text:
Talk:Nordic Countries

Top section
i searched under google the following: 'difference between danish and norwegian' and you wouldn't believe the pile of useless junk it came up with, but before i gave up your website came up with the simple, concise answer i needed. thanks again. —The preceding comment was added by 81.178.229.15 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 August 2004 (EDT)
 * Danish has influenced Norwegian a lot for about 500 years between 1300-1800, when Norway was ruled under the Danish government. Danish has a few typical sound shifts, which Norwegian lacks (except for Danish borrowings) such as *p-*b, *t-*d, *k-*g etc, usually voicing of final consonants. The pronunciation is also quite different, whereas Danish pronunciation could be compared to English, and Norwegian to German, if you understand. Also, Norwegian has a lot of dialectal differences, which Danish generally lacks. But when written, Danish and Norwegian (particularly Bokmål) are very similar, that's true. 81.232.72.148 13:13, 26 Nov 2005 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * I'll ansver you questions in bullet form for ease of reading:
 * I think you mean you mean the Nordic Council.
 * Greenlands cultural connection is different from Iceland, since most of the population descents from a branch of the North American Inuit tribes and they do have a significant cultural influence from that. On the other hand Denmarks presence in Greenland have left a cultural connection, but not comparable to Iceland where both the ethnic and political bond points towards Scandinavia.
 * Already Greenland is mentioned in the territories section, so the finer points of Greenlands connection with the Nordic countries are already covered.
 * While I agree that "Scandinavia" is not technically correct it has, many years ago, in this discussion been established that this is the term that native English speakers will know and use. The page already contains an explanation educating them on the finer point of the subject. The page does say "Nordic Europe" in the explanations which I suggest we replace/augment with "Nordic countries" since that is the term used by both the Nordic Council and Wikipedia to describe the area.
 * Already now both Nordic countries and Nordic Europe redirects to the Scandinavia page which means that people searching for the proper term will still find the information they are looking for.
 * To summarize, I understand your suggestion such that it seems that you want the title of the page to be changed to The Nordic Countries. I think this is not a good idea, since that not is the term the average English speaking traveller will expect. I do think we might spend a little effort in educating the average traveller, but this should not extend to the headline of the page. Mads.bahrt (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Clean up this mess please
Scandinavia is Only Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Nordic countries are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland (And Fareoe Islands, Åland and Greenland). Check, for ref.--83.109.119.113 08:36, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

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

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

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

Population
By the definition used in the article (including Finland apart from Norway, Sweden and Denmark), the population is actually: So the correct number is 24 million. (WT-en) Orcaborealis 12:10, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Norway: 4.7 million
 * Sweden: appr 9 million
 * Denmark: slightly more than 5 million
 * Finland: slightly more than 5 million
 * other states incl Greenland, Åland etc have small populations.

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

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

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

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

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

Finland and Iceland are not Scandinavian countries
They are Nordic, but not Scandinavian, although Icelandic is a Scandinavian language). Scandinavia consists only of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. --(WT-en) Oddeivind 04:47, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 * As the second line of the Wikipedia article on Scandinavia states, ". In common English usage, Finland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are often grouped with Scandinavia." What we use here at Wikivoyage is the common English usage. (WT-en) texugo 07:00, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 * The point is that the common English usage is WRONG! Wikivoyage should not give people misinformation. It is also common that people say "America" when in fact they mean only one particular country (the USA), a fact that doesn´t mean that Brazil (an American country) is a part of the United States. Iceland and Finland is no more a part of Scandinavia than Brazil is a part of the United States! --(WT-en) Oddeivind 10:02, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 * Educating the English-speaking masses to change the way they speak is not really among our goals. I'd say it's fine to add a note in the Understand section explaining your point, but I'd say it's going to be an uphill battle to get this changed unless you have a real good suggestion for another way that countries in this given region are commonly referred to collectively. I think Scandinavia is about as good as we can come up with. Just have a look further up this page at previous users who have made the same point as you. (WT-en) texugo 10:31, 28 February 2011 (EST)
 * "The Nordic countries" is the correct term for these five countries, but another solution is to keep "Scandinavia" but to remove Finland and Iceland (but having a comment that these countries are often wrongly called Scandinavian among English-speaking users (mainly due to ignorance about the countries). --(WT-en) Oddeivind 10:38, 28 February 2011 (EST)

 * Nordic countries is "wrong" as well, since that designation includes Greenland, which we group with the rest of North America.
 * The first paragraph of Scandinavia already acknowledges the nuances between the terms. And this naming was fairly extensively discussed before anyway, please see this discussion and the other two discussions that are linked from there. – (WT-en) Vidimian 13:51, 28 February 2011 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * I think there is a valid argument to be made that, in this Scandinavia article, there should be no "Territories" section at all on the grounds that:
 * Greenland is increasingly culturally and politically separate from Europe (and, therefore, can not readily be considered part of Europe any more than the Netherlands Antilles can be) and
 * the other territories of Svalbard + Jan Mayen, and the Faroe Islands are considered by their respective countries to be integral parts of the Kingdoms of Norway and Denmark respectively and
 * the Åland islands although culturally, politically and linguistically distinct are theoretically an integral part of the Finnish state.
 * Since all three countries are delineated in our "Regions" section (and the internal links there then take one to balanced separate country articles that more fully explain their status), that may be considered sufficient mention.

