Talk:Sogn og Fjordane

Region split

They are currently two subregions : Sognefjord (a.k.a. Sogn) and Fjordane. According to Wikipedia there are 3 districts in Sogn og Fjordane : Sogn (in the south), Sunnfjord (in the center), and Nordfjord (in the north). At the moment the division seems to be confusing, the Fjordane subregion is not clear. This contribution shows it : Førde is not part of the Sognefjord region, but rather the "Fjordane" region. I think it's a good idea to change the current scheme in order to stick to the official districts organization. If so, it will respect the political/legal definitions guideline. Do you think this is a good idea? I can do it and also fix a few mistakes in villages listing. Freayd (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is not that long. How would it help the reader/traveler to subdivide the region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I should say, I don't know anything about the region; I just ask as a reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree, there's no need at the moment to have subregions. An idea could be to delete this Fjordane article because the geolocation is not clear and the article doesn't provide any information. Then the region section could be only a listing of the legal districts (Sogn, Sunnfjord, and Nordfjord). Tell me if you agree and I'll do it. But I'm not sure how to handle the Fjordane deletion (redirection to Sogn og Fjordane, votes for deletion)? Freayd (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough to agree or disagree. I'd suggest waiting 24-48 hours and seeing if anyone objects. If you want to solicit more opinions, you can post to Requests for comment, but I'd be happy to just support you in plunging forward as you see fit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Use redirect and move content from Fjordane page to main page for county. "Fjordane" is not a legal district, nor a common name. Nordfjord and Sunnfjord are common names, but don't need separate pages unless somebody adds substantive content. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no content. Page can be redirected. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. I had the same feeling but I wasn't sure. I redirected Fjordane to Sogn og Fjordane, move the villages accordingly, and added a redirection from Sogn to Sognefjorden. Freayd (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nordfjord (in particular) and Sunnfjord are relatively distinct districts and each it makes sense as a "unit" from a tourist point of view. Right now there is no content for Nordfjord, but at some later stage it forking is an option. At this point I suggest that content specific to Nordfjord and Sunnfjord is added in this (Sogn og Fjordane) article, while content specific to Sogn/Sognefjord is added to Sognefjord article. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sogn og Fjordane is a mess

There is only one subregion in this region with an article, and all of the towns listed in it are also in this article. Is it better to merge Sognefjorden into this article, or create articles for the Nordfjord and Sunnfjord subregions, and move content and places from here to the subregion articles? Ground Zero (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if a good idea to merge. Sogn og Fjordane is not a destination, and no longer an official county. Sognefjorden area (Sogn is the correct name) is a natural district, Nordfjord is also a natural or distinct district. Sunnfjord less distinct perhaps. Norway is defined by fjords, each major fjord system defines a district. Erik den yngre (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, there was a lot more in Sognefjorden than the other two – I would personally favour creating articles for Nordfjord and Sunnfjord over merging since they're fairly distinct from a traveller's perspective. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be enough content now for all three. Nordfjord and Sunnfjord need not have much content, separating them still probably clears up the mess and makes it easier to add information to them. If we do that, we should decide what to do with Jostedalsbreen. It needs to be breadcrumbed to a specific region; how confusing is it if it is just a go next for Sunnfjord and Sognefjord? It would of course still be mentioned in Skei, Fjærland and Luster. –LPfi (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about Jostedalsbreen. The glacier is not really a destination (nor a region), it is a feature of the landscape in Sogn og Fjordane and partly in Gudbrandsdalen. map. Visitors can only see branches that reach the valley, so not really a "go next" but something to include when you are there. Norway's landscape is a tangle and not easy to fit into the Wikivoyage format. Erik den yngre (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

My question was about how to treat it. It is now described as a park, which I think makes sense. A "park" is treated as a destination, and it should then be in some lowest-level region. Thus, unless we make it an extraregion, it should be breadcrumbed to one of the subregions. I assume we could make an exception to our geographical hierarchy for the time being, but that is not a real solution. –LPfi (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Things can absolutely be breadcrumbed underneath a park – see Yarrangobilly Caves, Columbia Icefield or Perisher for examples of articles breadcrumbed to a park. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced our guidelines accept breadcrumbing to anything but regions (and countries etc.) and huge cities. Here the question is the other way around: can a park be breadcrumbed to anything but a lowest level region (or unregionalised country) or huge city? –LPfi (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the problem with doing so. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The problems tend to unsuspectedly pop up somewhere, especially with automated procedures. I think the solution is OK as a preliminary measure, but should be solved according to the book before making the enclosing region guide ("a valid region structure" seems, surprisingly enough, to be required only for countries).

Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy#The hierarchy doesn't recognise such a possibility, which means statistics, bots, the category system etc. may produce odd results when such abnormalities are encountered. Destinations "hidden" in parks may also not be found by readers and editors who navigate down the hierarchy.

For Parisher, it being linked as an other destination in the region helps, but may not be enough for those who know and trust our hierarchy.

