Talk:Gotland/Archive 1

There's a link on this page to Culture of Gotland, which unfortunately contains only a copy of the section here. I suggest a merge or redirect. --Janke | Talk 07:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really like to say this:

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

In other words, go ahead. Just as long as you remove the ugly "merge" tag. :-)

Fred-Chess 13:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Swedish submarine "Gotland" stationed in San Diego? Zelaron 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about this ship should not be merged with this article. It is a separate topic about something that (presumably) only shares the same name. Follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) about naming the article, that is, use the ship prefix to distinguish the ship from other things of the same name. According to Ship prefix, the ship prefix for Swedish ships is "HMS", so if the ship is named Gotland, name the article "HMS Gotland", which apparently already has a page which links to the ship in question: HMS Gotland (Gtd). -- Centrx 00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The submarine is definitely named after the island, but I doubt there is ant stronger connection between them than that. In the article for the island, one should of course not mention the submarine, but in the article for the submarine, it may have some (but not much) relevance to mention where the name comes from.

Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This page really need a section on tourism. It states in the ingress that tourism is a big industry but then pretty much leaves todays Gotland out of it. Anyone ready to write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf1966 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - W.carter (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the unofficial flag of Gotland could be added somewhere to the article? I believe that it would be a nice complement to the article. 78.98.34.190 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the old Finnish name Vuojonmaa (not in offical use anymore) and Estonian Ojamaa (still in offical use) in the main article. There were also Estonian and Finnish inhabitants living in the island before the Hanseatic League times. Russian sources claim even that in Commercial Treaty between Novgorod and Hanseatic League Novgorodian ships were allowed to visit the island and use its harbours. In addition Orthodox Churches were built in the island for the Novgorodian sailors and personel who served on the Novgorodian commercial tradepost. This treaty is said to have been signed after Birka period in the early 1200s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.81.43 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this would be Zealand rather than Gotland. I am living in Copenhagen, and I am five minutes away from the seashore, and this is most definitely the Baltic sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes Rohr (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that Mr.Johannes, here is a source that says that Gotland is in fact the largest island in the Baltic Sea [1]--Martin (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well but it appears that knowledgerush is a mirror of Wikipedia (common mistake).

I think that List of islands in the Baltic Sea explains better that Zealand is clearly larger than Gotland, but it isn't entirely located in the Baltic Sea.

Fred-J 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not 'entirely', that's correct. But how does this make Zealand not an island of the Baltic Sea?

Still most of its coastline is Baltic, at least if we count the Great Belt as part of the Baltic, which I would as it is the Belt from which the term is derived). And the Øresund I would count as Baltic as well because there are no Oceanic tides here. Therefore, without qualification, the claim is inaccurate. As I said, I live on Zealand, in Copenhagen and just a few meters away from the Baltic Coast... --Johannes Rohr (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend to consider Zealand as an island of the Baltic Sea, even if it is disputed if the north of Zealand belongs to the Baltic Sea or the North Sea or whatever, but the south is doubtless part of the Baltic Sea. --Bk1 168 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zealand is not *in* the Baltic sea, so the claim it's the largest island *in* the Baltic sea simply makes no sense to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do not understand the need for anything to be biggest, this can be settled by being more accurate with the descriptive language, as I will be in the edit that follows shortly, which will mention Zealand and its location, describing it based on its description at one of the cited references at Zealand (the much maligned, but frequently superior source, EB). Cheers, look to the revised text, and to the Zealand article for more. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this page continues on with a large amount of blank space below the article. Is this just a problem with my browser, or is something messed up with the article's formatting? --86.135.125.70 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem. It used to view just fine, so maybe it is a temporary problem.

