Talk:Åland

External links

I removed the following external links from the article.

• Åland Islands (Official homepage)
• Åland Online (Swedish)
• Åland Islands (in 10 languages)

-- (WT-en) Jelse 16:16, 30 March 2006 (EST)

Pancake recipe

I can see the value in describing the local cuisine, to entice the traveler to try it and let them know what to expect, but is a recipe to make at home something we really want to start featuring? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:08, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

No. (And the pancakes in questions are widely eaten in the whole region, not just Aland.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:15, 5 July 2006 (EDT)

There seemed to be a consensus of two on removing this recipe 9 years ago. What happened? (Nothing, apparently.) So what do people think now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The pancakes are certainly worth mentioning, as they are one thing Ålanders will serve you or recommend to you. The receipt seems different from what I am used to (although probably living "in the region"), but even if similar pancakes are eaten in the rest of the archipelago they are not eaten everywhere. Whether or not to keep the receipt is in my opinion a question about how much else we have to tell, much like a non-essential image. --LPfi (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem with including a recipe is similar to my problem with including web cam links: Sure, there's an element of vicariously traveling through our articles, but we don't really want to promote substitutes to travel. A "virtual visit" through a web cam that shows, say, what's happening at the Western Wall in Jerusalem in real time is not at all the same as traveling, and making pancakes according to a recipe is not at all the same as traveling to Åland and having the pancakes there.

Not that it's an optimal article (it's not), but look at the Alcoholic beverages article. Are exact recipes given for the cocktails, or are they described sufficiently for a drinker to have a decent idea of what they're ordering if, for example, they visit Manhattan for a manhattan? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we do not want receipts popping up in many articles. In an isolated case I have no strong opinion, but the value is rather small. If you think it is problematic, just remove it. --LPfi (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Recipes, not receipts. Does anyone object to deleting the recipe and substituting a description of the pancakes and explaining that they're a local speciality? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll make the change, since no-one else seems to be interested in this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that nice photo of the pancake! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ferry times

I have added the single word 'often' about the arrivals at Mariehamn being in the night. I have crossed from each country, ariving at about midday, so that I found the suggestion that anyone is stuck with night arrivals inaccurate. [[User:(WT-en) davidx|David Cross]

Regions

There are a couple of redlink "regions". Should they be listed? And if so, shouldn't they rather be created as city articles, just like thousand islands? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

They are the municipalities of Åland and should certainly be listed (how else would you find them?), but you are right, they should be "cities". Some have a clear main village, but even where there are a couple of important ones, these can easily be handled as subsections, at least until sections on individual villages are complete enough to be forked off (and I doubt there will be any need to split off any of them). --LPfi (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Map

I removed the map with ferry lines, as it erroneously had the Osnäs (Vuosnainen) ferry leave from Långnäs. The best one I found to use instead is the political map, which nicely shows the location of Åland between Finland (with the Archipelago Sea) and Sweden, the multitude of islands (minor ones not shown, of course) and the municipalities, hence I put it in the beginning of the article.

The new map has a few problems: it has to be big for the names to be readable, its heading calls Åland a state (never heard that characterization) and the ferry lines have to be deduced from municipality names – which probably means a lot of scrolling up and down while reading Get in. I think it would be relatively easy to change fonts and include the lines (I remember Ålandstrafiken had a map similar to the one in the earlier used Åland map png.png, the ones I find now are perhaps a little too schematic), for someone used to editing SVG maps.