–LPfi (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I still dont understand what the problem is og what solution you are referring to. Erik den yngre (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is about regions being divided so that every part of them belongs to some subregion, and describing the division clearly, so that travellers can know where to add the nice cottage where they overnighted. If there are gaps, then we have a problem. Towns, parks and features that span two or more (lowest-level) regions are also a problem that needs to be handled consistently. –LPfi (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want Jostedalsbreen to belong consistently to some subdivision, then it belongs in Norway, as it is not limited to any formal administrative division (most is Sogn og Fjordane, so as an approximation it can be kept there). Just like Jotunheimen. Erik den yngre (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi: Actually, come to think of it, Wood Buffalo National Park is directly breadcrumbed under Canada. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't worked that much with the geographical hierarchy, but I think such irregularities can cause confusion and problems in some situations. Systems that don't work as expected usable do, especially in computer context. –LPfi (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they should be minimised where possible, but as a last resort, the option to categorise a park that isn't a bottom-level region should still be open. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that there are some strange editing going on for various other parts of Norway, for instance info on mountain area was moved to a random town somewhere. Erik den yngre (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think about Sylan and Røros, Røros was the nearest destination article, and thus a natural place to move the listing (from Trøndelag – region articles should usually not have listings). I assume there are other similar edits. As it isn't about this region, let's discuss it somewhere else. –LPfi (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I mention that because it is apparently related to the same logic. Seems like there is an effort to "force" things into a framework, often that creates really strange results such as the Sylan and Røros case. We should make articles from the perspective of visitors, I doubt that the logic forced upon some articles is helpful from visitors' perspective. Jostedalsbreen is not a region (there is nothing inside like towns or transport) and from the visitor's perspecticve it is not a particular place: it's a 3 hour drive from Nigardsbreen branch (Luster) to Briksdalsbreen branch (Olden). Erik den yngre (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Then let's think how to get it fit our hierarchy. There are real problems by not sticking to the standard, such as foreign travellers being unable to guess where to add new content. Ground Zero did an honest try to move content where it belongs, but the hierarchy for Norway isn't strict enough for anybody but an insider to know what belongs where. I had the same problem in Troms and in the Narvik fells. Forcing things to fit the hierarchy is not just for the sake of it, but because anarchy makes contributing more difficult.

As a local, you can help by suggesting how to adjust the hierarchy to make sense on the ground. If treating Jostedalsbreen as a park doesn't make sense, then let's treat it as something else. It could be an extraregion. Would that format suite? It would then be listed as an "other destination" in this article and linked where relevant from subregion and city articles.

–LPfi (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The main attraction in Norway is the nature and landscape features such as glaciers, fjords and mountain ranges usually do not "belong" to towns or municipalities. A typical or ideal visit is a road trip that covers areas: towns are in this regard not important and merely random dots on the map. Towns are things visitors come across when they travel the landscape. Listings of natural attractions make most sense at the regional level.

I guess Jostedalsbreen does not make sense as region: There are of course no towns within the glacier, there is no transport within (only to points at the edge/perimeter), but sporty visitors can sleep in tent and there are some lodges at the edge. It is not a "go next" thing. It is not something separate from Nordfjord and Sognefjord regions, it is integral to these areas. I have no clue about the consequences of treating Jostedalsbreen as a park. Erik den yngre (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See Park article template and Park article status for what is expected from that kind of article. But if one just visits the edges, then I assume it is better to have the villages and the lodges at the edges belong to some "city" or "rural area" (see the similar descriptions) and visits to the glaciers as Do listings in those articles. Jostedalsbreen can then be an "extraregion" that is linked from them, but in itself not part of the hierarchy.

For Norway as a whole, we need to get it into our hierarchy in some way. The countryside around a city can be included in the city article, like the Narvik fells now are (to some degree) covered in Narvik. The typical traveller will stay in a city and make excursions from there (perhaps driving through the landscape). Where the city is too distant to make much sense, we can have rural area articles, see Rural area article template and Rural area article status (which actually redirects to city article status). These would cover the wilderness, countryside and any towns ("dots") that happen to be there (and hopefully provide food, fuel etc.).

–LPfi (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Discard article

I think it is easier to split the article in two parts: Sognefjord and Nordfjord/Sunnfjord. And discard Sogn og Fjordane. The old county is not needed. Sognefjord and Nordfjord are natural regions and can be treated as destinations. Erik den yngre (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If it helps travellers today, sure. I can't really speak for myself since I didn't use Wikivoyage back in 2018. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

West Norway now has 4 regions, while 5 would be 7±2. If the two regions will have at most 9 city/rural area articles each and there is little common information for the two regions – in particular: if little about Nordfjord/Sunnfjord is relevant for those visiting Sognefjord and the other way round – then such a change seems to be to the better. Would the Understand, Get in, Get around and Stay safe be mostly identical?

Perhaps one could cut down a bit on text that would suit Fjords of Norway and Western Norway (and point to those instead of repeating it). Would it be enough to have the glacier warnings in Glaciers, Norway and Jostedalsbreen & co, with pointers from the city, park and rural area articles where glaciers are found in Do or See? Is there much other common information that would not suit Western Norway?

–LPfi (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)