a cheap local place for HK$35 (~US$4.50). London is a bit more expensive, but you can find meals for £5. I never managed to find options anywhere close to those kinds of prices in Reykjavik except for a small hot dog bun (You get a hot dog bun at twice the size for about $2.50 in New York City).

And yes, I will attest to the fact that alcohol is expensive in Singapore. Alcohol was the one thing a tourist would likely spend on that I found to be cheaper in Australia than in Singapore. On the other hand, I most certainly remember considering whether to get a bottle of wine at a restaurant in Iceland, only to be put off by the high price tag. The dog2 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not surprised. It seems the high price of wine works as a reason to add the double themselves. The bargains here are a student lunch (Finland only; €6.10 for outsiders, +€0.80 for coffee) or self catering (porridge with self-picked bilberries? €0.10?), and an off season cabin (€40?) or a night in the woods. --LPfi (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

A little follow-up, the Economist lists the most expensive cities (based on a broad sample of 50,000 prices): 1. Singapore, Singapore 2. Paris, Frankrike (up since last year) 3. Zurich, Sveits (up) 4. Hong Kong, Hong Kong (down) 5. Oslo, Norge (up) 6. Geneve, Sveits (up) 6. Seoul, Sør-Korea 8. København, Danmark (up) 9. Tel Aviv, Israel (up) 10. Sydney, Australia (up) 13. New York (down) 14. Los Angeles

Cheapest: 133. Damaskus, Syria (down 14) 132.Caracas, Venezuela (down) 131. Almaty, Kazakstan (up) 130. Lagos, Nigeria (up) 129. Bangalore, India (up) 127. Karachi, Pakistan (up) Erik den yngre (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd still take this with a pinch of salt though. I went back to Singapore for Christmas, and it most certainly felt cheaper than Reykjavik or Sydney, at least as far as consumer prices go. Of course, being a local, I know where to find the bargains while a tourist may not be privy to such information but nevertheless, the figure used by the Economist is very likely distorted by the very high real estate prices and car prices in Singapore. The cost of both these things are much higher than in Sydney or Oslo, but these are things a tourist would probably not be concerned about; it's more of an issue if you actually want to move to Singapore. And also keep in mind that these surveys often assume that as an expatriate, you'll want to eat only Western food. If you are willing to eat the local food, you can save quite a lot of money. The dog2 (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hobbitschuster: I suppose Nordic people "tend to be distant and reserved towards strangers", and we will seldom bother people keeping their distance, but the rest of the description does not feel right:

While urban dwellers may be a bit more open, part of the reason why people in the countryside live where they live is to get away from other people, and there is a lot "away from other people" in the Nordic countries.

My impression is not that people live in the countryside to avoid others, they just stayed there when the rest left for jobs in the cities. Indeed, many people move to cities to avoid the tight communities, where neighbours actually care about them. Knock at a door in the most sparsely inhabited regions and you will probably be invited to drink coffee!

I think the reservedness has more to do with not caring about small talk. In the countryside it is probably also about them actually caring about what kind of person you are, they are making a commitment when accepting you into the community. If you do approach somebody, most people will be happy to help. When it comes to making friends things are more complex, but the the Guardian article on refugee welcoming in Nagu may be worth reading for one perspective. A similar attitude is found in many countryside communities.

--LPfi (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you're right. I remember hearing a Canadian express the sentiment that if people bother you there's plenty of countryside to move to where you can do your thing and be left alone. By all means edit accordingly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

That might have been said by somebody who never visited the backwoods. And Canada may be different from the Nordic countries (never been there). I removed it for now, as writing a good description on such matters is hard, and most of it probably belongs in Understand rather than Respect. If somebody finds a good way to characterize the Nordic people in this respect, that would be valuable, as I think it is a commonly known trait (or prejudice). --LPfi (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Difficult to get this right. Perhaps something about "private space". Visitors and imigrants to Norway often complain that Norwegians dont chat with strangers on the bus, one observer then explained that it is sign of respect not to bother others, that in the Nordic area there is more "private space" around the individual. Erik den yngre (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the Nordic countries, the bar for people to start discussing things with strangers "without a good reason" on the street or the bus is certainly higher than for example in Southern Europe or the US. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most of the northern areas are unavailable by train, in Finnmark and Troms for instance there are no lines at all. So perhaps more fair to say the trains are «adequate in central parts» of the Nordic countries? --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Or "... except in the islands and the far north"? --LPfi (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes perhaps. But "far north" is a bit vague. Norway's rail network ends at Bodø/Fauske, that is in fact only half way to Nordkapp (North Cape). So measured by distance only 50 % of Norway is connected by railway. Finland's rail roughly reaches the arctic circle at Rovaniemi. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