--LPfi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How about taking our old map (it's available as SVG), adding/correcting the ferry lines and maybe also the municipalities and their borders? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I like the way more islands and the coastlines and archipelagos of Finland and Sweden can be seen on the current (political) map. Ideally just a little more of the Stockholm archipelago would be seen (cutting just after Kustavi and Korpo instead). Having the municipalities (with borders: using the main villages makes the villages look like towns) is a big bonus and adding them to the old map is probably quite a bit of work. --LPfi (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While editing, remember the language issue. Usually what name to use in English for a place is given by the majority language of the municipality – but as Åland is unilingually Swedish that is not necessarily the right choice. Kustavi will be called Gustavs in the Ålandstrafiken timetables. Neither that nor the pairs Vuosnainen/Osnäs and Turku/Åbo are obvious to a foreigner (to put it mildly). The reverse is true for Matkahuolto (which uses Finnish names even for places like the nearly monolingual Houtskär). --LPfi (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Also Kapellskär, Naantali/Nådendal and perhaps Iniö could be mentioned, as they are ports/municipalities reachable by the ferries. --LPfi (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it with the current one, then, I'll make map tonight. It should be possible to add more of the Stockholm archipelago to the map, thankfully the SVG seems to have a lot of layers which makes working much easier. I'd say we should provide both names for places on the Finnish mainland, the majority language first, then the minority version in parenthesis. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice! I expected the edits to be just something to hope for. Of the linked Ålandstrafiken maps, it seems the upper one is reasonably accurate, while the one showing also flights have Silja and Viking go fictional routes (the routes are correct on the old map, shown unlabeled on the upper Ålandstrafiken map). I now also notice the amount of islands (on Åland) probably is the same on the two maps, I was confused by the scale. --LPfi (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The map may take a while and don't expect all the tiny islands & skerries to be there ;). How far west and east should the map stretch? Norrtälje to Turku maybe?

Meanwhile, I've added a dynamic map where at least the ferry routes show up. The boundaries of municipalities should show up there too (that's what the "layer=B" parameter in the mapframe tag should do) but those extra parameters seem still to be dysfunctional. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I think Kustavi (the centre) and Korpo (Galtby) are enough on the Finnish side. That would show a little part of the mainland and enough of the Archipelago Sea. On the Swedish side I would like enough for one to see that there likewise is an archipelago. Including Kapellskär may be enough (probably the map should go somewhat more south, but that depends partly on what islands are big enough to get drawn). Grisslehamn is not too far away, but having it off the map is not a problem. Turku, Naantali, Stockholm & al should be mentioned on the map, but they do not have to be on it (including them would probably make Åland itself much too small).

For the minor islands: I think the present ones are enough, but I would not like to miss too many more (I suppose you will edit a map where they already are present). The map should show that there are many islands, not only the individually important ones.

(I notice again I did not look careful enough: Also the other Ålandstrafiken map seems to show the right routes - ferries to Helsinki and Tallin go to the sea, I missed the line to Turku that indeed was there.)

--LPfi (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Done ϒpsilon (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing order of "Municipalities"

They aren't listed in alphabetical order, so are they listed in some kind of unexplained directional order, or is the current order random? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The first ones are on the mainland. I think there might have been some later lost logic. A distinction between those reachable without ferry and the archipelago ones could make sense, but it should be explained. --LPfi (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed the order now. If somebody has better ideas, plunge forward. --LPfi (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks logical now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hierarchy

Why is this treated as its own country and not part of Finland?

w:Åland_Islands makes it clear that although there is a great deal of autonomy and residents speak Swedish rather than Finnish, it is still within the nation of Finland.

Can we correct this, or does someone feel very strongly about it? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is somewhat complicated. The article Nordic countries mention the autonomous areas prominently, and I think also the Nordic council has eight members instead of five (the council itself seems somewhat confused on the matter). I think there is no problem in how they are treated there.

Åland is classified as usableregion and it is treated as a region in the Finland article, which seems fine. The Ålanders probably do feel strongly about it, but there are no separate entry requirements (except for the customs, mainly relevant after tax-free shopping, which is its own issue anyway), the border to Finland is invisible and Åland is tightly knit to mainland Finland e.g. in terms of transport. I change the PartOf now.

Are there other things that should (or should not) be changed?

--LPfi (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks

Should Redlinks be listed in the "cities" section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I know we have a different tradition from Wikipedia, where redlinks are important for encouraging article creation, but I do not see any good alternative. We could unlink them, with little gained, remove them, pretending those places do not exist, or make up our own structure combining the municipalities to bigger "cities".

Having a "Mainland Åland countryside" would be doable, but then we'd loose Eckerö, instead having it as a subheading in every section. The mainland municipalities are nine, so the list is not overly long anyhow. Lumping archipelago municipalities together would complicate matters, as communications largely follow the municipal division. And municipalities are not just administrative entities, people do feel strongly for them.

The municipalities are tiny, but I'd be surprised if you could not find Sleep+Eat and See/Do listings for all of them. And given the Get around issues, it is clearer to have at least all archipelago municipalities in separate articles.