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

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

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

 * I have changed the Term Nordic Europe to Nordic Countries in the explanations. That is the term that the Nordic Council uses in their English printed material. The Nordic Council is the closest thing to a political union that exists for the described region and thus the authoritative source. Obviously that term includes Greenland, but there is still an explanation that it is geographically North America. Mads.bahrt (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good move! -- A l i c e ✉ 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

 * Greenland still is in North America—the map just acknowledges that it's also (a bit) in Europe. Similarly, Turkey is on the Europe map. I'll update the map later today to give Greenland a different color. I can also make it clickable, which would make it as clear as day that you don't have to click through Denmark to get there! --Peter Talk 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should re-name (over a re-direct) this article to "Nordic Countries". That way, ignorant folks can be educated as to their error but still find what they are looking for. Does anyone disagree? -- A l i c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Slightly against I think it's a good idea to spend a few lines educating the traveler, but I see no need to extent this to the headline if the more common term in English speaking countries are Scandinavia. As I pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, there are already redirects from Nordic Countries and Nordic Europe meaning that people using these terms will also find the information they are looking for. Mads.bahrt (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part of Greenland is in Europe? I thought Greenland was basically a single island and not analogous to Turkey, a country whose Asian and European parts are separated by water. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I often assert totally wrong stuff ;) --Peter Talk 06:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Greenland is part of the Nordic countries, which makes it natural to mention it in this page. If you mention it it does make sense to adjust the map slightly to indicate its position. Mads.bahrt (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to have a north-oriented map that includes Iceland and Svalbard (which nobody argues against), then you will naturally have a part of Greenland on the map. From this point of view there is no reason to argue if it should be on the map or not - it simply is. With respect to if it should be mentioned in the article at all, I still think it's natural given its association to the rest of the Nordic countries, and the fact that it is just a short mention in the article Mads.bahrt (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of ways to handle this on the map too. We could leave Greenland grayed out, but put "(Denmark)" under the caption "Greenland." --Peter Talk 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Contact section
I recently updated the Contact section of the Denmark article with a survey of the 3G or 4G options available to foreigners in Denmark. I have now become aware that 3, a telephone operator present in both Denmark and Sweden are selling a prepaid data package that is valid in both Sweden and Denmark with no extra charges. They only sell this product from shops in Sweden, but I think you should be able to refill it from Denmark. I think this is great information to be aware of for travellers going to both Denmark and Sweden, since you avoid the whole problem of having to get a new sim card to get cheaply connected in a new country and being able to spend your last minutes in the neighboring country instead of just wasting them. Do anybody else think this is relevant, and should I mention it in the Scandinavia, Denmark and/or Sweden articles? Mads.bahrt (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All three - and I think we're changing the name of that section to "Connect" -- <font color="#0000DD">A <font color="#0066FF">l <font color="#0099FF">i <font color="#00CCFF">c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 03:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the information with a lot of details to Denmark, since that matched depth of information about Internet connections already in that article. To Sweden I added a few sentences mentioning the fact that this product existed, since that was in line with what was already in that article. For now I don't think I will add anything about this to the Scandinavia article since it only concerns 2 out of 5 countries covered in the article. Also, it will look strange unless I take the time to write a bit more on Internet in the Nordic Countries Mads.bahrt (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Greenland culturally Nordic or American
Greenland is now said to be "geographically and culturally" part of "(native) North America". I suppose this is true, but a bit misleading. As it has been part of Denmark for a long time, it has also been subject of Nordic influences. The Inuits have had Danish education, Danish law and probably a lot of contacts with Denmark. I wonder whether mentioning the cultural ties to native North America without mentioning cultural ties to the Nordic countries is the right thing to do. For me the current wording gives the impression the connection is only a formal (fiscal, political etc.) one. --LPfi (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the wording might be improved since there is both a large native inuit cultural heritage from ancient times and also a Danish and Norwegian cultural influence from the last 300 years. The current wording gives the impression that the cultural heritage is one-sided native North American. Mads.bahrt (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

 * I would also support re-naming to Nordic countries. The re-direct deals with the more ignorant of our readers. Do we call our United Kingdom article, "England" or our Netherlands article, "Holland" ?
 * I'd also suggest that Estonia belongs more naturally in this grouping - but that's another discussion. --W. Frankemailtalk 18:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we have an overwhelming consensus, I'll move the article. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming consensus? No, Frank, just... no.  LtPowers (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

 * In principle I agree with Anders Feder. There is no doubt that Scandinavia is Norway and Sweden plus Denmark. One possible byproduct of the current title is that misconceptions in this regard are maintained or reinforced, that is of course unfortunate. On the other hand, Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia, WV takes the perspective of the traveler, while WP focuses on accuracy and neutrality of facts. So the current solution is acceptable, but not ideal, I would support a move such that "Scandinavia" redirects to "Nordic countries" (rather than VV). --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm not suggesting that there should be two separate articles or something crazy like that; but merely the same as you suggest.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have worked on countless articles on Wikipedia for most of the years of its existence. I am well-versed in the so-called consensus process, and I am not impressed by it. I am not trying to persuade anyone.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're not trying to persuade anyone, what is motivating you? Just expressing your opinion while dissing everyone on a Wiki you just joined? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trolling without being very good at it. I haven't "dissed everyone on a Wiki I just joined", and I honestly don't care if you mistakenly thought I did.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. Take it easy. Let us focus on the issue. Currently there is no clear consensus to change. And we must have the traveller's perspective in mind. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Geo tag
The [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Scandinavia&curid=31850&diff=2438487&oldid=2429298 edit] "(Edited Geo tag to ensure that all of the covered countries are visible. Moved the central point west so Some of Greenland was visible since it is more relavant to the article than large parts of Russia.)" changed the view such that I now, instead of seeing Scandinavia proper (not Finland), Scotland and the Norwegian Sea now see much of Greenland, UK and western Scandinavia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * , and I am too lazy to search for more. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