In Finland - and I suppose also in Sweden - Lapland is considered to be very far to the north. Already Oulu (which I suppose is halfway) is considered to be far in the north among most people in southern Finland (it goes both ways, Sodankylä is in the south by Utsjoki standards, but in this context I think the Helsinki perspective is more relevant). The term Nordland for something less than halfway suggests Norway is similar. And if we think internationally, Bodø and Rovaniemi are indeed in the far north. If you find a better wording, by all means go for it, but people who need less vague information get that in the countries' By rail sections. --LPfi (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not a big deal, details are on country articles anyway, but common questions from visitors to Norway include "taking the train to Lofoten" or "...to Tromsø" or "from Alta to Rovaniemi". North of the arctic circle (roughly) there is practically no rail network. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Norway and Sweden has the fewest accidents measured as deaths per 1 million inhabitants. https://www.nrk.no/ostfold/norge-er-verdens-mest-trafikksikre-land-1.14015688 --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC) See also w:List of countries by traffic-related death rate --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. Still I think "among the lowest" is better than "the lowest". The former will probably stay true for, say, the next ten years, while the latter changes from year to year and depends on what exactly is measured (and it seems only two of the Nordic countries are in the top five even now). --LPfi (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good points. I just wanted to emphasise this as there are some misunderstandings (for instance Norway's roads are very safe despite the many curves and tunnels) and complaints (low speed limits and on average careful driving). --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Road deaths in Norway has declined steadily from around 500 annually around 1970, to around 100 currently, despite the increase in road traffic, quite an achievement actually, and I guess the same is more or less true for other Nordic countries. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. In Finland, which seems to be the most dangerous, 20th on the Wikipedia list, the fatalities have declined from over 1,000 to less than 300. Far from the zero vision but a similar trend. --LPfi (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

One common culture shock between Swedish people and foreigners (especially non-Westerners) is the view of favours such as gifts, services and hospitality. Except for family and long-time friends, Swedish people can be reluctant to accept a gift of more than a token value, without some kind of payback, and conversely giving something away (even a cigarrette, or a light meal at their own house). The point is that no-one should be financially dependent on others, or be forced to have a debt on their record (the Swedish word for "debt" (skuld) is the same as "guilt"). This has caused situations where Swedes have been perceived as ungrateful (for turning down a gift) or tight-fisted (for not providing for long-time visitors).

First: is this trait shared with other Nordic people? Second: Shall Wikivoyage address this? /Yvwv (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it is a shared trait, with the explanation you provide. There might be different nuances, both among countries and between people in the individual countries. I'd say offering or asking for a cigarette is a common icebreaker among smokers over here (Finland), and serving a meal for a guest staying long enough that you wouldn't like to postpone yours is also common manners (although dinner time could be interpreted as a not so small hint you have stayed too long). The coffee pot may be put on as soon as a guest (invited or not) is over the doorstep, and coffee offered with no expectation of payback.

One situation where the problem emerges is at restaurants and pubs, where everyone is supposed to pay for themselves, and the foreigner who offers a round or pays all the bill may be met by confusion.

In the countryside, where people are more dependant on one another, help and hospitality is offered more easily, and usually appreciated. I suppose people would still be reluctant to accept expensive gifts.

