Talk:Norway

Untitled

For instructions on using the infobox template, which displays short facts about a country, see the template's talk page. For further discussions on the structure of country articles and use of templates, see the country project and its talk page.

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Error grammar?

Hi,

Not an native English speaker ... the following sentence seemed a bit odd: ("Migration Age":) "The destruction of the Western Roman Empire by the Germanic tribes (5th century) is characterised by rich finds, including chieftains' graves containing magnificent weapons and gold objects." Can a destruction be characterized by rich finds?

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'm not sure just what is meant by that sentence. Worse, that entire section has no references at all. It's tagged "Main article: Migration Age" but the information here does not come from that article, where Norway isn't mentioned and the mention of "Scandinavia" tells very little. By Wikipedia's rules that entire section could be deleted today. This makes me wonder about the rest of this article; have the editors been as lax in the other sections, too? --Hordaland (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is still not fixed and the section is still un-referenced. I've added some "citation needed" tags and done some other small corrections. --Hordaland (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Population projections

For 2013 says 5,9 million, clearly it should be 4,9. I would fix it myself, but I'm not entirely sure I'd know what I was doing :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.228.155 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New image available.

File:Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway.jpeg

Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway

Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Arctic demarcation line text removed as "irrelevant" -- to be replaced

Delelinjen is part of the maritime border with Russia.

At this demarcation line's South end, Norway borders the Fedynsky natural resources field. To its North lies the Central Barents field. To its North lies the Perseevsky field.

---

• The above text was recently removed (diff) from the article's lead (which is too long IMO) with the edit summary: "Natural resources field summary removed because it was irrelevant and cited with a broken link.".
• The paragraph isn't pretty with its redlinks, and I see no reason at all to include the Norwegian word "delelinjen". It's true that the Aftenposten link is dead.
• Although I agree that the information needn't be in the lead, it is not irrelevant; it is important. I intend to use this article from Dagbladet and a couple of references from Norway–Russia border to write a new paragraph about the agreement. (Soonish?) --Hordaland (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Source this please.

"officially the Kingdom of Norway (de jure Kongeriget Norge (Danish), de facto Kongeriket Norge in Bokmål and Kongeriket Noreg in Nynorsk"

Can someone source the information that states Norway's legal name to still be "Kongeriget Norge"? I am very sure this was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.83.79 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Section 1 of the Constitution: 'Kongeriget Norge er [...]' Link This is the supreme determination of Norway's forfatning, including the official name. No More 18 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Section 1 was changed today. It now says 'Kongeriket Norge er [...]'. No More 18 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

In the fact box it is noted that Norway has a "patron saint", is this an determined and sourced fact, or even noteworthy? I think it fails on both counts, and should be removed. A more fitting article might be Christianity in Norway. 81.129.27.174 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: "Patron Saint" is a standard, optional, parameter of Template:Infobox country - if it wasn't, it wouldn't appear in the info-box, parameters can't be added at will.
Patron Saints appear in the info-boxes of many countries e.g. England, but an info-box parameter will only show if text has been included - we don't show blank parameters.
As for referencing it, this would be unusual, but a reference can be found at Patron saints of places which also gives Magnus of Orkney as another patron saint of Norway - perhaps he should be added?
Arjayay (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Enig og tro til Dovre faller

We've had a bit of edit-warring slow "edit-warring" about the correct translation of this motto, which appears in the article's infobox. These two versions have been argued for:

• "United and loyal 'til [the mountain range of] Dovre crumbles"
• "United and loyal 'til [the mountain range of] Dovre falls [into others' hands]"

FYI: I've just written to Språknytt, the magazine published by Språkrådet (The National Language Council under Kulturdepartementet, The Culture Department) asking which of the two is the correct translation. I've asked for the answer to appear in Språknytt, as I reckon it is a reliable source.

Språknytt comes out only a few times a year, so we may have to wait a while for an official answer. --Hordaland (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dovrefjell.

There hasn't been a recent edit war, the way I see it; an edit war requires the violation of the WP:3RR. If one also respects the inserted maintenance tag, I am sure this case may be solved peacefully.

It is not logical that a relatively flat mountain like Dovre may crumble or that the crumbling of this mountain would mean the end of a political agreement. This phrase was used in 1814 (see below) but is probably older, perhaps a military slogan originating from the many wars between Denmark–Norway and our archenemy Sweden, like when the latter occupied Trøndelag. If Dovre—the mountain dividing Norway into a Southern part (søndenfjelske), a Western part (vestenfjelske), and a Northern part (nordenfjelske)—had fallen to Sweden, the Kingdom would abstractly and to a lesser extent physically and communicationally have been separated into three parts, hence: South, West, and North are united and loyal to each other until Dovre falls, but after that we'll have to survive on our own.

The oath should be considered and interpreted within its context: the Constitutional Assembly had just adopted the Constitution as an attempt to avoid a union with Sweden, and likewise, it had elected Prince Christian Frederik of Denmark as King of Norway. Whilst supporters of a Swedish-Norwegian union were present there, the Assembly was mainly anti-Swedish, and they were also under the supervision of King Christian Frederick. Using a traditional, anti-Swedish slogan seems to fit in with this situation.

I applaud your choice to contact the Language Council, and it'll be interesting to read their answer. No More 18 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand your argument. It seems to me that the whole point of the oath is that, as you say, Dovre is not likely to crumble any time soon. My reading has always been that "'til Dovre crumbles" is a poetic way of saying "forever". Or, to quote lokalhistoriewiki.no (translated from Norwegian by me): "Dovre has long been a symbol of eternal and unchanging nature in the consciousness of Norwegians". In other words, the oath is basically "United and loyal until the end of time" (when everything, presumably, will crumble). It seems highly unlikely to me that men in a nationalistic mood and seeking independence (as the overwhelming majority of representatives at Eidsvoll did) would swear the kind of wishy-washy, conditional oath you're suggesting, which is basically "loyal, unless the Swedes kick our asses". In any case, though, I guess we might as well wait for the Language Council. Maitreya (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I should report that I got an e-mail from Språkrådet thanking me for my question and politely informing me that people "generally" can't order (bestille) an answer in the magazine. I'm quite sure that they will answer, and I'm still hoping it will be in the magazine. --Hordaland (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it is a coincidence or if some people in NRK reads the talk page too, but they have attempted at an answer here: http://www.nrk.no/ho/dovrefjell-som-nasjonalt-symbol-1.11721954 -Hekseuret (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)