 * Let's make the move. It requires admin privileges, so I can't. /Yvwv (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a strong consensus to move. And it was moved to an incorrect capitalization anyway. Powers (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Can we try to resolve this quickly, so we can fix the breadcrumbs? Right now, the country pages have been moved under Nordic Countries and the country categories are still under Category:Scandinavia, but I don't want to go moving them, if we're about to move this page again. I do not have a strong opinion as to whether it should be Scandinavia or Nordic countries - I slightly prefer the former because it means a geographical region to me, while the latter sounds to be like a cultural moniker like "formerly-Norse-speaking countries". But if it's to be the latter, as LtPowers said, it needs to be Nordic countries, not Nordic Countries. So... move back to Scandinavia or move to Nordic countries, what's it gonna be? Texugo (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Nordic countries" is a linguistic marker, as they include Finland, whose main language is non-Indo-European. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nordic countries" with a lower-case c. /Yvwv (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nordic countries are geographical, cultural and political, they are closely cooperating in an entity called Nordic Council, which is older and encompassing even more than the EU. They even have common embassies, like the Nordic Embassies in Berlin. Scandinavia is geo and cultural as well, but it simply only encompasses DK, N and S, so it is an inappropriate term for the region, much like "German-speaking countries" or "DACH" would be inappropriate for our Central Europe. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(to margin) Nordic countries is a well-defined geographical area (Scandinavia less so). For instance the Nordic passport free area was established in 1952. As a political association it is now of course much less important than the EU. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That suits me just fine. Can we go ahead and at least correct the capitalization so we can then fix up the breadcrumb situation? Texugo (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nordic Countries


text:
Talk:Scarborough (Trinidad and Tobago)

Comments
This needs to be so much better213.38.11.86 06:55, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Airport location
The article states "The airport is not here". Is that a prank, which has stayed in the article for years, or is it true? In the latter case, where is it? In Tobago one is only told the airport is "at the south of the island". "At Crown Point, 10 km west from Scarborough centre" or some such would be much more helpful. --LPfi (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * OK, the airport had coordinates in Tobago, so the guess at Crown Point was correct (and indeed stated, later in the paragraph). I clarified in both articles. --LPfi (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Scarborough (Trinidad and Tobago)


text:
Talk:Scarsdale

Oi! Excise the "not interesting" comment if you wish, although I lived there for 4 years and didn't find much to disprove the notion, but what's your beef with the rest? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:08, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Oi indeed! I try to avoid Scarsdale as much as possible myself but someone, somewhere, is going to find it interesting, if for no other reason than to confirm that money can't buy taste or common sense. If we drop our relative neutrality to warn off casual travelers from every spot that has "very little else" to see but expensive houses, expensive restaurants, and expensive shops, we should be sure to include such wealthy suburbs as Greenwich CT and Beverly Hills CA. From there it's just a slippery slope away from warning off casual travelers from places too small too have something to see like Gardner ND, population 80, and Ayr ND, population 23. For that matter, who at some point doesn't think his or her hometown dull? I'm not touching your restored comments, but they seem to point in a slippery direction. Also, your housing price seems to be half the market rate and the village has a predilection toward mock-Tudors, rather than mock-Victorians. (WT-en) SHC 07:35, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Think it's worth mentioning that the Scarsdale Diet doctor died of lead poisoning? (WT-en) SHC 11:56, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

 * If a traveler has a week to spend in New York, would you recommend that they go see Scarsdale? I think it's only fair to say that Scarsdale (or Greenwich, or Gardner, or Ayr) really doesn't have much in the way of tourist attractions -- if you can think of something, by all means add it to See!  Beverly Hills, on the other hand, does rate as a tourist attraction because so many people go star-spotting there, and places like Rodeo Drive are genuinely famous.

 * As for the Scarsdale Diet guy, he sounds like he'd make an interesting infobox... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:31, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

 * I'm with you, I'm just concerned about what seems a slippery slope. If a traveler had only a week to spend in New York, there are dozens of places that wouldn't end up on my list of "must see" places, yet they are enshrined as articles in Wikivoyage. Would fairness suggest we warn off tourists from Hoboken? (WT-en) SHC 23:14, 20 May 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Scarsdale


text:
Talk:Scenic railway lines in Europe

Yikes, does this article have potential? Right now it's an unusable list of words... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I supposed it could be merged into Rail travel in Europe. The anon who's been writing this article has been putting in a lot of hard work, I must say. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 07:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, yes, he has, but that doesn't make it a useful article. This is the kind of article that will be impossible to maintain, and frankly a plain list like this would be pretty useless.  Maybe a useful article could be written on this topic, but this was not, so I've redirected it to Rail travel in Europe. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Scenic railway lines in Europe


text:
Talk:Scheduled Airlines of the World

Is this in scope, do we need it, and why!? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * This seems totally redundant to me. The information here will be covered far better under Travel_topics. I can see no real use for just having a list of airlines. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 01:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Me either. If someone wants to know what airlines serve Nigeria, they'll look at Nigeria. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Scheduled Airlines of the World