Fred-J 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

experimenting with the preview function in editing indicates the location map in the template is causing it, but i have no idea why. --86.135.125.70 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding lat/long to the locator map fixed it. The dot on the map seems a bit unnecessary but its better than the space. --Skizzik^talk 07:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know where to post about it, but under References in Popular Culture, it should be mentioned that Pippi Longstocking is from the region, and it's where most of the stories are set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.247.31 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact she isn't. The movies are, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should be a little bit more precise with the area. The island Gotland has an area of 2994 km², but the municipality, the province, the historical province etc. all include these additional islands, which makes the area larger. Btw. there are more minor islands than the ones mentioned, but I think that I can just change that. --Bk1 168 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the idea, that the area of the province makes more sense than the area of the island in the table, as long as it is clear, what the value is. But where does the 3140 come from? The reference http://www.scb.se/Pages/PublishingCalendarViewInfo____259923.aspx?PublObjId=10420 tells us that it is 3183 km² including inland water and 3151 km² excluding inland water. I would think that 3183 would be the usual figure to use as the area of the province, because commonly the land surface including lakes, rivers etc. is provided. But maybe the 3140 km² has a good reason which I do not see? -- Bk1 168 (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. :) 3183 is likely the best number here, that's what people would expect I think, the province area with inland water. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it is 3183.72 km² (see Gotland Municipality, so rounded it would be 3184 km². I would suggest to use this number. I like the 3183.72 in the way that it expresses something about its own accuracy.--Bk1 168 (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in 3183.7, because that is covered by the source.--Bk1 168 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! --OpenFuture (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bk1 168:@OpenFuture:Hello! Person living on Gotland and editing on EngWiki butting in here. On the website of the County Administrative Board of Gotland the area is stated as 3140 km2. They must have some reason to write that. See: Facts about Gotland it is in Swedish, but it is easy to understand. This website is very useful for finding hard facts about all things Gotland. If you need something translated just ask me. - W.carter (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more numbers and info on Gotland see Gotland i siffror 2012 - W.carter (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Placing one refimprove section tag, on the History section, for which there is no excuse for poor referencing. Search for Gotland in the appended, a trio of relevant sources that while limited in scope might lead to further ones (and generally inspire better sourcing for the history section). I turned these over with spade, in <5 mins (when prompted by a young person about the historical accuracy of the Vikings program on American telly).

• E Mikkelsen, 1998, "Islam and Scandinavia during the Viking Age," in Byzantium and Islam in Scandinavia (E Piltz Ed.), Acts of a Symposium at Uppsala University, 15-16 June 1996, Göteborg:Äström, pp. 39-51, see [2], accessed 31 May 2014.

[non-searchable pdf, but plenty of references to subject; requires free registration]

• E Mikkelsen, 2008, "The Vikings and Islam," in The Viking World (Stefan Brink & Neil Price, Eds.), Routledge, pp. 543-549, ISBN: 0415333156, see [3], accessed 31 May 2014.

• Mark Blackburn, 2005, "Coin Finds from Kaupang: A Viking Emporium on the North Sea," in Actas, I, XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismática, Madrid 2003, (C. Alfaro, C. Marcos & P. Otero Eds.), Milan, pp. 1143-1149, see [4], accessed 31 May 2014.

[Blackburn is a Reader in Numismatics and Monetary History, University of Cambridge, and the Keeper, Department of Coins and Medals, Fitzwilliam Museum, see http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/coins/staff/mab1001/publications.html for a further trove of references]

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - W.carter (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look above to the earlier Section on this matter, for an additional comment, dated today. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that over time, it is the goal of articles here to move citations from lede, so that the lede simply restates information appearing alter in the text. While it is not incorrect to have citations in the lede, and it is incorrect not to have citations there if the information and citations appear nowhere else, it is not the sign of a mature article to have factual information appear only in the lede; see [5]. To avoid being intrusive, I will mark one statement in the lede, bearing 3 citations, whose content should be removed to the lower geography section, with the inline references appearing there, in the body (making the lede but a summary statement). Note, why the statement that appears in the article will be innocuous enough, I understand that this particular tag is not most appropriate; please accept it as temporary, and the best I can do to include a pointer to where the future edits could be made.If this suggestion is acted upon, the one move/edit then could become the pattern for the co-evolution of the lede and body texts, so that the text becomes more citation rich (as in some places, it is not), and the lede becomes more approachable, as a true summary of the remainder of the article. Consider this a proposal. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - W.carter (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing lede statement on island income is not supported in the main body of the text, anywhere (as to sources of island income), and so needs, as noted above, to be copied and placed there, with citation; then it can remain in the lede without reference. Hence, it is tagged for now, until it is sourced (preferably with elaboration, in the article body). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leprof 7272! Person living on Gotland and editing on English Wiki commenting here. I am currently sorting out several minor articles concerning places on Gotland. Most of them suffer from the same illness: Having been translated from SweWiki where even totally unsourced articles get published. I am going about fixing this, and I will take a look at this entire article as soon as possible to see if I can't scare up some references and fix the unsupported bits. You can take a look at the rest of my recent work to see that I am very serious when it comes to references. Best! - W.carter (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - W.carter (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked yet to sources, but bravo to rapid attention. This collegial interaction is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Le Prof 71.239.87.100! I am finally done referencing all the unreferenced parts so the article looks somewhat better. I removed the box you placed at the article. Hope that's ok. I will continue to add to this article whenever I find some appropriate things. Best - W.carter (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble fining the best place to put the tables at "Economy" and "Tourism". Aligning them left puts them in the same "row" as the names of the sections and aligning them right messes up the lines between the sections or the pictures. I don't know which is worst. Anybody have any ideas? - W.carter (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dislinked Weonodland - Lüchow-Dannenberg as this connection is highly unlikely in the context of The Discovery of Muscovy. So what would Weonadland (Wendland?) refer to? Pommerania would make sense.Ekem (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekem:Hello! Thanks for notecing. I think you might be right. In this link to a Google books version of Shakespeare's Hamlet and As you like it it is decribed as "Weonodland (the country from Pomerania to the Frisch Haff) Perhaps better to just leave it un-linked until someone who is absolutely sure comes along. Best, - W.carter (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is excerpted from a non-account talkpage so it won't get lost if it is purged for whatever reason in the future:

