Talk:Gotland

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles Sweden High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Tofta skjutfält from sv.wikipedia.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

Given that the Armed Forces have so few BAMSE (RBS 23) batteries due to government penny-pinching, I doubt that we'll see any deployed on the island in the short term even though they're badly needed. However, in case I'm wrong, I'll leave this old but still useful link relating to the BAMSE here just so we'll have a reasonable technical reference handy: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/ Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, or I should say night, W.carter. A news report I just came across claims there are plans at an advanced stage for a support helicopter squadron (Hkp 16/UH-60M?) and a Gripen 'fast response squadron' to be deployed to the island to shore up the defenses. I'm a bit skeptical though, given that the Swedish Air Force doesn't presently have the resources to deploy even a short squadron on a semi-permanent basis to Visby Airport, and as for the helicopters, well the Helikopterflottiljen is an unmitigated disaster to put it mildly. I'd say right at this moment the Army and Navy are banging down the doors demanding 'their' helicopters back. Just from the political angle alone, the Flygvapnet is on a very thin branch indeed at the moment.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being thrown under the bus by the politicians in the very near future as they try desperately to divert away attention from their own failures & dubious behavior. Anyway, I've added a quick update to the Military section. See you around tomorrow! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved 72.188.121.176's comment from article to talk page. "This is wrong. Ragnar's village is in Jutland, ie Denmark, not Gotland." - w.carter-Talk 16:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The History Channel has no clue where Ragnar came from, so they made it up. The clue is in the words "Norse legend".  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we're talking about show Ragnar, not real Ragnar who might not have even existed. Someone posted in the page for Gotland that it is revealed that Ragnar's village in the show is in Gotland. That's wrong. It's Kattegat, which is a sound in between Denmark and Sweden, but in the show it's referred to as being where his village is. Gotland is an island on the opposite side of Sweden from Kattegat which means that it geographically isn't possible that it's where Ragnar's village is. His village in the show is in Denmark. I'm rewatching season 2 right now (which is the season that the person claimed they revealed Ragnar's village's location) and it is very obvious that it isn't Gotland. (spoilers) Jarl Borg travels from Gotland to Kattegat to raid Ragnar's village while he is raiding England. Whoever made that edit was getting mixed up between Jutland and Gotland. The closest I have to a reference is just from the Vikings wiki http://vikings.wikia.com/wiki/Kattegat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdrew88 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the text was unsourced and not verifiable it is now removed. w.carter-Talk 06:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article really need the following categories: Swedish Army, Military of Sweden, Coastal fortifications, Sweden in World War II, Cold War? /Saftgurka (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saftgurka: I think they were added before the creation of the article Military on Gotland when more contents of that article was just a section here. They have just been left behind and I think it's safe to remove them. w.carter-Talk 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, then I'll delete them. Thanks. /Saftgurka (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding a discussion of this in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.69.66 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106052523/http://www.ufo.se/fakta/artiklar/martebo.shtml to http://www.ufo.se/fakta/artiklar/martebo.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.popularastronomi.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2008-4_asteroider.pdfdate%3D2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we split off the list of notable people into a list article of its own. Following a discussion with ArbieP who so diligently added info to the list, I put the proposal here. Such an article could also again make use of the pictures that SovalValtos so unceremoniously removed from the article. Thoughts? cart-Talk 22:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My view (perhaps unsurprising) is that whilst the list of notables is indeed on the long side, its division into three sections breaks it up from seeming excessively long. I would also prefer the photos to remain (or come back) as they illustrate the historical perspective of the list, and so, something of where the characters within it come from. ArbieP (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is, so far, no text concerning the historical perspective of the list to be illustrated. Until such time as there is, the images have no place in this article as well as their own articles.SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that images realted to lists make reading the article more enjoyable for the average reader (Wikipedia:Readers first). The layout of an article is just as important as the content and lists tend to be rather boring in that respect. Some pictures will spark interest and may entice the reader to actually move on and read the linked articles. Many editors here are scholars, used to trudging through dry texts, most readers are not. cart-Talk 10:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons of readability I think the list should be att bottom of the page, so that it does not disrupt the text. The list is large enough to guarantee a proper article and that is perhaps the best move in the end since the list have much potential for growth. Also wherever the list is I am of the view that it should be supported by pictures. Lappspira (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we may reach a consensus on the two issues here - (1) splitting and (2) the use (or not) of photographs. If a split were to be done, can we be confident that SovalValtos (or others) would not delete the photos from a new page? If so, I would accept the proposal to split, albeit with some reluctance ArbieP (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can never be sure how other editors will treat our work. This is after all a place where anyone can edit. Doing large edits on any article will always bring out the sharks to take bites from it, as such additions show up in the 'Recent edits lists' and watchlists. We can only hope that some reason will prevail. cart-Talk 18:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what I said above: I think the list has a greater chance of keeping the pictures if it is made into a separate article. I took many of the photos to make the Featured List List of church ruins on Gotland complete. In that article, every entry has a photo and that was brought up as something positive in the Featured assessment. Featured lists and articles are very good guidelines for how regular lists and articles should look. Looking at some random links among the Category:Featured lists, it is quite common to have photos illustrating the lists, especially when it's a list of people. cart-Talk 20:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that many of the list population do not have sources showing they belong. I would not oppose the creation of a Gotland notable people list article. It would give the opportunity of changing the section in this article into a text summary.SovalValtos (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2003, the use of spaces as separators (for example: 20 000 and 1 000 000 for "twenty thousand" and "one million") has been officially endorsed by SI/ISO 31-0 standard, as well as by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the American Medical Association's widely followed AMA Manual of Style, and the Metrication Board, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should bring that up at the talk page for MOS:DIGITS since both spaces and commas are allowed on this project. --cart-Talk 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Heraldry section refers to the seal of the Gutnish Republic. A search of Wikipedia reveals only this one mention of this entity. What was this republic? When? If this existed, I would have thought a mention in history would have been helpful, if not an article of its own. Anyone know? First time I’d heard of it. Ptilinopus (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox here gives the length of Gotland as 176 km. So do the sources I find using a Google search. But Google Earth shows it as 125 km; and so, near enough, do the atlases I've consulted. Even if the nearby island of Fårö is included, the total length is only 140 km. I suspect that the 176 figure comes from an error in a single source which has been copied. This map at Swedish Wikipedia appears to show its length at about 102 km.

I would change the figure in the infobox to 125 km, but that would be original research. Any suggestions? Maproom (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article, which is sourced. The "driving distance" must exceed the direct distance, so I'll go ahead and make the change to 125 km. Maproom (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]