text:
Talk:Scheveningen

Merge tag
I don't see why Scheveningen can't be a seperate article. Scheveningen is a district within The Hague. There a more articles where districts have seperates articles within the city. Nothing unusual about that. Having a seperate article for Scheveningen does justice to the fact that Scheveningen is a seperate tourist destination and would also keep the The Hague article better readable. The two destinations also have a completely different character. By the way, I am a resident of The Hague. --(WT-en) Whatsinaname 22:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I have no objections to a separate article. It's indeed a major tourist destination, which makes detailed information on places to stay and eat desirable. The Hague could be expanded, but it's a fairly large city with plenty of information to be included, apart from the Scheveningen listings. Integrating the Scheveningen article, which still room to grow too, would probably overcrowd the The Hague article, at least in time. Besides, Scheveningen is very very well known as a separate destination in the Netherlands. Frankly, I'm guessing that half the people in the Netherlands might not even know that it's just a district of The Hague. (WT-en) Justme 18:50, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Obviously Scheveningen warrants an article of its own. The problem is where the boundary lies, and whether The Hague could or would have to be districtified, as then Scheveningen would be a district of The Hague. We have tried discussing possible districts for The Hague here, but frankly, that has not been a success. The Hague is probably just too small to need districtification, and having a city with just 2 districts is odd. So this current situation seems the best, at least for now. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:16, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Odd in terms of Wikivoyage-structures perhaps. Not at all odd in terms of traveller information though. For example, there's a bunch of separate tourist information/branding materials for Scheveningen, where those do not exist for the other districts of The Hague. Since the traveller comes first, I'm quite okay with odd. Both options are better than this huge template above an article. :-) (WT-en) Justme 19:26, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I meant just having The Hague/Centre and The Hague/Scheveningen would be odd. I'm fine with having a stand-alone Scheveningen article, at least until we've resolved if/how The Hague would need districts. I have removed the merge tag. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Well done, Globe-trotter. Actually, the municipality of The Hague could be divided into three historical areas: 1. The Hague; 2. Scheveningen and 3. Loosduinen. I think no one will start a separate article about Loosduinen, because it is of no interest to the traveler. Even within the article about The Hague you won’t find much information about Loosduinen.  Maybe it is odd for Wikivoyage, but I think it is the best solution to have one main article about The Hague, excluding Scheveningen, and one district article about Scheveningen. And then the district article about Scheveningen will be the only one district article within The Hague, because The Hague doesn't have other districts that deserve a seperate article.

title: Talk:Scheveningen


text:
Talk:Scotland

Scottish Regions
Removed links to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen from under the 'Regions' heading because:
 * there are no recognised regions of Scotland with those names
 * the articles referenced describe the cities of those names, not regions
 * the links were in any case duplicated under the 'Cities' heading.

That leaves us with the Orkneys and the Hebrides as the only Scottish regions. I think there are genuine regions on the Scottish mainland, but I'm quite sure they are not Glasgow, etc. My experience of living in Scotland is 15 years back; then I would have probably plumped for 'Strathclyde', 'Lothian', etc. Would this still be a good regional breakdown?. -- (WT-en) chris_j_wood 00:56 May 26 2004

 * So, one way we've figured this stuff out in the past is with a hierarchical list on the talk page. I think Talk:Switzerland and Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy have some examples. Maybe try and propose an idea here for brainstorming? I have to admit that I know next to nothing about Scotland. --(WT-en) Evan 01:15, 26 May 2004 (EDT)

Ok. My suggestion is below, in heirarchic form. I think we should try and keep this to a single level of regions, as personally I find the rather deep heirarchies currently seen in (eg.) England or London impenitrable to the casual reader.

Scotland has been through several largely contradictory local government reoganisations in the last few decades (a bit like an edit war in slow motion) so I have chosen to more or less completely ignore local government boundaries and go for the regions that I remember locals talking about when I was there, and which I think correspond with cultural and scenic differences.

 * Central Belt
 * Edinburgh
 * Glasgow
 * Stirling
 * Borders
 * Peebles
 * Hebredean Islands
 * Highlands
 * Fort William
 * Inverness
 * Oban
 * Perth
 * North East Scotland
 * Aberdeen
 * Dundee
 * St Andrews
 * Orkney Islands
 * Shetland Islands
 * South West Scotland
 * Ayr
 * Dumfries
 * Locherbie

The one that might cause controversy here is lumping both Glasgow and Edinburgh into a single 'Central Belt' region, given the historic emnity between the two cities. But from an external viewpoint (and that is surely what wikivoyage is about) they are almost twin cities only an hours drive apart.

But hey, I'm only an Englishman who spent two years in Glasgow 15 years ago. Roll on some Scots wikivoyagers. -- (WT-en) chris_j_wood 17:15 26 May 2004

 * I confess I don't understand the principle (or point) of wikivoyage's heirarchical decomposition of countries, but from a tourist's perspective the governmental map is fairly useless. As one of the aforementioned Scots wikivoyagers, I'd suggest something like:
 * Central Belt (Edinburgh, Stirling, Glasgow) - highly urbanised with culture, history, nightlife mixed liberally
 * Borders (really the SE) Jed, Melrose, Berwick
 * SW (Lanark, Ayr, Troon, Dunfries)
 * East coast & Tayside (Fife, St Andrews, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen)
 * West coast (Loch Lomond, Kintyre, Oban, Fort William, Torridon, Ullapool)
 * Western Islands (from Islay and Jura to Mull, Skye, Harris, Lewis, and the archipelago of sheep-encrusted hillocks in between)
 * Orkney & Shetland
 * The highlands (Fort William, the Great Glen, Inverness, Speyside, Aviebore, Dornoch, and the NW highlands)
 * These are distinct by character (insofar as one can make such clumsy categorisations). It strikes me that if someone were fairly short of time and wanted to see as much of the character of Scotland as possible, they'd be far better picking one of the central belt cities, one of the coasts, and either the islands or the highlands, rather than both Glasgow and Edinburgh, say. -- (WT-en) Finlay McWalter 19:36, 29 Nov 2004 (EST)

Scotland
Most of this entry is nonsense.