Thank you for your additions about the military on Gotland, but we do need references for your facts, that is where you have obtained this information, otherwise your edits may be reverted. Please add the website, news paper or document where you found the facts. You can read at Help:Referencing for beginners how this is done. If you have trouble with this, just write them here on your talk page or on mine User talk:W.carter and I will help you. I will also "Wikify" your edits so that they comply with the Manual of Style here. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference (moved it from External links). Sorry, I should have done that at the time of the original edits. Look forward to contributing more if I can. 83.70.251.222 (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that this source can be accepted, otherwise be very careful when using blogs as references. Most of them are not considered reliable sources. You can read about this in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). I have also noticed that there are three IP addresses doing the editing about the military. Is that you on different computers or are there more people involved in this? Best, w.carter-Talk 11:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just me. For now, I'll see if I can track down any reliable info on that Home Guard battalion that was supposed to be transferred to, or raised on, Gotland after the original garrison was stood down. 83.70.251.222 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good, then I don't have to reply in three places. Why don't you get an account and log on with, it is much more secure and less confusing to other editors than all of these IPs, and you don't risk becomming accused of being a sockpuppet. I will also leave you a little guide on how to contact editors here on the WP. Looking forward to any further edits from you. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the plunge and have set up an account. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and helpful tips! I might just do that (set up an account). I see you beat me to posting the homepage of the Gotlandsbataljonen (had to feed the cats among other things!). Though they try valiantly to skirt around the issue, it appears that though most of it's members are from Gotland, the battalion itself is not primarily based on the island itself. Rather it's located at the Muskö naval base, as a reserve component/training unit of the regular 1st Marine Regiment, itself part of the Amphibious Corps. Though there does seem to be at least a training element (section sized?) in Visby. By the way, I've figured out that ledningspluton is signals platoon, and båtpluton is boats platoon, but is 'betting company' a poor machine translation of 'logistics company'? The original word was insatskompani.

As for the Strv 121 being the type of tank in storage, it seemed probable since all the Strv 122s procurred appear to be assigned to, or under the direct custody of, the three active armor regiments on the mainland. The only other even remotely likely possibility would be the S-Tank, but they're supposed to be all retired, or so I thought. More research needed! 83.70.251.222 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drats, triggered a textbox by accident! 83.70.251.222 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. And feeding cats is a noble undertaking. :) The tanks were identified as Leopard tanks modified in Germany by the news paper Aftonbladet, so the Strv 121 seems right. It says in another article that some of the tanks were shipped from the mainland to make up the total of 14.

I also struggled with the 'insatskompani'. I could not find a solid translation. The Swedish word instats translated best into "swat" as in swat team, and I don't know which military branch corresponds best to that. w.carter-Talk 13:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assault company then? 83.70.251.222 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the feeding of the cats is less noble undertaking and more wise self-preservation. ;) 83.70.251.222 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assault company seems to fit the bill. Sorry, but the extra tank picture had to be removed. It is redundant in that article. I'll let you work in peace on the article and go back and Wikify things later when you are done. I see that the cats have you under total control. :D. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 16:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. :D 83.70.251.222 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I was wikifying the text, I also searched for some sources for un-refed text and could clarify some of the things about the tanks and the 32nd battalion. I guess it's easier for me since I live on Gotland and have friends in the military, so I know where to look. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 13:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great help, thanks! 83.70.251.222 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The military itself has been kind enough to tell us what kind of tank it is. See [this] where it says that it is the 122. I will correct it in the article. After that I have to sign off for most of the day and will be back tonight. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, should have gone through the rest of that site myself. 83.70.251.222 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The preceeding four sections excerpted by Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ceannlann gorm:Ok, the intention was good, but the copying of this text/conversation was quite unnecessary. Nothing is ever purged or lost. Everything is stored in the archives and conversations such as this occur all the time on all kinds of userpages be they regular or IP. It is forgiven since you are a WikiWolfcub, but do not be alarmed if someone reverts these edits. :) w.carter-Talk 20:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Aye, Sir! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]