--LPfi (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Did not think about this before, but perhaps you are right. In Norwegian skyldfolk (people one is indebted too or have shared ownership with) is an old word for family or relatives. I think the costume in Norway now is: If you are invited to a relatively informal party with friends and friends-of-friends it is costumery to bring a nice bottle of wine or something for the host. For an afternoon coffee or something with long time friends you dont need to bring anything. Close or long time friends (and family of course) can offer bed or sofa for 2-3 night, but not among distant friends or acquaintences, and even among close friends 2-3 nights is max, and friends that stay like this are expected to share for instance by buying food, cleaning/helping out and inviting the host for a nice dinner out. Offering food or cigarettes to strangers is uncommon. The kind of hospitality common in the Middle-East is rarely seen in the Nordics, my impression. --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many children of immigrants to Sweden have the same childhood story; they were invited over to a Swedish playmate, and had to wait in the bedroom while the Swedish family had dinner, without getting a seat at the table (which would be the normal case in other country). At least within the working class, Swedish people have seemed reluctant to invite anyone for a meal, except at planned occasions. One reason could be that food was rather expensive in Sweden well into the 1980s, and that we used to have a rather functionalist approach to eating. /Yvwv (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In Norway I think children would be offered food. But in general my impression is that in Norway you dont offer gifts to random strangers, even small things like cigarette. Even persons you are introduced are not assumed to present expensive gifts, in formal (business) setting that could also be perceived as bribe (I think civil servants are not allowed to keep gifts, such gifts are regarded as government property). Not sure if we are able to conclude. My impression is that Swedes are more formal with more formal politeness (like in England), while at the same time there is a more strict line between the private and the public, gifts I guess belong to the private space. Erik den yngre (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

A standup comedian in Sweden (with roots in the Balkans) has observed that treating (bjuda) works different in Sweden than other countries. If his friend or workmate takes him out for lunch, they expect him to return the favour soon, and would call him out as thrifty if he would not. I would say he is on spot. /Yvwv (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Everybody paying their own share is a common scenario. I think the "rules" can be very confusing, depending on your company and whether you really were invited for lunch (does that happen? for dinner yes, but for lunch?) or your friend just found having lunch together would be a good idea. And in a romantic setting I suppose it is even worse, as not paying when supposed to would make a very bad impression, while paying also could mean you think the lady (or man) is not able to support herself, which could be an insult. Here you have to have delicate senses or make your intentions clear from start. I mentioned the problem in Respect, but I suppose one could say it in a better way. --LPfi (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd say it depends on the company you're going out with, if acquaintances/not so close friends get together, everyone will pay for themselves. If you're good friends and there are say only a few of you, it's a possible scenario that one pays for everyone in the party, especially if you're just having a coffee and a bun in a café or something of that kind. But there's really no strict rule that would be followed in all cases. ϒψιλον (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a paradox that nordics are reserved yet are relatively relaxed about nudity or showing skin in public. Not uncommon to see women sunbathing topless in parks and small children play nude in public on warm days. IN my experience southern Europe has more strict norms, perhaps North America too. And in Norway there is actually no law against nudity in public, instead there is a flexible rule about "not to offend" - locals know what this means, but may be difficult for visitors. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suppose a visitor should not be the first to get topless in a public park. But yes, it is probably worth explaining. Not necessarily easy to say the essential clearly without straying away in details. --LPfi (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are some issues with the Get in-sections By ferry and By car, which I cannot fix right now.

1. The ferry line table is arranged by column instead of by row, which has alignment issues, in addition to making it impossible to copy a row (for verification or use – I suppose it may also cause more severe usability issues).
2. A Rostock line is said to be handled by Tallink Silja, but the URL points to Finnlines.
3. The By car section gets lost in details about connections through Denmark to Sweden, including info on congestion fees in Stockholm.

--LPfi (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The section is almost certainly out of date, for example any Rostock route from Finland for passengers hasn't existed for years, so an update is definitely useful. I could look into it sometime later.