This section -

Towns

* Ardrossan * Brodick * Kilwinning * Lochranza * North Berwick * Saltcoats * Whiting Bay

Someone from Lanarkshire Council has been editing this, as most of these places are of no merit whatsoever.

The culture section of this entry is diabolical. Irvine Welsh is the only name mentioned? What happened to Walter Scott, R. Louis Setevnson, Muriel Spark, Robert Burns, David Daiches, Edwin Morgan, Sorley Maclean...?

 * If there are improvements you'd like to make, plunge forward and do it! -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:53, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

Cities
I've cut the number of cities/towns down to 9 as per Project:Country article template. The 6 cities obviously should be included, but I'm not 100% sure which 3 towns to include. At the moment I've listed Perth (the one I'm most confident about), Dumfries (as a base for exploring both the South West and Borders) and Lanark (as New Lanark is a major tourist destination) but I'm not Scottish so I may have missed a more obvious destination. If I have either let me know or change the list and I'll upload a new version of the map. --(WT-en) Paul. 11:23, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Scottish-Gaelic phrasebook?
Although I know Scotland (like Wales) is almost entirely bilingual, should there be a gaelic phrasebook? The language is mostly isolated to the Hebredees and places in the northwest of the highlands; but I'm sure it wouldn't go unappreciated if a tourist to the ares was able to ask questions are speak very basic phrases of the language. Could somebody who speaks Gaelic create a gaelic phrasebook please. Thanks.

 * I doubt this is necessary. Scotland *is* bilingual, but not in Gaelic and English. The majority languages are English and Scots, but nothing is signed in Scots and almost everyone can switch into 100% english on demand. Whether or not a visitor will understand them is another matter. The gaelic roadsigns are for the tourists, and they are signed in english as well. Maybe one day Gaelic will have recovered enough for it to be spoken widely, here's hoping.

Also of course written Gaelic is notoriously difficult for an english speaker to pronounce. Tìoraidh ;-) 77.72.111.161 05:53, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

re: "Cèilidh = informal celebration, party (pr. KAY-lay)"

fwiw, I would suggest the pronounciation would be KAY-lee. See https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+do+you+pronounce+C%C3%A8ilidh&tbm=vid

Countries or Home Nations?
I see this article has recently been changed, along with Wales and England, to avoid refering to them as countries because they aren't listed on the List of countries, and calling them the Home Nations instead. I'm torn on this one - I see the logic, but a lot of Scots will object if you tell them Scotland's not a country. I think they probably are countries, countries in union, and so I guess that means they should be added to the list of countries. Any opinions? (WT-en) Andyfarrell 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

 * I made those changes, subsequent to this and this. I think the "logic" is strong and the "reality" weak, but I have no problem with them being in or out, as long as they are all in or all out. ~ 203.144.143.4 01:45, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Bank holidays
I've been trying to tidy up the United Kingdom article a bit and I've reformatted the section there on bank holidays, which seemed a bit waffly before. I've given basic details on regional variations, but judging from the situation in Scotland is particularly complicated (not just legally, but in terms of actual practice), so I've said to see this article for more details. I don't feel capable of writing that (I have no personal experience), can anyone else? --(WT-en) Zorn 20:20, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
 * I live here, and I wouldn't want to attempt it. Other than Easter, Christmas and New Year, UK bank holidays are virtually ignored, in favour of local holidays, which vary from city to city. Here in Edinburgh, a visitor would only really notice the difference from there being less traffic on the roads due to the schools being off, the buses running a Saturday timetable, and the occasional smaller shops away from the city centre being shut. That's the only way most locals (other than public-sector workers or parents) realise there is a holiday as well! (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:38, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Cheers, I've altered the United Kingdom article to say more-or-less what you just did.--(WT-en) Zorn 06:13, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Respect for the scottish..
The respect section seems to be updated in this article more than any other usable travel information.

Yes, Scottish aren't always like they are depicted in the movies. Yes, they don't all run around in kilts, and have ginger hair. Travellers expecting any group of people to fit with any stereotype will be disappointed wherever they go. Australians aren't like Crocodile Dundee or Steve Irwin, English are neither like characters out of Dickens or Jane Austen. Need I go on? This is true everywhere, and it is patronising both to the traveller and to the Scottish. It is already covered in Respect.

Travellers expecting cultural stereotypes will be disappointed everywhere. --(WT-en) inas 21:08, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Well said Inas. This respect section does my head in. I'm tempted to insert something like at the top of the Respect section in the hope that will bring a bit of sense to it. Thoughts? (WT-en) Tarr3n 04:43, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Worth a try - better than adding "Braveheart" to the spam list :-) --(WT-en) inas 05:12, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Following yet another edit expanding this section, I've dived in and trimmed it down to what I hope is a sensible level. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 16:53, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Cities list
Shall we put them in order of most-visited? (WT-en) Andyfarrell 02:27, 6 November 2009 (EST)

 * Normal WT practice would be the capital city first, followed by the rest in alphabetical order. So in that sense, the existing list is correctly ordered. There are only 7 cities listed though which is odd. Need two more. I would definitely suggest Perth as one. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:36, 6 November 2009 (EST)

 * We certainly don't need two more. The guideline is 7 plus or minus 2, so anywhere from 5-9 is fine.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:16, 6 November 2009 (EST)

 * OK poor choice of word... perhaps. But it is odd for a country with many developed city articles not to have nine listed on the main page. Perth, Elgin, Falkirk, Paisley.... and that's without even thinking. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:36, 6 November 2009 (EST)

 * Perth did strike me as an odd ommission; it markets itself as quite a tourist base. (I know technically the "fair city" is actually a town, but for our purposes it works, as with Dumfries.) Nowhere else seems to fit as a major destination worth including alongside the others. Fort William may be the closest - as a centre for the west highlands and based on the number of visitors going through there. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 11:59, 6 November 2009 (EST)

 * Fort William definitely a good option. I would therefore suggest Perth and Fort William (and supress my soft spot for dear old Elgin :) ). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:03, 6 November 2009 (EST)

 * Agreed, Elgin's lovely. Which reminds me I keep thinking a whisky tour itinerary would be a good idea, and then I keep forgetting to do anything about it. (WT-en) Andyfarrell 13:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Regions
Regions of Scotland appear to have been chosen based on administrative areas (Councils). Conventionally regions such as the Highlands are topographically defined. I wonder if this is possibly because maps are available the the administrative areas.

