Talk:Scandinavian Peninsula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Scandinavian Peninsula was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on 21 March 2006. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

Contents 1 Old discussion 2 Images don't fit 3 To do list 4 Åland, Gotland and other Baltic islands 5 Glittertinden or Galdhøpiggen? 6 Climate and Geology

[edit] Old discussion

The name Scandinavia comes from the mountain range that separates Norway and Sweden, thus the name Scandinavian Peninsula. This is similar to the Appenine Peninsula (Italy) which is named after the Appenine mountain range or the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) which is named after the Iberian mountain range. The name of the Scandinavian mountain range in Swedish is Skanderna, which is a plural form./Mic

Do you have any sources to support this? Most sources I have found says that the name comes from Pliny the Elder's text Naturalis Historia where it is written "Scatinavia". This is a latin form of the Germanic "Skadin-Auju". Even if this term refers to what is today known as Scania, it was used for a larger area. A search for "Platinius Scatinavia" in your favourite search engine should give more sources. Some URLs to take a look at are http://www.luth.se/luth/present/sweden/history/dictionary/letters.shtml and http://www.areion.de/norwegenc.html -- Gustavf Mon Mar 10 12:30:04 CET 2003

You mean the "Scandinavian peninsula" is named after "Scandinavia". No its not the same as Iberian Peninsula. --Arigato1 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. The name doesn't come from the Fennoscandian range, it's the other way around. Yes, "Scandinavia" is from Latin, but the Germanic word is very old. For instance, the Goths traced their ancestry to "Scandza" according to Jordanes, and if he's to be believed (in that it was what the Goths traditionally called their place of origin), then it's from at least several hundred years B.C. since that's the approximate date of their departure. I don't think there's any clear idea of exactly when the term originated, or exactly which area it referred to. (The Scanian peninsula or the Scandinavian one) --BluePlatypus 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images don't fit

I tried to put the images inline with the text where they applied, but the "Scandinavia" template throws everything off if I do that, so I put them all in a gallery at the bottom of the page. They should be reinserted later, specifically when there is more text on the page. J. Finkelstein 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Navbox is IMHO too long, can we just remove its obscure "sports" entry at the bottom? -- Omniplex 11:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

I think the discussion page needs a todo list... so users can colaborate Juan Scott 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Bornholm, mention it? Looking at the map I guess Gotland and Åland are good enough. -- Omniplex 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fun stuff, a Scandinavian map as ASCII art, clearly showing "A" Åland, "G" Gotland, and "B" Bornholm. -- Omniplex 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Åland, Gotland and other Baltic islands

Removing that is a bad idea, on the map it's bigger than Stockholm, and Gotland is also very visible on the map. The article talks about all bordering countries, it should also mention an autonomous region with its own .ax country code only 40 km from the shore of the Peninsula. -- Omniplex 11:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from User talk:Omniplex:

Regarding islands near the Scandinavian Peninsula: Gotland and Åland are islands in the Baltic Sea, and they are about as relevant to the geography of the Scandinavian Peninsula as, say, Saaremaa, Sjælland, Orust, Læsø or Smøla. Please provide a reasonable argument for your explicit mention of these islands and the exclusion of all the others (exept, arguably, Saaremaa, which is closer to the Estonian mainland). Country-level internet domains or font size on certain maps can hardly be the basis of defining criteria for singling out certain islands or archipelagoes or other landforms over others in an article about a peninsula. If physical proximity to the peninsula or island size are to be taken as sufficient reason for explicit mention, then Zealand would merit an even more prominent mention. Other islands associated with this peninsula are listed here, here, here, here and here. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 11:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the other islands you mention here, but they clearly have no country code, their names are not shown on the map, unlike Åland and Gotland. Forgetting the former is like a list of countries adjacent to France omitting Andorra, Monaco, and the Channel Islands. Maybe Gotland geographically even belongs to the Peninsula, we'd need a topographic map of the Baltic Sea to judge it. -- Omniplex 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, internet country codes or cartographers' choice of font sizes do not define geographical features. The only islands that can be said to "be part of" a peninsula, in certain respects, are those located inland, i.e. in lakes or rivers; consequently Frösön could be said to be an "internal" island on the Peninsula. (France, Andorra and Monaco are not islands or peninsulas, so I don't understand that parallel of yours.) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the first picture in Baltic Sea it's now certain that Gotland is (1) the biggest island, and (2) clearly a part of the geographical formation. Åland is a border case, or in other words, the Baltic Sea picture doesn't answer the geographical question. Let's say geographically no part of the Peninsula, but it's still at the border, the article mentions Sweden and Finland, the formerly disputed territory between them, now autonomous, should be also mentioned. -- Omniplex 12:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are (1) wrong and (2) misunderstanding what a peninsula is. Zealand, across from the Oresund, is much closer to the Scandinavian Peninsula than Gotland (4 km versus 90 km), and is also twice as large as Gotland (7 031 km² versus 3 140 km²). Perhaps the articles on continental shelf or territorial waters are what you are referring to when you talk about "geographical formations" and say that one of the islands is right "on the border" of the peninsula? The "borders" of any peninsula are its coastline (and adjacent seas) and its isthmus. Sometimes land borders coincide with isthmuses. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fresh evidence: NORDIC FAQ with tons of info, I won't read it all. From other sources I reckon that Bornholm could be considered as the south end, but it's admittedly relatively small. The statement about Åland should be okay as is, Gotland as fact is okay, but saying also to the east is admittedly clumsy, maybe improve it. -- Omniplex 13:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Omniplex, please read the articles peninsula, landform, archipelago and island. Bornholm, too, is an island, it is not part of any peninsula. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning on your talk page. -- Omniplex 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a pretty lame and silly move, Omniplex. I am as aware of the 3RR as any other editer here. All you need to do is discuss. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glittertinden or Galdhøpiggen?

From what I have heard, the snow on Glittertinden has partially melted, so Galdhøpiggen at 2469 m is now the undisputed highest mountain in Scandinavia. Orcaborealis 21:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spotted another mistake: Jostedalsbreen is not a left over from the ice age, recent research has shown that the glaciers melted (probably entirely) in the warm periode 9000-5000 years ago, when the climate was 1-3 centigrades warmer. Orcaborealis 07:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the article, see Glittertind. Orcaborealis 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate and Geology

• The article fails to mention the fact that the western coast of the peninsula north to Lofoten has a Marine West Coast Climate - Cool (see data for Svolvær at Geography of Norway, compare with reference section addition about climate).
• Substantial parts of Norway's geology are not dominated by the Baltic Shield, but by the Cambrian collision with Greenland creating the mountain range which mostly consists of marine rock
• The reason why arable land in Norway is only 3% (could have been somewhat higher if economical feasible) is mainly due to elevation and, in the far north (Troms and Finnmark), short and cool growing season. Orcaborealis 09:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to modify the section (including references), qualifying these statements. The sources I consulted (in print.google.com) principally discussed about the shield in this context, and mentioned how the caledonian highlands and other mountain ranges were created by the atlantic expansion and the shield's rigidity. In fact, part of the northern marine rock elevation in Norway is attributable to the shield. And is obvious that the arable land figure is not only caused by erosion, although the source directly related them. IvanDíaz 10:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Add it ;-) Unfotunately I found no confirmation for the new highest mountain in the Nordic FAQ, their Norway Geo chapter is a bit short. That Norway's climate is related to the Gulf stream is a fact. -- Omniplex 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A print reference or even a newspaper would be more preferable that a FAQ in the net :). IvanDíaz 10:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends, I'd trust some Usenet FAQs more than say Factmonster, whatever that's supposed to be. Actually I was too lazy to start a proper external links section with one entry, or to find out more about the new <references> footnote style chosen by somebody else for the article... ;-) -- Omniplex 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)