Also I'd say we should in this article just give an overview from where to where ferry routes taking you to the Nordic countries generally go, rather than a comprehensive directory with crossing times and everything (that would better fit into the Baltic Sea ferries article and individual city and maybe country articles). --Ypsilon (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added a few lines about ferries on the roads within Norway. Perhaps add some general points about ferries within Finland and Sweden too? Mostly on lakes I guess. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added a little bit about them. Ferries are also important in Denmark (were even more so before the Öresund and Big Belt bridges were constructed some 20 years ago). Ypsilon (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know what this means in reference to Norway? Sdkb (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Vikings and their travels? --Ypsilon (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why is Vaasa highlited on the map alongside with Helsinki? Vaasa isn't too big of a city and, while being an alright destination, not excactly touristy. Better options for the other city would be Tampere (biggest inland city in the Nordic Countries), Turku (the old capital and a tourist destination), or if you want some place upper north then Oulu (the biggest city in the Northern part of Finland) or Rovaniemi (the capital of Lapland and a tourist hotspot). Ä Vinnis Persön (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not fixed. Anybody that can help?? --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think we should avoid the term "Nordic language" (even if formally correct) as it suggests that languages of the Nordic countries is one family. Better just write North Germanic. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, I removed it (not in the mood of arguing about it right now). I think it has some merits, e.g. as these languages are an important reason to talk about Nordic countries to begin with, but it might be better discussed in the Understand, as it probably is to some extent. –LPfi (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Swedish, Norwegian and Danish academia, the term nordiska språk/nordiske sprog includes contemporary North Germanic languages but no Finno-Ugric languages. English academia might have a slightly different terminology. /Yvwv (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is Åland its own country? Since that's a no, is there any significance to why it's in the "countries" section. Is it because of it being in Finland but speaking Svenscka or is there any disputes there? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 02:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Åland has a high degree of autonomy, and a national identity on its own. Åland is strictly Swedish-speaking, in contrast to Finland which is officially bilingual with Finnish being de facto dominant. Being an archipelago, Åland cannot be reached by land from mainland Finland. /Yvwv (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see. I've never been here, but my dad a long time ago. But still, it's not its own country, despite having its own national identity (and my dad says that they're pretty dominant on that). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict – got interrupted and did not save] The language issue is irrelevant; there are areas on the mainland where Finnish is spoken by few (a mother tongue by 3.6 % of people in Korsnäs – and while the language is compulsory in school, proficiency might be on the same level as for German or French).

Åland is autonomous, as are the Faroes (and Greenland), and they are (I think) independent members of the Nordic Council. Åland would like to have their own representative in the European Parliament. And I understand if the Ålanders think it is wrong that the Faroes are treated as a country while Åland is not – it is also confusing the status/relations; they are treated the same in Nordic context.

How autonomous an area is is one thing, but on Wikivoyages we don't always follow the official conventions. The Faroes and Åland are island groups, so it is not difficult for a visitor to notice crossing the border from the "mainland". The article Faroe Islands says that a Schengen visa does not apply there, while it does apply for Åland. On the other hand there is a (non-visible) customs border between Åland and the rest of Finland.

You could treat Åland as a province like any other, with some pecularities such as their centralised transport (Ålandstrafiken handles more or less all public transport except inside Mariehamn). The reason not to treat it just as a province or region is more or less respect to their status. Not recognising it could severely offend locals (so a traveller should not keep being ignorant about it, even after just cursorily reading our guides).

Then we have the hierarchy aspect. Seven Nordic countries is in the 7±2 range, and Finland's 5 current regions (including Åland) is also OK. I think breadcrumbing Åland via Finland is the natural way to do it, but mentioning Åland in any list of the Nordic countries, such as now in the Countries section of this article and by this change in Europe, feels natural. I don't know whether not rigorously following the breadcrumb hierarchy in these two articles is a problem.

–LPfi (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not Åland is a country is less important. Overseas dependencies are usually breadcrumbed to their respective continent as countries. In fact Hong Kong and Macau are breadcrumbed directly under East Asia even not being overseas – and their connection with China is not even mentioned, nor implied, in the continent or continental section articles. –LPfi (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think at least Åland should be connected to Finland. Svalbard has a unique situation in international law (and Svalbard is wider than mainland Denmark...) but regarded and mentioned as a part of Norway. I am less sure about Faroe Islands, but perhaps not a big deal. But Åland I think is to small to warrant mention at the same hierarchy level as Sweden and Finland. Erik den yngre (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