I live in what is referred to as Highland Perthshire. To describe it as being in North East Scotland is not quite as bad as describing Scotland as being part of England but it will provoke a heated debate. The placing of Perth and Kinross in the North-East perhaps dates bay the 1973 local government reorganisations

A number of whisky distilleries will have to modify their marketing if they are now longer considered to be in the Highlands.--Grahamstephen (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, we do have other things to take into account when devising a regional breakdown. Geography is part of it, but so is culture, relative size, number of attractions, etc.  It's more of an art than a science, and it's entirely possible we got some things wrong.  If you'd like to take a stab at an alternative regional breakdown, by all means; the current one appears to date to 2004 so it hasn't been reviewed in some time.  LtPowers (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The poor state of maps relating to Scotland
Hi all, I've been doing a tour of many region and county articles relating to Scotland, and I've found many of the maps to be unfit for purpose. The text of place names is often so small that even when the maps are blown up to huge sizes they remain illegible and unusable. Once particularly terrible example is on the Hebrides page; the map is massive but text is still so tiny. Because of the way the maps have been designed (i.e. without many details), there would be nothing relating to the dynamics of the map that would prevent the text from being considerably larger.

Why does this matter? Because these articles are designed to be printable and as such everything on them needs to be legible without having to follow hyperlinks to view larger versions of images.

Unfortunately I have neither the software nor the know-how to make the changes myself, so I'm appealing to the community. I've posted this here not only because the general map of Scotland also has the same problem, but because I guess that this must be a page that many relevant editors will have on their watchlists. I've also posted a request on the Request for maps page. So, what is to be done? ː-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I've fixed the Scotland map now. The Hebrides map looks like a more complicated case. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Scotland_region_map.svg|thumb|center|150px|This looks much betterǃ]]
 * Hi Ypsilon, thanks for your swift reply and action, but are you sure you made the changes to the Scotland map that you thought? I can see your new version by copying and pasting the file into this page but on the file's own page there doesn't seem to be any noticeable difference either to the text or the name "Edinburg". There is also no difference in the Scotland article. Has it gone wrong, or does it just take some time to update? Thanks, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Ah, it's changed on the Scotland page now, so I guess it just takes time to update and I was just being impatient. It looks good nowǃ --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Good to hear :). The old map is supposed to be gone when someone uploads a new version to Commons. Your browser probably had the old version of Scotland and the file page cached. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's a bit of a complicated file to figure out. I've updated a number of the top level subregion maps now so the names are more legible and updated the destinations shown so it better matches the Cities showing in the guide. I'll work on the readability of the others as time permits. Cheers. -Shaundd (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great work, thanks Shaunddǃ The Hebrides map in particular is looking so much better than it was. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The Hebrides map has a misspelling of Castlebay. Also for Orkney and Shetland - it is wrong to refer to them as "The Orkneys" or "The Shetlands". That can annoy the locals. They should just be referred to as "Orkney" and "Shetland", or "The Orkney Islands" and "The Shetland Islands". --Vclaw (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also a misspelling of "Ardrossan" on South West Scotland, and "St Andrews" on North East Scotland. --Vclaw (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, maps are updated. Not sure how long it will take for the changes to flow through. Thanks for pointing those errors out. -Shaundd (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[Unindent] No offense to anyone who spent a lot of time working on the Scotland map, but I have to object to the weirdness of showing sea where England is. This is misleading and ill serves the traveller. Could someone please update the map accordingly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Good point Ikan Kekek ! It does look like Scotland is floating by itself in the sea. It needs England to the south in some capacity. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 * User:Saqib hopefully still has the source file around and can add in northern England and Ireland. Powers (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the shout out. Have made the changes. --Saqib (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The time in Scotland
Any comments on my question here? Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Scots phrasebook - worth it?
Would it be worthwhile to create a phrasebook for the Scots language? The 1.5 million speakers (according to this article) makes it considerably more important than, e.g. Breton or Provençal (not to mention a little-known language called Gaelic...), even if its status as a language is controversial. But, if travellers attempted to use such a phrasebook to speak Scots in Scotland, would the reaction be welcomed as Breton would be in parts of Brittany, or would it be assumed they were trying to be funny or worse taking the piss? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't think that this is a priority, but I don't object if you want to create it. Scots is close to being understandable by English speakers - try the sample text in Scots language. Gaelic may be spoken by a lot less people, but it has more official recognition - there are Highers in it (separate school exams for learners and native speakers), and many road signs use it. Scots is now part of the Curriculum for Excellence, and a qualification in Scots Language has been offered since 2014. AlasdairW (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi, thanks for your reply, Alasdair. I know that written Scots is easy to understand for English speakers, but from what I've heard (mainly poetry and other literary stuff on YouTube), spoken Scots is more of a strain on comprehension. I guess my main question is whether there is any value, in your opinion, for visitors to have an understanding of, or be able to speak, basic Scots. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 * What the traveller encounters is not the older Scots tongue or Lallans, but English spoken with a Scottish accent (ie one of the many accents, plural). Currently many pages pat the locals on the head for speaking & understanding English: it feels like this should all be dealt with once under "Scotland / Talk" and have done. The regional / city entries would then just cover particular local usage. Glasgow deservedly has this, and it would be good to add the wondrous thing that is Aberdeenshire Doric or Buchan. Grahamsands (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Argyll
An explainer on recent work on Argyll and Bute, with proposals for next steps.

The administrative county of Argyll and Bute includes the Inner Hebrides: WV sensibly treats the latter separately. However some small islands very close to the mainland feel like they belong more to Argyll, so that’s where they now sit: Kerrera, Seil, Luing, Easdale, Scarba, Gigha and (the most marginal example) Isle of Lismore. Does this allocation seem reasonable?

“Cities” in this sparsely populated region need to cover a wide area. So: Campbeltown now covers the south end of Kintyre, from the Mull up to Carradale and the ferry pier at Tayinloan.

Tarbert (Loch Fyne) now covers north end of Kintyre, and Knapdale the other side of the west loch. I propose that it should also absorb Skipness, which has a dilapidated castle and not much else.

The coverage north of Knapdale is messy. Lochgilphead is the transport hub and has accommodation, but has no page. Tayvallich is basically a country lane ending at a ruined chapel. Kilmartin has outstanding megaliths and some accommodation, but is too small to be regarded as a hub. I propose building a page for Lochgilphead, to include Tayvallich, Crinan, Kilmartin and Ardfern.

Dunoon now covers the Cowal peninsula, everything south of A83.

Tarbet (Confused = Tarbert Loch Fyne) now covers Arrochar. I propose it absorbs all the itsy-bitsy places on Loch Lomond west bank, ie Luss, Inverbeg and Ardlui.

Once these are sorted, it will be easier to rationalise Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park. Grahamsands (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all your work on these articles. It is good to see the "cities" expanded to cover the area around.
 * Personally I would have kept Isle of Lismore in the Inner Hebrides, but I have only visited on the longer ferry from Oban, and I expect those that have used the shorter ferry would have a different view.
 * Lochgilphead does look to be a gap in our coverage - it is the "County Town" of Argyll and Bute as that is where the council meets.
 * Tarbet (Confused = Tarbet (Loch Lomond)) is possibly too far away to absorb both Inverbeg and Ardlui. Ardlui to Luss is 16 miles, and so is hardly a short stroll between listings. I think that Ardlui could be merged in to Tarbet. However I would move Inverbeg to Luss, which should have more coverage as it is a popular day trip destination from Glasgow. AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * DONE. If Lismore feels Hebridean then that's where it belongs. Luss and Lochgilphead are new pages, by & by they could do with new banner pix. Grahamsands (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is, which you can use if you want. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a lot of good work. I have changed the banners. AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Dulnain Bridge
Dulnain Bridge is rated "usable" yet is thin on content. There's accommodation but the only sight is, um, some rocks? (And not even brightly painted like at Millport.) I propose it merges into Grantown-on-Spey which is only 3 miles east - that page could also cover Nethy Bridge and Cromdale. Aviemore could cover Boat of Garten and Broomhill, which keeps the steam railway on one page. Grahamsands (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks a reasonable page to merge, please start a discussion on Talk:Dulnain Bridge, just in case there are any locals watching. AlasdairW (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merger done. Grahamsands (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Time formatting
I've been meaning to raise this question for a while. When I was in Scotland last autumn, I checked on the use of 12-hour clock and 24-hour clock times in Scotland. In Oban, I looked at a random sample of 25 schedules of shops (both local independents and chains), banks, cafes, a parking sign, etc. None of them were American chain outlets. 20 of them used the 12-hour clock, and the remaining 5 used the 24-hour clock. In Fort William, I checked 20 signs, including a few churches, and found 15 used the 12-hour clock and 5 used the 24-hour clock. In Glasgow, 16 12-hr, 4 24-hr. In St Andrews, 19 12-hr, 6 24-hr.

Pretty consistently then, I was observing 75-80% for 12-hr clock. I think that our advice for time formatting should be changed to reflect that. Ground Zero (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 * It seems a shame that you went to such trouble, but there's no Scotland formatbox on here to change. The UK box already mandates 12-hr clock.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, but I recall that there was discussion somewhere where someone claimed that Scotland is different from the rest of the UK, which is obvious in general terms, but specifically in time formatting I think it's not. Most of our Scotland articles seem to use the 24-hr clock, which I think reflects the personal preference of some editors rather than common usage. Ground Zero (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In the past, I have definitely been under the same impression that the 24-hr clock was recommended for Scotland.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scotland


text:
Talk:Scottish Highlands

Perth should not be in this section, it is already listed in "North East Scotland". 161.12.7.4 07:20, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Regions
It has been suggested as a problem to have the similarly named Highland (Scotland) region as a subregion of this one, and some redividing and/or renaming of districts is in order. AlasdairW made the suggestion at Talk:Highland (Scotland):
 * I see the problem with having two regions with almost the same name - I wonder if the answer is to rename this region. I had thought of North Highlands, but that is a town in California; North West Highlands is fairly accurate, but a bit of a mouthful and might not appeal to those on the East Coast. An alternative might be to split the region into three smaller areas, with names based on former counties: Caithness and Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty and Lochaber and Badenoch - exact names to be refined. I am happy for the merge tag to be removed at the moment.

