Talk:Hordaland

If someone gets to read this I would like to know wheter is a city called Vindaas or not in Norway... I am trying to find out about the origin of my lastname which is Vindas and heard that there is a city called like that in Norway, espefically in a region or state called Hordaland... If you live in Norway or have any information regarding that city, do not hesitate to contact me, you can send me an email to the following email address vindas-92@hotmail.es

I appreciate any kind of help you guys can give

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Both beautiful, but I've gotta go with the original, because of the reflections. Could the new banner be used in a different article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The existing banner could be of any place. It shows mainly a boat and a reflection of some mountain which could be any mountain. The new banner shows an amazing iconic scenery which is unique only to Hordaland. ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll respect any consensus that gets behind you on this, as I haven't visited Hordaland. However, I would observe that the reflections have particular shapes that probably can't be seen everywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Both are beautiful banners and I have no strong preference. The new banner has no source image; @ויקיג&#39;אנקי, did you take the picture yourself? It's a stunning scene. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Check the file info again (I just created this banner. In many instances, such as this one, when I am working on many Wikivoyage things all at once, it takes me a couple of hours to get to writing the full correct derivative license of the Wikivoyage banners I create). ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Has to be number two! Stunning. The first one looks like someone made a mistake uploading. – Hshook (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Danapit (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep original. #2 is very good, but Trolltunga has been hyped and after recent death and rescue operations there are doubts in Norway about the marketing of this place. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps process another fjord image, like the one from Sørfjorden with Folgefonna. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Trolltunga 2.jpg I actually like the current image a lot. The reflection gives it an almost artistic quality. I do think the image of Trolltunga is a fascinating one, but perhaps it's even more spectacular (and more correct) in its original form. I'd say keep the current banner, but perhaps we can include the source image of the new banner in the article? The fact that it's hyped or there's discussion about promotion shouldn't keep us from informing travellers, I think. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the original. Why waste time creating a new banner when the original is so good? (This applies to most banner proposals by the way)
 * Erik den yngre's point about the recent death from rock in the proposed picture is somewhat relevant as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with JuliasTravels that WV should inform travellers, but information should be fair and realistic. Trolltunga is in fact not very representative for Hordaland county, and it is not very accessible. Trolltunga is not something the average tourist can expect to see. Fjords are the most typical for the county, in addition of course to the city of Bergen. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Banner 2 is the obvious choice, 1 is nice but 2 is much more iconic and breathtaking. Syced (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the reasons mentioned above. #2 is certainly a great photo, but does not tell a fair and relevant story about Hordaland. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

sub-regions
Should Hardanger be merged into this region article? Or should other sub-region be created? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sunnhordland and Nordhordland would probably not be very useful as regions, but might be used as city articles covering their entire respective region. If we choose that solution it would make sense to use Hordaland as a bottom level region. That means that Hardanger should either be split up between smaller units which act as cities on their own right, or that we make Hardanger itself a city article and merge the city articles within it into the Hardanger article. The question is thus whether Odda, Eidfjord, Ulvik, Finse, Rosendal and Kvamskogen are best treated as one or several articles. As all of these except Odda are tiny villages with some 1,000 inhabitants each, I would probably vote for the merge option. MartinJacobson (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number of listings in the Hardanger article that are close or even in towns that have articles. Maybe should sort out the articles then review again. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All listings moved to city (town or municipality) articles. Should the understand text of Hardanger and Sunnhordland be merged into Hordaland ?

I dont agree on the recent changes. Some of the changes for Hardanger does not make sense or are not informative for the traveller, so I put some of the highlights back where they belong, in the Hardanger article rather than in articles on this small villages. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Places like Kvamskogen probably dont need separate articles, Kvamskogen is a smallish ski resort with many holiday homes for citizens of Bergen. Hardanger should be kept as the key article inside Hordaland, along with Voss and Bergen. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hordaland is a county (intermediate administrative level), but will soon merge with Sogn og Fjordane to form a new county. The new county will be too large and villages too small as key articles. I suggest the following regions: Not sure if Sunnfjord and Nordhordland should have their own articles, as these districts are not very distinct or too small as destinations. Erik den yngre (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bergen and surroundings (Midhordland)
 * Voss
 * Hardanger
 * Sunnhordland
 * Sognefjorden
 * Nordfjord
 * As this discussion ended 3 years ago, is it time to remove the "Region Discussion" tag from the article? Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)