Talk:Interior (Iceland)

Convert to city
As this is mostly empty space, converting this to a city article seems only logical to me... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why is that more logical or better? A park template might make some sense in terms of the relevant sections (we use that for large natural areas too), but I'm not seeing how it would be useful to put a huge natural region into a city article (yet) :-) It's also fine to leave irrelevant subsections out, if that's the issue. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the "park" template as well. However, as evidenced by Thousand islands which was an outline as a region for ages and is now a rather well written city article shows, things like that are not trivial. Whether the end-result is park or city, it should not be region. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose against making this an city article. It would just cause more issues than the article has already, because, to put it simply, this article does not fit with the city article format. The region template format, although it is not exactly ideal, is still better than that option. In terms of examples, Western Australia is the closest one I could find to how this article will end up.--Snaevar (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Raising this issue once more. Region articles are supposed to act as umbrellas for multiple lower-level pages. But this region is empty, and seems to remain empty indefinitely, as there are no proper destinations within it. We don't really need to change any of the headings, only the tag at the bottom. The main difference would be that we could update the page to usable status, and that it wouldn't take up space in the maintenance category "empty regions". Ping Snaevar, Hobbitschuster & JuliasTravels. MartinJacobson (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would to see an example of an park page, which is somewhat like this one. Although the Icelandic interior is empty in regards to cities, it has an large park named "Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður", an popular multi-day trek between Landmannalaugar and Þórsmörk among other things. Are there subparks on wikivoyage? If not, then mentioning Vatnajökull park in a park would be wierd.
 * As far as contributions go, I am holding mine off until there is an conclusion of what format this page should follow.--Snaevar (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

areas
The plan is to have three areas, as low level (as in city low level) pages. These three areas would be the two main roads, Kjölur, Sprengisandur and the third is Vatnajökull park. Vatnajökull exists already, the roads will be route pages. Kjölur covers the west, Sprengisandur the middle and Vatnajökull park the eastern part. There does have to be an emphasis on shops and eating here, because there is close to none within the area itself.--Snævar (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I trust that you know what's best. The two new ones would be park or rural area articles, I assume. You are right that it is important to list shops and eateries, but the emphasis should still be on what people are coming here for, which would be the natural attractions. Create the articles when you can make them more than stubs. –LPfi (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Climate
We now say:
 * "The average temperature at night is and the lowest temperature is . Daytime average is  with  being the highest temperature. The weather can change frequently, every 15 minutes, like is the case also elsewhere in the country."

Don't the temperatures vary by season? Aren't there colder extremes? All-year averages are little use to travellers.

The sentence about changes reads strange, as if this was a computer game, were weather changes are arbitrated each 15 minutes. I assume this is a way to say that weather can change abruptly, but some other phrasing is needed: "The weather is unpredictable; even if the skies are clear at the moment, there can be rain after 15 minutes"?

–LPfi (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)