An editors note: in many articles about Finland and Sweden, "few" is used instead of the intended "a few", probably either because Finnish editors have problems with articles (the Finnish language doesn't even have definite and indefinite forms), or because it is confused with other words, especially Swedish några ("a few"). The mistake seems to be common enough that I think copy editors should be watching for it in these articles. –LPfi (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. I'll try and keep a look for this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's also an ongoing issue in articles about the Indian Subcontinent. Evidently, in Indian (Pakistani, etc.) English, "few" does mean what "a few" means in other dialects (the difference being that "few" means "almost none" while "a few" means "several", so the connotation of "a few" is positive, emphasizing more than two, and the connotation of "few" is negative, emphasizing close to zero). Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that how that word works in every variety of English? Both are found in Shakespeare: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" and "You few that loved me/And dare be bold to weep for Buckingham" for the one meaning, and "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none" and "Here are a few of the unpleasant'st words that ever blotted paper!" for the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Shakespeare isn't in Indian English, and I've seen enough edits in articles about India to know that they use "few" the way other English dialects use "a few". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

We seem to have ten other destinations listed, but we can only have a max of nine per wv:7+2. I've visited some of these places, but I'm not an expert and would defer to someone else as to pick which ones to remove. And as a side note, why isn't Vatnajokull National Park listed? Pinging @LPfi, Yvwv, Ypsilon, Erik den yngre:. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The other destinations were discussed above in #Article status, including whether to swap out some of them, but nobody seemed to realise there were ten of them. Two per country is quite fair, although none of the autonomous regions or off islands are represented.

Iceland now has Þingvellir National Park, which I suppose is right. Perhaps Mývatn should be replaced by Vatnajökull. But what country should lose their second listing? For Finland, I think the easily accessible Nuuksio National Park could be worth keeping (as much wilderness as a non-wilderness backpacker would ever like, conveniently in reach for a day trip), while Saariselkä hardly is the ski resort of the Nordic countries. Urho Kekkonen National Park gives it a trump, but still. The park itself would compete with Laponia, which is a UNESCO site. For Finland, I think the Archipelago Sea is the unique experience (not in the current list). Norway has Nordkapp, which although not a place where you'd return time after time, still a well-known "must" for many people. Jostedalsbreen represents the nature of Norway, which I think is the last aspect of the Nordic countries not to list here. I'd say Stevns is the one in the list the average visitor would be the least disappointed not to have been told about. Stevns Cliff should still be highlighted somewhere, but perhaps better in See, and in some article on geology, palaeontology or some such.

–LPfi (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

For Iceland, I also too think Þingvellir and Vatnajokull National Parks seem the best. For Norway, Nordkapp is a must (it would be a dotm if it were ever to become a guide). For me, Jotunheimen National Park and Hardangervidda were highlights on my trip to Norway during 2018, but I'm not sure if they're the most representative of the Nordic countries as a whole. For Denmark, I think just one listing is enough given its size compared to its other Nordic neighbours perhaps something like Stevns as you mention. For the others, cannot comment since I am not familiar with Sweden and Finland (although I would like to visit both outside just the major cities) as opposed to Norway, Denmark and Iceland. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let's cut Stevns Cliff. /Yvwv (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good point that the autonomous islands (Åland, Faroe Islands, Jan Mayen and Svalbard) aren't represented, maybe we should consider adding one of these too. But concerning what to delete, these are my thoughts about the 10 Other destinations: I wouldn't delete Gotland, as it's almost a country in its own right. Jostedalsbreen should be kept too (or it can be replaced by some other stunning Norwegian natural attraction like Sognefjorden). Laponia represents the wilderness of Lapland which is also something that belongs here. Myvatn has some amazing otherworldly landscapes but so do many places in Iceland, so this would be a candidate for deletion from the list. Nordkapp should probably stay. Nuuksio is indeed easily accessible for visitors to Helsinki but that means it's sort of included in Helsinki's listing, plus our selection of Finnish destinations is pretty heavy towards the southern coast especially if Saariselkä is removed so Nuuksio would be another candidate to remove (or it could be replaced with something like Koli National Park). Saariselkä represents northern Finland and a skiing resort so we should probably keep that one, or we could replace it with another bigger ski resort such as Levi, Ylläs or Ruka. Alternatively Laponia could be replaced with Åre which I think is the biggest ski resort in the Nordic countries and the UKK National Park which LPfi mentioned could represent Lapland's wilderness. Stevns Cliff and Sydfynske Øhav are relatively close to each other, and Stevns has a weak article so it could be a candidate for deletion or we could replace it with for example Skagen or something (Eysturoy with rugged mountain peaks?) from the Faroe Islands which are also part of Denmark. Finally, Thingvellir is close to the capital like Nuuksio but I think almost everyone going to Iceland visits so I guess we should keep that one too. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The problem with including one of the separate islands is that they don't represent the others. Ålanders would not be happier for having the Faroes or Svalbard listed. And they are already mentioned in the countries list, which I think is prominent enough. Gotland is not listed thre, so if the Swedes think it is the main non-city destination of Sweden, it has a quite good starting position, but the top ten give hard competition. I assume that Laponia beats UKK and that Åre beats Saariselkä. Koli is a national landscape and definitely historically important, but I don't think it is the nicest or most impressive national park (but I have made just one short visit, without serious hiking). Perhaps drop Gotland and Saariselkä and add Åre and the Archipelago Sea.