I don't personally know enough about it to have a strong opinion. If it's to be simply renamed, I think Northwest Highlands (two words rather than three as above) would sound fine. Or perhaps it is indeed better to split it into three subregions. The large number of cities/villages for which have articles would indicate that the division could be a little more fine-grained. With 56 destination articles under Scottish Highlands as a whole, it likely needs to be split into more than the three regions AlasdairW suggested. If there are six former counties here, it might make sense to have each one be its own region article? Texugo (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Highland (Scotland). --Traveler100 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scottish Highlands


text:
Talk:Scotts Bluff National Monument

I still don't know whether this merits a full article. Using the standard of "can you sleep there?", then no, you can't. I suppose it could be folded into articles on Gering or Scottsbluff some time in the future. The thing is that right now, there are a number of pages that link to this article, and giving Scotts Bluff its own article makes it easier to find. Oh well.

If someone else wants to take the info here and put it in the "See" section of a town, they're welcome to it. -- (WT-en) Mikito 19:34, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * This one is a bit like Stonehenge in that it is definitely a travel destination worth writing about, and it isn't contained within a town (or even near a town), so it seems like a valid article; trying to lump it into a nearby town's article just because the park service hasn't built a campground seems like it would be awkward and also a bit counter-intuitive. The sleep and eat sections of the article can point to lodging and restaurants in the nearby towns, but otherwise it seems fine the way you've set it up. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 21:18, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Thanks for responding. I tend to think that sites that are accorded some sort of "National" status--national parks, national monuments, etc.--should have their own articles, because as you said, they are destinations. They may not be final destinations, but people certainly go out of their way to see them.

 * In addition, it simplifies the write-up of surrounding small towns which may not have anything of particular interest to travelers. It's much easier to have one park/monument/historic site article to point to rather than recopy the same info for all of the nearby towns. -- (WT-en) Mikito 23:52, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * I agree for the most part, unless a monument/park/etc is contained within a larger destination. Independence Hall obviously should be within Philadelphia, and something like Anacostia Park fits nicely within Washington, D.C..  For the case of Scotts Bluff, which is out in the boonies by its lonesome, having a separate article seems like the way to go. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 01:50, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Mikito: parks, etc. get their own destination page iff they're far from a city and would merit an overnight stay (See Project:What is an article?). If not, this information should probably be made a long attraction listing at the regional level; either in Nebraska or, more likely, Western Nebraska. --(WT-en) Evan 09:47, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * Evan, if the Scotts Bluff info is moved up to the state or regional level, how would the surrounding small towns be formatted? Right now, there aren't any articles for Gering or Scottsbluff. To put it bluntly, I don't know if there is anything of interest in those towns apart from their proximity to Scotts Bluff NM. The info for a Scotts Bluff regional listing could be just recopied into those town listings, but it might end up being longer than anything that is actually in Gering or Scottsbluff. Alternatively, the Scotts Bluff info for the town listing could be presented in abbreviated form, under the "Get out" section. What do you think? -- (WT-en) Mikito 16:39, 30 Jun 2005 (EDT)

 * The town of Scottsbluff really should have an article; it (with neighboring Gering) is about the only place for miles where you can find lodging, there are other historical sites nearby, and it's on a reasonably major road. I'll take a whack at it, and perhaps the national monument page should be merged into it if and when there's an article. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:12, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

Is this actually true? The bluffs were given no title until 1828. Hard to believe that the Sioux had no name for a formation so salient that it could be used as a landmark.

title: Talk:Scotts Bluff National Monument


text:
Talk:Scottsdale (Arizona)

''The below information was removed from the main article because it is better to have the information about the resorts in the article itself instead of a link to off-site. See Project:External links for more information. -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 20:04, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)''

 * Scottsdale Resort Guide a useful directory of upscale Scottsdale resorts and hotels,  . Properties are plotted on interactive maps and also feature nearby dining establishments, golf courses, and activities.

De-touted Hotel Scottsville
I've reverted the Hotel Scottsdale entry to an older version that had useful information in it (the latest version didn't) and removed the touting. The original postings were anonymous, so I'm noting this here rather than on their user page. If the original poster (or anyone who has visited) would like to provide better descriptions, that would be welcomed. (WT-en) Rnapier 13:10, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Copyvio www.scottsdalevb.com
I just took out a load of text contributed by user 65.165.227.60 a while back. All of that text appears on the official Scottsdale Visitor's Bureau website and every link added was back to that same website. I kept only the listing titles and threw them in alphabetical order. (WT-en) Texugo 02:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Bus System
I have tried several times to add information to this article relating to bus routes in and out of Scottsdale (which are not nearly so limited as this article implies). Why do these keep getting deleted? —The preceding comment was added by 72.37.244.20 (talk • contribs)

 * I don't see any additions of bus lines or removals of that information in the recent article history. Are you sure your edits were saved properly? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scottsdale (Arizona)


text:
Talk:Scottsville (Kentucky)

Fishing Guide Services
Priddy Boys Guide Service specializing in Hybird bass. Bring your Kentucky fishing licence and a snack, every thing else is ready for your arrivial. For a exciting fishing trip on Barren River Lake,  Call Jeff (270) 597-7356 www.priddyboysguide.com link title

title: Talk:Scottsville (Kentucky)


text:
Talk:Scranton

Fifteen years ago, Scranton was nearly in ruins. Today it's in renaissance, with a Hilton downtown and yuppies fixing up houses near the University. Some people are beginning to appreciate its proximity to nearby parks, lakes, and mountains, as well as the New York City metropolitan area. There's also talk of a new medical school. When the Lackawana railroad bounces back, connecting Scranton to New York, land values will soar. Until then, it's a nice place to visit.--(WT-en) Beenthere 00:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Scranton