Would creating outlines help? I could probably get a few to usable with moderate work (Eat and Sleep should probably be combined in many cases, and some of those repeated as See/Do).

--LPfi (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Kastelholm

I removed the following:

"... and home to many Swedish kings who reigned the combined kingdom of Sweden and Finland from this place"

I have never heard that Sweden would have been ruled from Åland or that some king would have lived on Kastelholm, so this seems like a misunderstanding (perhaps some king stayed there for some time). And the "combined kingdom" sounds like the myth originating in Finnish nation building in the 19th century. It survived in textbooks into the 1980s, but is not considered a valid description by historians (modern Finland was an integral part of the kingdom, language and culture were irrelevant in this respect until late 18th century).

The role of Kastelholm should of course be checked and described, but one should do that with a reliable source.

--LPfi (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Åland's status under Russian rule

There is a somewhat cryptic reference to a treaty "at the issue of the Crimean War" [sic!] which I can't make heads or tails of. Can someone please clarify that in proper English? Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose what is meant is the peace treaty of that war. I think it is quite clear now. --LPfi (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful exactly which treaty when. We don't need to necessarily go into that detail in the article, but I hate it when shortening stuff makes things wrong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly Treaty of Paris (1856). There was also a declaration and "servitute", the latter specifically about Åland. The articles in Swedish are a little confused, so there might be errors, but they mainly say the same as the English one. --LPfi (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Idea for a travel topic

There are quite a few ferries going around the small islands between mainland Åland and the Archipelago Sea mainly operated by Ålandstrafiken. But there are some shorter hops showing up on openstreetmap and Google Maps that probably are operated by some other ferries, and then connections towards the Finnish mainland could be mentioned. Such a Ferries to Åland, Archipelago Sea to Åland, Finland to Åland across the islands (or whatever it would be called) article would be a natural continuation to the Archipelago Sea and Archipelago Trail articles, I think. LP and Xepheid, you're more familiar with this corner of the world, what do you say? --Ypsilon (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think most of this could be covered in Åland#Get around and the individual Get in/around, as I think the shorter hops are well integrated with the overall transportaion system. For cruising around with ferries, it is mostly the long lines (Norra linjen and Södra linjen) that are relevant. An Island hopping on Åland travel topic could be worthwhile, but I think it is very much premature until we have developed the individual destination articles. Biking on Åland is surrounded with much hype, so creating such an article would surely be good, also after improving the destination articles. Of course, if somebody wants to create the topics, covering also See, Do, Eat and Sleep en route, then lack of destination articles is not such a big problem, and the listings could be moved to the destination articles afterwards. Covering those is what I see as critical.

To my knowledge the connections between Åland and the Archipelago Sea are the Långnäs–Galtby and Brändö–Kustavi routes and the ferries in the Houtskär/Iniö waters, which from time to time visit Brändö, but are not very useful for getting across – my impression is that you usually end up somewhere odd. Archipelago Trail#Houtskär gives some information for those wanting to explore these latter connections (at least the names of the routes, for use in searches).

–LPfi (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps the Houtskärs/Iniö ruttområde and tilläggsrutt are very much usable for this; I became frustrated trying to find a connection between Houtskär and Iniö with them – the ferries visit both, they visit Brändö, but don't go from Houtskär to Iniö. They probably can be used for the connections between Brändö and the two without problems, and between the two if you spend a day or a few in Brändö. –LPfi (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletions

Did this edit improve the article? I tend to think reverting it would be best, but let's discuss this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Roovinn: What was that? Not even an edit summary! From where is the thought that "the native language of the Ålanders is Swedish" and "knowledge of Finnish is virtually non-existent".

True, Swedish is the sole official language, and most Ålanders are indeed Swedish-speaking with weak Finnish, but in Brändö there is a (recent) Finnish-speaking minority of 18,9% – and most people do study Finnish in school even if they don't have to.

One might argue that what was there was too wordy, and we can discuss the nuances of the facts, or what might be excessive detail – but this I will revert. I'd be interested in how these conclusions were arrived at.

–LPfi (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey @LPfi:, was trimming down stuff in the talk section as it did seem very wordy. Just copyedited whatever was on there, nothing more, nothing less. Roovinn (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the idea of editing for brevity, but only when you're eliminating unnecessary wordiness without removing useful information. That's not how these edits struck me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)