Then some northern Finnish park should replace Noux and complete the picture of Nordic desolate nature together with Vatnajökull, Jostedalsbreen/Hardangervidda and Laponia. Perhaps still UKK, which I think is a tad more accessible than the other three (overnight train and 3 hr on the coach, like to Laponia, hm – or plane and ½ hr on the coach, which Laponia does not beat).

–LPfi (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Vatnajökull is the biggest glacier so should perhaps have priority over Jostedalsbreen, but Jostedalsbreen is perhaps easier to sightsee? On the other hand, the average tourist can not really visit Jostedalsbreen main part - but branches are available. Jostedalsbreen is a thing and not a specific destination. The fjords is Norway's top attraction, but not a specific destination. Lofoten is a specific destination and something special, Helgeland too. IMHO Nordkapp is a silly place, but I have to admit that it remains a popular destination. Erik den yngre (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have a point in that two glaciers might not be the best choice. What about Hardangervidda or Jotunheimen, which SHB mentioned earlier? –LPfi (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Branches of Jostedalsbreen can relatively easily be visited, but access are from many different points around. Jotunheimen is perhaps the best, the highest mountains in northern Europe, partly wild, but also fine hiking area for ordinary fit, relatively distinct as destination (and there is an article) - although not special compared to the Swiss alps. The special things in Norway are the fjords and the archipelagoes including Helgeland and Lofoten/Senja/Vesterålen. Norway's coastline is somewhere between 10.000 and 100.000 km depending on calculations, and there are at least 100.000 islands, perhaps 200.000 (more than any country in Europe except perhaps Greece). --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi Hardangervidda is listed at Europe#Other_destinations so it would weird to not have it here Tai123.123 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Svalbard, Åland and the Faroe Islands are natural attractions in their own right, without specific locations deserving to be featured over the ones we already have. Both Hardangervidda and Vatnajökull are well-worthy. They could replace Nordkapp and Mývatn respectively. /Yvwv (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

As a local I find Hardangervidda not a very interesting place to visit. Popular for multi-day hikes, but is not the natural thing for an overseas visitor. So most will just drive across the plateau. There is one road only. Reindeer are rarely seen from the road. YouTube impressions. So if we have to make a priority, Hardangervidda will not a the top of my list. Erik den yngre (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

My priority within Norway (non-city articles/destinations):

1. Lofoten
2. Helgeland
3. Jostedalsbreen (for most visitors a glacier is something special)
4. Sognefjorden (the largest fjord)
5. Senja (but article is not so good)
6. Lyngen (not so good article)
7. Jotunheimen
8. Hardangervidda
9. Nordkapp Erik den yngre (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Should Hardangervidda be replaced on the Europe page then Tai123.123 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would certainly not compile Europe#Other_destinations as it is now. Some variety from national/regional lists is OK (dont need to repeat), but Hardangervidda would certainly not be my choice from Norway. Better Fjords of Norway (or Sognefjorden) or the great archipelagos of the north (Lofoten/Vesterålen/Senja) or Svalbard. Erik den yngre (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lofoten is a famous destination, but last I looked, the article needed work (looks quite good, but the details were confusing). There has not been much editing since. Helgeland needs a better Get around. Jostedalsbreen has the problem that it competes with Vatnajökull. Sognefjorden is a bit problematic, as it is a "rural area" article, but includes Regions, Towns, Villages and Other destinations. It should probably be a region, but does it cover too much of Sogn og Fjordane? I wouldn't like to feature an article that should be reworked. You say Jotunheimen competes with the Alps and that Hardangervidda is a draw only for a limited audience. Nordkapp is popular but not showing the best of Norway.

Perhaps we should work on Lofoten. The main problem I think I had with it was to get a grip of the geography and how to get around – I think the problem is common in rural areas and region articles, where you only get some general information on getting around, not terribly useful for actually getting from one place to another. Lofoten might seem to compete with the Archipelago Sea, but they are different enough to rather complement each other.

For the other Norwegian destination, I still lean towards Jotunheimen. There are mountains, glaciers and lakes, so much of the famous Norwegian inland landscapes are covered, and there are easy hikes as well as more demanding wilderness activities. Would you be disappointed if you have visited the Alps? I think Norway is still different enough. We could of course settle for Nordkapp, but that is kind of dull – I think we can make it prominent enough by just mentioning and linking it at some suitable place.

–LPfi (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if visitors will be disappointed by Jotunheimen. Jotunheimen is on the one hand less demanding than the Alps because less elevation gains, on the other hand perhaps just as rough at low altitude because of glaciers, steep inclines and rugged surface. Jotunheimen is a fine compromise (considering also quality of article). Norwegians can recommend Jotunheimen to overseas visitors, but rarely recommend Nordkapp. I would still vote for Sognefjorden as it is the largest fjord and cuts into the land from the very coast to Jotunheimen and Jostedalsbreen glacier. Many visitors focus on Geirangerfjord, but that is insignificant compared to the huge and complex Sognefjord. NZ's Milford Sound is tiny and about the size of Sognefjord's smaller branches. Sognefjord can easily be recommended for visitors that want to visit fjords. We can redefine from rural to region article, but there are no real towns (Sogndal is just a village). --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It seems we never ended up adjusting the other destinations. Which ones did we end up finalising on? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yvwv removed Stevns(' cliff) on 30 March 2022‎, 21 hr after this remark. We now have Jostedalsbreen and Nordkapp for Norway (and Sydfynske Øhav only for Denmark – a region article). –LPfi (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Does this article need anything more to achieve guide status? /Yvwv (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

For this to be guide, some linked articles need to be promoted. Denmark, Norway and Faroe Islands are outlines; they need to be usable. The cities and other destinations seem to be usable or above. Go next is missing. One should perhaps once more check whether we've forgot something in the otherwise well-developed other sections (I now added a paragraph on healthcare to Stay healthy).

For Denmark most regions are outlines, as are most other destinations, so I suppose serious work is needed. Do Elgaard, Othello95, Roovinn and RhinoMind have an interest to look into this (RH is from Denmark, I don't know about the others). The directly linked cities seem to be usable or above.

For Norway, East Norway, Trøndelag and Northern Norway are outlines, as are Jotunheimen (what more is needed?) and Sognefjorden. Atlanterhavsveien is a redirect. Erik den yngre?

–LPfi (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why Norway main article is still an outline, seems substantial to me. Erik den yngre (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Erik den yngre: It's because for a country article to be usable, all city articles and other destinations need to be usable or higher (see the Netherlands or Germany, for example). I'll see if I can use a bit of my personal experience to contribute to these articles such as Sognefjorden or Jotunheimen, and use Wikipedia for the others. I may do the same for the Faroe Islands, too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Northern Europe land use map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Speedy keep: the nominator did not find the licence page. –LPfi (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Yvwv: I believe "Nordic people have a justified reputation of needing much personal space" might be true, but "It is good manners to keep 2 metres from strangers whenever possible" sounds really odd to me. I can hardly think about any indoor space where such a distance would even be possible to keep (and trying would be awkward). Trying to keep even 1.5 m in the street during COVID-19 was hard. And talking to somebody from that distance nearly requires shouting (which might be an even bigger no-no).

The problem isn't unique for the Nordic countries: you know the speeded-up videos of Japanese talking to US people. It is awkward when somebody comes too close during a conversation, like also some locals do, but I don't think a foreigner doing it is a problem worth making a fuss about. We might want to give some advice in Respect or some other general article, where we could use a paragraph or so on the theme.

–LPfi (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply