Talk:Skåne/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Scania Trucks

I figure this page should also mention, or link to a dedicated page on, Scania Trucks [1]. Their page isn't terribly clear about where they're based now, but they seem to have been founded in Malmö, hence the name. Even if it's only a sentence saying Scania is also a manufacturer of trucks and busses, based in Malmö then that would be a useful addition. -- Finlay McWalter 18:08, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Scania AB is no longer based in Malmö, but I'll add the Scania (disambiguation) link to the page. -- Mic 10:23, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Anonymous: You must be meaning the Scania-Varbis which late became SAAB Scania AB

Towns and cities

I've tried to outline the controversy on how to classify Scanian tätorts (towns or cities), and put that on top of a list them in order of size, that can be seen at Towns of Scania. I consider, of course, this as a proposal, and intend to wait with linking to the article until I've received feedback. --Johan Magnus 01:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice! Much better than my fumbling attempt in a similar direction in early August.[2] Would it be to ask you for too much, to propose the calculation of population densities for the tätorts, which I consider much more relevant and interesting than population densities for municipalities?
And I wonder, if a proper list of köpings and 20th-century towns wouldn't be a good complement on that page. /Tuomas 11:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Name change

Too bad no one asked around before doing these moves, but then again, when Peter Isotalo is behind you can count on that practice. We will all have to believe what he believs: that he is a genius who knows everything best. Right, User:Bishonen? Fred-Chess 10:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I asked around and heard nothing but support. Elisson and Wiglaf sought me out to say what a good idea it was. Not that I need have asked, as everything I did is reversible: I could have just been bold. As for why I think Swedish names are better than Latin (you say on my talk page that I've moved them from "English names" to Swedish, but that's not the case) in an English-language encyclopedia, I refer you to Wiglaf's comment:
Yes, there's something absurd about calling Halland Hallandia and Uppland Upplandia when no one ever calls them so and the Swedish names are much more transparent to an English speaker.
If the provinces had had any English names, I would have used those, but they don't. Therefore, I moved them to a set of names actually used somewhere—in Sweden—and I moved them away from the antiquarian quaintness of the Latin versions. Let's discuss it, and I hope you'll find it in you to use a civil tone in the following, Fred. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, good you asked those people; you were bold; I'm not blaming you. I think the Swedish Wikipedians Notice board is designed for those kind of questions though .
I personally would argue against the "Scania" change because from what i've seen, "Scania" is a proper name used in the English language.
--Fred-Chess 11:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred. You have a point about Scania, and I also think the spelling of Lapland/Lappland is a bit of a conundrum (covering different areas..?). But consistency across province article names is also a consideration. After all, anyone looking for Scania will find it, via the redirect to Skåne. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
While I was stalking your edits, I saw you were changing the names to several Latinized names that are perhaps actually not in use (as you wrote), and I thought you would therefore leave "Scania" alone since "Scania" is actually a name that is in use. I don't know how much "Dalecarlia" and "Angermannia" etc. are in use; they are in use to some extent, but I don't know exactly because I don't live there.
Skåne, on the other hand, is called de:Schonen in German (yes -- Germans use this name in talk). I also see that es:Escania is the Spanish name. Thus "Skåne" is not some neutral all around used name. It may be the most commonly used among the common people, but I don't know. Tourism broshures use the name Scania actually.
--Fred-Chess 13:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
"Skåne" in other languages than English does not have anything to do with this discussion. At all. This is about English usage and nothing else. This discussion has already been had at the appropriate discussion forum and the Latin names have had mind-boggingly crappy support. There's only really been Mic and Ruhrjung to protest while several others have had very good argumentation agsinst the Latinized names. The argumentation for the use of Latin has been naively uninformed at best and plain annoying at worst. And to say that this is a matter that should mainly be brought up with other Swedes is ridiculous; Swedes should not have more to say about the English usage of names moreso than Arabs or Chicanos.
Without further yelling, here are the references I've found:
As for the other Latinized names of the historical provinces, they mostly get outnumbered by at least 100:1 by the Swedish names and few are even mentioned in EB or Encarta. My impression from the Google searches is that Scania is commonly used for the regionalistic "Great-Skåne" also known as Skåneland besides the regular Skåne. I know that Scania also makes buses, so that could account for even more Scania hits, but "-bus" could probably remove unrelated items. It also seems as if the most common users of "Scania" are not English speakers, but rather Scanians themselves, but that's just speculation.
Peter Isotalo 13:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I actually apopglize if I sounded too harsh earlier and hope we can still discuss the topic.
I wouldn't mind further discussion on the topic of Skåne/Scania, because I can image someone coming here asking "Why does the broshure say Scania if Skåne is the most used name"?
A google search is hardly proving anything, I think. Scania is used for many other things, just think about Saab Scania (the factory) and probably several other companies -- while Skåne is probably used by many Swedish speakers writing in English which shouldn't matter, as you said yourself.
Irony may lay in me having argued in favor of Skåne on Talk:Malmö not long ago stating "having never heard about Scania being used". However I had at that time not read any English texts.
My Swedish - English computer dictionary "WordFinder" translates Skåne to "n. Scania". Incidentally it does not give translations for the other provinces I tried.
On the other hand, I have some broshures that use "Skåne" instead of "Scania" when writing in English. They do however also misuse the German name and use "Skåne" instead of "Schonen". The talk page de:Diskussion:Schonen writes that a usage guide is much in favor of Schonen instead of Skåne. I think we would need a similar usage guide for the English name, but unfortunately the writers of this page are all Swedish so we will probably need to wait for proper English references. It may be possible that someone here has acquired the renowned oxford Dictionary, which would be a good first step to consult. --Fred-Chess 09:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The OED isn't the place to look, I'm afraid, as it basically doesn't do names. It does give names of nations (Sweden, Germany, not Sverige, Deutschland), but for smaller units, it only seem to have them insofar as they have entered into the English language as part of other concepts. Thus, the entry for Oslo is this:
attrib. Designating a type of meal originally introduced into Norwegian schools by Dr. Carl Schiotz to correct nutritional deficiencies in children's diets. Esp. in Oslo breakfast; also Oslo lunch, meal, etc.
That's the entry proper. If you click on its "etymology", you'll also get told that it's derived from the capital of Norway, but that information isn't part of the entry proper. Stockholm is in the OED because it has contributed Stockholm tar and Stockholm syndrome to the English language; Helsinki isn't in there at all (I thought it might ride in on "Helsinki agreement", but I guess that in itself is also a proper name). So, on the same principle, you don't find either Scania or Skåne in OED, either.
Tourist brochures (?) are the least authoritative printed sources imaginable, as I'm sure you're aware, being generally translated into the target language by people with wildly varying qualifications for such a task. A good first step to my mind is the Encyclopædia Britannica, as Peter suggests. The Skåne article there is at Skåne, with a redirect from Scania and a line "also called Scania" right at the top. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok good thing you told me about OED, I didn't know that.
That an article should use the English name if there is one, according to naming policy, should then not bother us too much? --Fred-Chess 16:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think the policy actually is to use the name most commonly used in English, which may not be the "English name". This is the reason the cities of Leghorn and Ratisbon are not located under these good English names – they aren't used much anymore among English-speakers, or at least not among the English-speakers who contribute to Wikipedia (and who are on average probably more familiar with Alderaan and Tatooine, anyway).
As for the names of Swedish provinces, most of these provinces probably aren't commonly referred to in English at all, and should thus be under their Swedish names. But I'd think Dalecarlia is one relatively often used, and one much more frequently used just a century ago. It should definitely be mentioned at the beginning of the article. Same thing with Scania. In the other cases, the Latin names should still be mentioned early on, as other names (of people, plants, boats, companies, whatever) have been derived from them and they may be encountered in old printed works. They should be there and explained as the "Latin name of X" if someone searches for a word seen, say, in an engraving from the Suecia Antiqua et hodierna (which should have an article, BTW). u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 17:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It does, Tups, Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. I agree with the points you make. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you claim that Scania is not used in English anymore? --Fred-Chess 19:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in here to say that I support Uppland's interpretation of naming policy above, as well as his opinion on mentioning the Latin names early in all the province articles. As for Fred's question, my guess is that most of us have come to the conclusion that Scania is sometimes used in contemporary English, although Skåne seems to be considerably more frequent. / Alarm 22:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I have still not seen convincing evidence that "Skåne" is significantly more used than "Scania". --Fred-Chess 07:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

This strikes me as more than a bit absurd.

I can categorically contradict a lot of this. Scania is the English name, it's been the English name for centuries, and the allegation that it's not English is just... unfathomable. Yes, it comes by way of Latin - a huge amount of our English vocabulary does. So?

Scania AB has been mentioned - where do you think they got that name? Many businesses in Sweden adopt English names, it's considered fashionable.

Most English speakers don't know the word? Perhaps so, but then again most English speakers don't know a lot of relatively obscure English words, including a great number of place-names. I dare say many, quite possibly even most English speakers wouldn't know where Florence is offhand either, but that doesn't mean that Florence is not the English name for the city Italians call Firenze. Certainly anyone that's focused on Scandinavian geography or history would know it, and certainly if you want to look up references to the area in English language history or geography books Scania would be the word you would search under.

I'm a native English speaker and I've lived and worked in Sweden and done translation (Swedish to English) and language editting, among other things, if you're wondering. But don't trust me, grab any good English language book on Sweden for the library, or a Swedish to English dictionary, or heck ask any Swedish-English translator. Outside of this page I've never known of anyone that had the slightest confusion on this. Arker 01:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Then isn't it time for this page to be moved to Scania. I'm an English speaker too and whenever referring to this region of Sweden I have always called it Scania not Skåne.
This move would make a lot of sense, since the page on the dialect/language will most likely soon be moved to Scanian (linguistics) (as the most popular option as of 16-10-05). Mark 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The google search on pages in English is (weakly) in favour of Skåne. I wouldn't be so sure Mark's statement is true for all or most native English speakers, not as long as Britannica etc. has its entry on Skåne. I'd say it is better if the page stays where it is. // Habj 07:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I did a search on "Skåne" on SAOB. Not having any way of linking it, I created the result on a subpage as Talk:Skåneland/SAOB. It is in Swedish only, but should be interesting for Swedish editors. --Fred-Chess 17:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You can link to it by just showing the right frame of the webpage and get the URL from that. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 17:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are right... http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/show.phtml?filenr=1/253/64657.html
I hope this will finally convince Peter that "Skåneland" was used before Martin Weibull "invented" it in the 19th century as NE somewhat wrongly states. --Fred-Chess 07:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Fred, you're welcome to question the authority of NE, but if you do that I suggest you provide better source material than a dictionary definition. I'm going to trust the summary provided by NE a lot more than highly ambiguous quotes by Carl von Linné. Please do some proper research.
Peter Isotalo 08:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the editorial board of Svenska Akademiens Ordbok does shoddy research? The quote is referenced. Just follow the links. It is from Linne's Skånska Resa. And it is not the only quote listed. Just out of curiosity, since there appear to be so much venom: Are you disputing that Linne used the term, that the his text exists (Skånska Resa), or the correctness of the quote as represented by SAOB? Please tell us whether or not you are more qualified in etymology than the scholars on the editorial board of SAOB and more experienced in judging historical sources and conducting language use research than the Institute for Swedish Language at Göteborg University so that we can put this to rest. --- Pia

There is an even better reference for older Swedish etymologies, Hellquists's Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok. Unhappily, only the first edition is in the public domain, and thus (and for its great interest) put on the net by Project Runeberg. However, this is definitely a reliable source in the wiki sense (although it is well to check it against more recent sources).

As you may see, Hellquist (as usual) presents a number of suggested interpretations, and a few of the arguments for his choice or choices as most probable ones. For Skåne, he prefers the theories that Skån- (older Skan-) is the same root as in Scandinavia; and suggests that either it goes back to a word for herring(?), or (together with Skanör) refers to the dangerous underwater formations outside parts of Scania. (Incidently, some anonymous user recently included the latter suggestion ethymology in sv:Skåne, without references, and was promptly reverted with a comment on 'faked ethymologies'. Sanningen är ibland underbarare än dikten:-). He also gives the name in a couple of other forms and languages (like Icelandic Skáney; a form wich I suspect won't make either John or Pia very unhappy:-). The -e he derives as -ö ('island', or at least 'land partially bounding to water'), without alternatives.

It is rather usual that encyclopædias give short etymologies for larger geographical units, either in the beginning or at the end of the articles. I think this could be a good thing to do in the wikipediae, too. For traditional Swedish provinces, Hellquist is a reasonable source of etymologies. However, I think it could be a good suggestion first to check out other geography articles, and perhaps to coordinate details, such as where to place the etymologies, with the geography project people. (Anyone surprised? :-) JoergenB 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, being mindful of the geography project guidelines is appropriate and important, but on the other hand, if all articles start to thread water while waiting for one group to pronounce rules that will decide on even tangential issues such as where the etymology should be placed, I think we will have a bunch of very unhappy people in places like the geography project (unhappy about getting too much pushed onto their plate, etymology and history included, in what may be interpreted as an attempt to work them to death). I think it is a big mistake to force an issue of standardization this far. Some people already have headaches trying to digest all the tangents and info placed here about an issue as seemingly basic and simple as a revert of a native name back to the international, English name. Whether that name originated in Old Norse or Latin, and whether it entered into English usage via a Latinized version or was an original, Anglo-Saxonized version of the word used by invading Vikings (such as Sweyn Forkbeard), or if it arrived via Canute the Great and his coins or later via maps with Latin text, shouldn’t be reason for delay or prevent people from adding sourced information in an attempt to cover different sides of an issue. I haven't really edited this article, except by putting in a few external links, so I haven't checked what has been inserted and removed over time, but I don't worry too much about that part right now. I've run into some extremely conscientious and wonderfully prolific historians with a lot of combined expertise in Nordic and Scandinavian medieval history here on Wikipedia, as well as classicists of course, and what they have in common is a wealth of knowledge on specialized subjects such as Roman authors and explorers, Icelandic saga authors and various Scandinavian sources, as well as the Scandinavian dialects' roots in Old Norse. When this article catches the eye and sparks the interest of more people, the etymology and early history sections will soar and become well-sourced, I'm sure. You're here now, for example..and you're right: I love the work you already did on the subject. Pia 21:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, adding an etymology to the Scania article directly should be fine, I think; but I was also thinking of sitting down with Hellquist and doing the same for all Swedish provinces, and then one perhaps should check for project guidelines first.
In general, in an encyclopædia one should attempt to standardize and unify a set of articles, if they are of the same characters; but as long as we don't get edit wars on etymologies we should not have to wait for this. My only question is: Should we give explicit references for etymologies on the page, or could it suffice with a 'Source: Sv. Etym. Ordbok' in the edit history annotation? JoergenB 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Joergen, the article will need proper references and footnotes, for sure, including the etymologies. It's bad form to remove properly referenced, relevant material, so I don't think you have to worry about that. Notice that there isn't a single reference or footnote in the article yet, not even an old {{fn|1}} type note. But with your methodological approach to life (hrmm, I can tell a dedicated mathematician from 1000 miles or so away when I see one) :) I feel totally confident that you will patiently and carefully pick and chose the best possible of all available wiki reference systems. Best wishes, Pia 06:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks, Pia - I think... (I do suppose it's just my overwhelming mathematician personality, and has nothing to do with the statements on my user page:-) Anyhow, you do show certain tendencies of being able to do systematic research yourself. So, just from your overwhelming personality (what, me cheating???), I'd conclude an academic schooling, an interest in languages and in ancient history (freely demonstrated in our discussions); let us say the kind of person who really would get caught in a detailed description of how the amateur Michael Ventris deciphered Linear B, e.g. succeeding to organise the symbols of the unknown script of unknown meaning in an unknown language into a matrix, describing which symbols represented syllables starting with the same consonant or ending with the same vowel - before he could guess a single one of the consonant or vowel sound values. (John Chadwick's book is warmly recommended to anyone who likes IRL puzzles better than Agatha Christie's.)
I'll be rather busy teaching the next two months, so we'll see if I get around to the etymologies before someone else tackles it. The best to you, too, in the mean time. JoergenB 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Desire to be its own country

Why isn't this talked about? Cameron Nedland 02:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there is no such desire. --Notera 09:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Notera if he or she is implying that the drive in Skåne for political and administrative reorganisation and decentralisations, as well as the presence of a historically based Skånsk nationalism, are non-existent. Like Cameron points out, this article ignores those in the Scanian population working towards an autonomous Skåne. See for example the documents presented to the committee of the European Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in November 2002 at http://www.scania.org/activities/council2/illrep.htm.

The beauty of the Internet is that it promises an end to this type of control and censorship by state and centralized mass media information and that aspect is bound to catch up with this Wikipedia article too. To quote Göran Hansson, Chairman SSF / Vice Chairman UNPO: "The modern Scanian Movement has been active for ten years. If it is a correct assumption that it takes 25 years to peacefully and democratically sway the majority of the Scanian population to favour devolution, as in Scotland and Flanders, we have 15 years to go. It may seem a long time, but we are sure that we will get there. The key is patience and persistence, as well as the boldness to strive for a vision of a better world - and the realisation that even global changes start at home!" (Hanson, G. "Cultures under threat: A State - A Nation." 'Regionalism and Freedom of Identity,The 18th Conference,' Copenhagen 21-23 August 1998. <http://www.scania.org/document/articles/docu/0105tale.htm>.)

The Scanians that want Skåne to be its own country is in a vast minority. /Jiiimbooh 10:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you believe so Jiiimbooh? My impression is that the Scanian identity is much stronger and filled with more pride than the Swedish one in the region, though the Swedish has managed to reduce the historical knowledge of the people by only lecturing about the Swedish history in school. There's probably a lot of people that would prefer a Scanian state even though they've never thought of the idea.

This certainly is the case concerning the rural people of Jämtland and Gotland as well. In the remote farms of Jämtland, stories about the cruel deeds committed especially by the swedes (the danes and norwegians weren't innocent either) are still told, though of course not always 100% historically correct. In the larger villages, in the towns and in the capital Östersund, the typically west norse tradition of telling sagas (oral history telling passed from generation to generation) has been broken due to industrialism, so the antagonism against swedes may not be as large there as in the rural farms. The rural farms (which many have been in the same family since late Viking age) are—of course—also where the local language Jamtlandic is still best preserved. // Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 00:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC))


"What makes you believe so Jiiimbooh?" Because if there was such a desire, there would be both regional and nation-wide debates about it. As it is now, there isn't even a serious debate in the southern Swedish media. The only time I've seen such a desire mentioned is when they write about Skånepartiet, but that party seems to get a lot more attention for being anti-islam than for them wanting Skåne to be independent.
You write: "There's probably a lot of people that would prefer a Scanian state even though they've never thought of the idea" This seems to be your excuse for the lack of debate and attention of this issue, but I don't think it's a very good argument because you could say something like that about anything (for example: "most people like the color pink, they just don't know it") and it's not something that can be proven in a debate like this.
"My impression is that the Scanian identity is much stronger and filled with more pride than the Swedish one in the region"
It's hard to speak for everyone but I think the Scanian AND Swedish identity are both strong in Skåne. That is my experience anyway.
/Jiiimbooh 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


There is also a desire in the rest of Sweden to make Skåne into it's own contry or return it to Denmark. That is also a rather fringe view. // Liftarn

He, he, Liftarn, I didn't know that. But now that you mentioned it: Could that fringe be related to the fringe that recently announced the name of the new capital of Scandinavia in "the world´s smallest big city or the world´s biggest small town", announced the "biggest city" in the "biggest country" of Scandinavia and one of the most popular "in the world" by its PR department? If a capital of Scandinavia can be announced with such arrogant ease, I have no doubt that Scania could still be considered an appendix to be cut off and handed to the Danish royals on a whim, too. However, in spite of the coronation celebrations, once the new Kingdom of Scandinavia's PR bureau gets back to work, I think it will need to make sure to clarify certain things, such as how "Skåne" is to be used in modern English---international journalists relying on MSN Encarta may risk becoming just as confused on the issue as they now risk being about the existence of a capital of Scandinavia: Encarta states that they speak Skåne in Scania. That's a lot like saying that they speak England in the United Kingdom, if you ask me. Pia 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC) PS. No offense meant. I'm just kidding--I simply can't help myself because this discussion about fringes has a really, really comical side, as does one of the recent votes below. I'll try to behave. Pia 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am scanian first and swedish second but first and foremost, I am European. I don´t think independence would be a good idea but I welcome the weakening of the old "nation-states" we have seen the past ten years, thanks to the EU and the transfer of political, economic and cultural power from Stockholm to Kristianstad. The discussion on Scanian identity must be kept alive, not to achieve independence, but to make damned sure the swedes don´t eradicate our national identity. --Uggis 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

When reading the discussions here one could think that Scania is on the brink of braking a way from the rest of the country. But that is someting virtual, just going on on the Internet. In the "real life" something like that is seldom heard about. Goran Hanssons famous "foundation" as mentioned above is a tiny organisation, unknown to the general population. "Skånepartiet" (which is not represented anymore in any political assembly) is an odd mixture of xenophobic, anti-islam and alcohol-liberal wiews. If you look into the election results in Scania you will find that the political pattern is more or less like the average of Sweden. In general the southern provinces are more "blue" and the northern provinces are more "red". But Scania is exceptional only when it comes to one of the political parties. Sverigedemokraterna (the "Sweden Democrats"), considered as a right-wing nationalist party (a Swedish equivalent of the Front National in France), is stronger there than in any other province. But this party is really NOT talking about "weakening of the nation-state". It is a Swedish nationalist party, much stronger in Scania, than e.g. in Stockholm. But that is seldom mentioned. --Vedum 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just note that most of the commerce in Scania is more directed towards Copenhagen as being the biggest city in the near perimeter. Many people with Danish citizenship is also situated in Scania mostly around Malmö, but i don't know how many, might only be a small percentage. But this article makes it sound like Scania's historical relationship with Denmark has been forgotten. I deffinately think a note about Scania's national relations should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skowie (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Name change revisited

We just had an unannounced move of the article to Scania (region), which I have reverted. Though I was more skeptical to use of the originally Latin term previously, my doubt has now waned and I'd say that a name change perhaps is in order. What I am skeptical about, though, is if it's merited to accompany a title change with a sweeping and uniform name change in all other articles. I think the use of Scania/Skåne should be up to individual editors to some extent and varied depending on the article it is mentioned in.

But if the articles is to be moved it should be to Scania without the (region)-disambiguator, since neither Scania AB nor Skåneland, but "Skåne" is the most common definition of the term.

Peter Isotalo 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind either way... Scania AB is rather notable too...
It should be noted that John Andersson couldn't move the article to Scania because that article name was already occupied. Let's hear his opinion.
Fred-Chess 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I left a message at his talkpage.
Peter Isotalo 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would also prefer the name of the article to be Scania, but as Fred Chess duly noted, that is a disambiguation page. John Anderson 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how anybody could possibly make the Scanian definition problem falsely vanish by removing the "disambiguator page". Except for Region Scania, proceeded briefly by Scania County in 1997, there has been no official Skåne/Scania in Sweden, which is why the Scanian flag is labeled "unofficial". The provinces were offically replaced by counties 1634, before Scania became part of Sweden, and Scania County was split into two counties in 1719 (Kristianstad County och Malmöhus County). "Scania" has, for most of its Swedish existance, had no official existence. The historical Danish province of Scania, Scania proper, was smaller than today’s Region Scania (for example, parts of today's Region Scania was in Halland: Fagerhult socken, in Lunds stift, belonged to Hishults socken in Halland, as late as the 16th century when Halland was ruled by some German count). The diambiguation page is needed because the English version of "Scania" is used for, in chronological order: 1) The larger, historical Scania, (Terra Scaniae or Skåneland), which is now a modern entity accepted into UNPO as Scania, 2) Scania proper, the historical Danish province of Scania. 3) Scania County (Skåne län), same borders as the Swedish historical province of Scania, built somewhat on the old Danish province divisions. 4) Region Scania. Pia 21:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind a move, but I don't mind keeping it at the current name either, to keep the article name consistent with other provinces' article names (except Swedish Lapland then, which IMHO is a very strange article name anyway). – Elisson • Talk 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, let's make that clear to those who haven't read any of the previous discussions; this has to do with renaming this article, not about using silliness like Medelpadia, Uplandia or Dalecarlia. "Scania" is quite common, but most of the other Latin names aren't. According to Google searches they often outnumbered the Swedish names, even in searches for sites in English, by 100:1.
Peter Isotalo 08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea this had been discussed before. I find it quite strange that anyone can even think about using the name Skåne as the right name for Scania in an English language dictionary, I was sure it was just a fault by some young enthusiast. I have lived for long times in the USA and in Sweden and never heard anyone referring to Scania as Skåne when speaking English. I have also been living in Germany, and there the province is known as Schonen (in German, that is). Of course the name Skåne should be mentioned in the article as being the local name, but not more than that. We don't call Sweden Sverige here either, now do we? John Anderson 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a long discussion only three threads up (with the title "Name change") with arguments for and against "Skåne" and "Scania". It presents plenty of arguments that aren't based entirely on personal experience.
Peter Isotalo 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but I acctually can't see that any consensus was reached. John Anderson 11:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally support Peter and John that the titles involving Scania should read Scania (Skåne in Swedish), not Skåne/Skåneland (Scania in English). I also think that a parenthesis should be placed after the word Scania explaining which entity is being discussed. Scania is an internationally used term, both historically, when Latin was used, and today, when the English term is used worldwide. It's counterintuitive to try to restrict the titles and the in-article-use to Skåne here on Wikipedia just because other regions or counties in today's Sweden may not be discussed as much internationally, or through history, and may therefore not have been given an Anglo-version, or a Latin version that stuck and is used today. It becomes especially clumsy when you quote your English sources, and have to say: "X wrote, 'Bla, bla bla happened in Scania', which is supported in Y's thesis about Skåne". "Scania" is used profusely in scholarly research worldwide, from subjects as varied as economic history, where Cnut's Scanian coins (i.e. from the historic region of Scania, including Bornholm) take up several meters on university bookshelves in the UK, to discussion about archeology, philology and linguistics (from Old Scanian runes to studies of today's dialects), to anthropology, politics and architecture (the bridge). "Scania" is used in the international press, rarely or never in the form "Skåne" (see for example the BBC article here about the economic impact of a population group living in Scania and working in Copenhagen: "To help compensate, Denmark repays Sweden about 400m Danish kroner (£36.4m) annually in taxes. But this goes directly to the Swedish government, rather than to Scania." (Hrmm, and Region Scania (Region Skåne) foots the bills for their health care?) Pia 21:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That was a pretty high-handed spin-off, Pia. For one thing, I'm still as favorable to keeping the current title as I am to moving it. I have not said a peep about Skåneland and I certainly don't agree that it should be referred to as Scania. It's a separate discussion and should not be involved here. Scania is Skåneland only to fringe regionalists and UNPO and they are not about to dictate how we name articles.
If the usage of "Scania" is as common among English-speaking academics as is claimed, I think there should be more concrete references than just one BBC article. A few book titles or references to authors would be appropriate to support the statement.
Peter Isotalo 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't really mean it when you wrote, "I was more skeptical to use of the originally Latin term previously, my doubt has now waned and I'd say that a name change perhaps is in order"??? Well, Scania is the English word for Skåne, just as Sweden is the English term for Sverige. The only pure Latin that has been discussed here so far is the term Terra Scaniae. To start off by Scania, as in use number 1 above, I suggest a brief look at the articles in the authoritative, Oxford University editorial board based, old and renouned peer reviewed publication The Journal of Economic History, for a peek at the scholarly literature mentioned in the footnotes of Prof. Pamela Nightingale's article "The Evolution of Weight-Standards in the Creation of New Monetary and Commercial Links in Northern Europe from the Tenth Century to the Twelfth Century". She writes, p.197 :" Cnut introduced the same new weight-standard into the coinage of Scania and eastern Denmark, the most prosperous part of his Scandinavian possessions, at the same date (c. 1026) as he changed the weight-standard of the English coinage.", p. 199: "The political ties with Denmark are explanation enough of the simultaneous introduction of the new standard there, but its limitation to Scania and the Baltic islands suggests that that area's trading links with England counted more than mere political ties. When the latter were dissolved in the 1040s and the Scandinavian rulers established their own coinages, they retained the weight of the mark, but first Denmark and then Norway divided the mark into 240 pence and reduced the weight of the penny." (Footnote: J.C. Becker (1981). The Coinages of Harthacnut and Maagnus the Good at Lund, c. 1040-6, Studies in Northern Coinages of the Eleventh Century, ed. Becker (Copenhagen 1981), pp. 120-1.) Spelling mistakes mine). In the meantime, I will compile a literature list for you, so that "we" can see the academic use of Scania in different disciplines, including linguistics, and when I'm done, I am going to put a link here for "us" to see. Pia 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC).
Quick list copied here User:Pia L/sandbox2. Pia 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you found any text in English where the name Skåne is used? John Anderson 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
John, very few. A quick survey of books in English where the term "Skåne" appears, (limited to the exact spelling, which excludes "Skaane"), excluding books using Skåne in combination with the term "Scania" (i.e. books that have a translator's note to English readers explaining that the term "Skåne" is Swedish for "Scania"), shows that they do exist. I found two: 1. A Revision of the Trilobite Dalmanitina Mucronata (Brongniart) and Related Species - by J. T. Temple – 1952, and, 2. Legends and Folk Beliefs in a Swedish American Community - by Barbro Sklute Klein – 1980. A search on "Skaane", excluding those using it in combination with "Scania", gives slightly better results. Removing the search limitation on both "Skaane" and "Skåne" by allowing books that use "Skaane" or "Skåne" throughout the text but offer an English translation first, as in the first footnote, or in a translator's or editor's note elsewhere in the book, give another 1,000 pages or so, including entries such as: The Continental Legal History Series by Association of American Law Schools: "The Law of Skaane1...". "Footnotes. 1: "The present province of Scania (Skåne) of Sweden. --TRANSL.". Still, the use of Skåne rather than Scania is relatively rare in books in English, (much rarer than books using "Scania" without bothering with the Swedish term), because, obviously, it becomes problematic when you have to use the adjective "Scanian": "The students considered themselves Skånsk with Svensk citizenship, and refused to use anything but Skånsk in school, a counter-productive position for anybody hoping to enter the teaching profession under the growing influence of Svensk state-nationalism in Skånsk schools at the turn of the century."
One place where the Swedish term "Skåne" is used consistently, after having been introduced as "also called Scania", is the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica (2006), in the stub-like geography sub-sections for the main geographical category Sweden, where the word "Scanian" or "Skånsk" is never an issue. Best, Pia 01:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I searched a paper version of Encyclopædia Britannica, from 1953, where the main word was SKANE (spelled Skåne inside the article); and mentioning the name SCANIA as an alternative. Thus, if you wish to google thoroughly, you should search for Skane, too. JoergenB 16:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Back to basics. Traditionally, English translates proper names more than we are used to in Swedish - although you'll find the same in Swedish, if you go even further back. There was a time, when it was fairly natural for a 'learned man' (and yes, the culture was more sexistic then than now) to translate even his own name when he switched languages. As for geographic names, they were regularly switched; if someone would have asked a learned west European for the true name, he would probably have come up with the Latin name. I don't know why the habits to translate proper names have been kept longer in English usage than in Swedish, but I suspect being larger and politically more dominant might be part of the reason. Anyhow, the British names sometimes are more latinised than the Swedish ones (Gustavus Adolphus versus Gustav Adolf), sometimes less so (Pliny versus Plinius; names connected with christianity: holy Mary versus heliga Maria, the pope John Paul versus påven Johannes Paulus.) I don't think of Dalecarlia as a latinised form of Dalarna in the first place. Dalecarlia was a really commonly known name (and is the main article name in the Encyclopædiæ Britannica and Americana from the fifties and sixties I just checked), but I assume this is related to the old habit of the men from the province to travel rather far, selling their handicraft. In Swedish, such a man was a "Dalkarl"; so if anything Dalecarlia is a 'latinised' form of 'the place from where these Dale-men come'.

However, the historic consideration are not the most important here. They make it necessary e.g. to retain two of the three forms Dalarna, Dalarne, and Dalecarlia as references to the third one, but should not decide which form to use. There are several conflicting principles here: Usage in English books; usage on maps; traditional usage; and most well-known name to-day. Actually, the wikipedia general principle seems to be (outspokenly) Use the form most English-speaking people would look for in the first place, but (in practice) only if the relevant community didn't agree on something different.

I don't know how official the policy of letting project people decide a common principle is; but it happens, and is in the best traditional encyclopedian style. E.g., the 'chemical people' decided to use the name forms of the elements decided by the relevant international union of scientists; and therefore use aluminium rather than aluminum as main form (although a number of Americans protest). Similarly, the decisions of the relevant scientist union on new names for larger and smaller bodies in the solar system was effected immediately; whence Pluto is no longer named a planet.

Therefore, in my personal opinion, we should stop changing names back and forth (e.g., changing Ostrobothnia (region) to Österbotten, or vice versa), and start checking if a consensus could be reached for the whole geography area of the English name space.JoergenB 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is only one Swedish province which has its own distinct name in English which is in general use, and this is Scania. As for all the other provinces, I think they might as well go under their Swedish names here (and I don't even understand why we should bother discussing them here rather than on their own talk pages), except perhaps Upland and Lapland, where the English names are merely different spellings of the Swedish names (which are Uppland and Lappland respectively) and even they are not used as generally as Scania is. As for Österbotten, that province is not even Swedish.
I think the province should be called Scania, with a link to a disambiguation page for other uses of the word. I'll make that change now, as I think most people here seem to agree to it. John Anderson 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
John, that move has support in precedence. All entities with a well established English name seem to be listed under that name here. None of them, as far as I can see, is using a name with non-standard characters if there is an established tradition for the use of the English term internationally. You don’t see German Wikipedians arguing that the entry Munich (as a name for the region München) should be renamed on English Wikipedia. Somehow it does not seem to have occurred to them that since Altötting (district) does not have a well-established English term, the article on Munich (German: München), must be called München (English: Munich). And as far as "historical" provinces go: see for example another province with a well-established English name, namely Zealand (Sjælland). The same naming policy seems to be guiding Austrian Wikipedians' choice of Vienna (German: Wien) and the Danish choice of Copenhagen ((IPA: [kəʊpənˈheɪgən], Danish København), etc, etc. Since some may consider Scania too "unofficial" an entity to have an English name, see even less official regions such as Cote d’Azur, which, to no surprise, is French Riviera on Wikipedia, with the French term in parenthesis. I don't think Scania should be the exception. Pia 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. However, I can't make the move. Someone who is administrator has to do it, since it involves erasing some pages. John Anderson 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
<Quoting John>As far as I know, there is only one Swedish province which has its own distinct name in English which is in general use, and this is Scania.<Unquoting John> I disagree with John (since e.g. those older encyclopædia in English had articles about Dalecarlia but not about Scania). However, that is neither here nor there. The point is, that this is not a discussion on sv:wiki, but on en:wiki.
I do agree with the relevance of Pia's examples; but again, the article on Munich is in en:wiki, not de:wiki; Copenhagen not in da:wiki, etcetera. It is relevant that those other guys from Austria, Denmark, and Germany do not seem protest; one reason Swedes protest more may be that Swedes have forgotten the habit to translate names to a higher extent, and therefore do not understand that others still do it. (A minor test to my compatriots: There is a well-known European city with German name Genf. What is the common Swedish name of the city; and how many of your friends would even imagine that the name would be quite different in German? How many of them spontaneously find it a bit stupid of the Germans not to "use the real name"?)
Since this is the English name-space, I still would like to understand if there is or should be some consensus or voted guidelines for geographical names in the whole en:wiki. That is the primary question. Then comes the question how to apply the guidelines for e.g. Skåne/Scania.
Pia, do you mean that Use a well established English name, whenever there is one in practice is an 'accepted guideline'? JoergenB 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Joergen, in answer to you question to me above: I seriously doubt that English translators of German articles (whether writing encyclopedic entries, composing scholarly papers, or operating out in life at large), including those contributing to English Wikipedia, would use a guideline that would require them to defer to German government authorities before using English names for German regions in entries created for an English-speaking audience, such as the one on Wikipedia, which uses Munich rather than München. Is there a push among Swedish Wikipedians for new official naming guidelines based on that requirement, and would those include areas outside Sweden, such as Zealand (Sjælland in Danish), French Riviera (Cote D'Azur in French)? Will the push include a preference for Sverige (Sweden in English) instead of the format Sweden (Sverige in Swedish)? What is the advantage and what precedence does the entry Skåne (Scania in English) hope to set? Indeed, requiring that names used in the native tongue is the main search word for entities on English Wikipedia when they have well-established English names (that is, English language community established English names) seems a very general issue, and I agree it should perhaps be discussed primarily elsewhere, in a more generalized context. It appears to be a question better dealt with in a forum concerned with general Wikipedia naming policy, where official guidelines may be proposed and implemented. My contention here is this: If Skåne (Scania in English) should be posed as an exception to the general way English names appear to be the preference here on English Wikipedia (whether this preference is an officially established guideline or not) then I think the burden for change should be placed on those who want to create an exception to the general praxis of having the native language in a parenthesis, not the English term. In the case of Scania, following precedence established in entries for other names with established English equivalents would be to use the Scania, followed by the Swedish name in parenthesis. "Scania" is a lot more common and better established internationally than "Skåne" is, as usage searches of English publications will show and as examples gleaned from the international press will demonstrate. (See above for examples). If the contention is that official Swedish government translations are needed before official Swedish government organs or other arms of the government are translated into English on English Wikipedia, then the restriction on the use of Scania would apply only to the actual government authorities recently established in Scania, namely the the state authority called "Länsstyrelsen i Skåne", and the recently established organ "Region Skåne", the regional government operating in Scania. Please note that the adjective Scanian, built on the English term "Scania" is used profusely even in official government translations concerning the two mentioned government organs. Still, until there is a widely accepted English translation for "Länsstyrelsen i Skåne" and "Region Skåne", I don't think having an English translation on Wikipedia for the mentioned county authority of Scania, or the mentioned regional authority of Scania, is crucial, necessary or even important. My concern is not about these two government organs, but about the region itself, (an area which has existed before the Swedish government decided to make the name Skåne official in 1997 and 1999). It's about the geographical entity (discussed by English sources as Scania since medieval times), the cultural and historical entity of the people of Scania, the physical region and the county of Scania, the land and soil, the historical province, and any general mention of Scania in other articles. Pia 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the part of Joergen's statement not addressed to me (about how Swedes are less likely to translate names): Sorry, I fail to see the relevance in whether or not Swedes themselves are likely to translate names of places in Sweden to English, or if Swedes are willing to accept English and Latin terms used by the English speaking community. As you say, this is English Wikipedia and if an English speaking majority worldwide uses the English name "Scania" rather than "Skåne/Skane/Skaane" in scholarly research, and if the international press uses the English name by preference, and if a majority of Swedish researchers use the English name almost exclusively when presenting their research to an international community where the English name is the norm, then the fact that the use of the term "Scania" is contested on English Wikipedia by Swedes is rather problematic in itself. Actually, I think I should admit that I find the push to disallow "Scania" and the entry Scania (Skåne in Swedish) quite embarrassing, as it appears to be driven by some kind of knee jerk reaction involving misplaced, nervously possessive nationalism, which is why I try not to get involved in a likely revert war on the issue here. Pia 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Pia, I did not argue that the Swedish government should decide the rules, or that the proposed habit of Swedes to translate names should be a reason to use official Swedish names on en:wiki. When you protest that this is irrelevant, you seem to suggest that I draw some very illogical conclusions about what to do or not. I did note that Dalecarlia was clearly more established than Scania in the two encyclopædia mentioned above; but that couldn't be an argument, unless you believe that I accept the statements by some Swedes that the name Dalecarlia is absolutely ridiculous and shouldn't be used. I don't accept that.
I really have had some reason to think over name translation. I am now and then teaching mathematical history, with students who do not understand that they must translate English name forms to Swedish when they translate the rest of the text. Thus they often write e.g. about Euclids bevis (instead of Euklides). Some get rather surprised and a little upset when I tell them that names could be translated; they have never ever heard of that (they tell me). Since people go on changing back and forth between Skåne and Scania, Österbotten and Ostrobothnia, etcetera, I personally am not inclined to do much editing here. I am not going to enter edit wars.
I also asked you a short question. You didn't answer explicitly, but from your argument above I think your answer is yes.
Finally, I proposed to put a more general question. I have done so, at the geography project; but I've had no reaktion (yet).
Actually, naming conventions seem not completely consistent. Look e.g. at Braunschweig versus Brunswick, where seemingly the historical entities are given the English name, but the modern official legal administrative units the German name. (If this were translated into a general rule, it would mean that a 'landskap' would be named in English, but a 'län' in Swedish. Please note, Pia, that I do not suggest that it should be made into a rule.) JoergenB 11:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Joergen, sorry for the lack of yes or no, but Wikipedia in general doesn't seem to build on iron clad policy/rules but on either precedence or change by weight of argument or majority "rule"/opinion. I also want to let you know that I did not mean to insult you by implying that you argue for exceptions like this to be made into rules, and I do realize that you are honestly looking for stability on the issue of naming, but the arguments so far in this and other threads about Scania, I'm sorry to say, build on the exact reasoning you call "illogical conclusions" above (that is, some people here have only just recently noticed and gotten used to the "Latinized" English word Scania and defend its secondary position within parenthesis after the Swedish name by referring to a lack of use of the English name by Swedish authorities and by the "us" here on Wikipedia), which is why I made my argument explicit and pointed. About the exception Brunswick: notice that that particular article is about the many places established in English-speaking countries named after the German place. I don't think we have the same problem with places named Scania in English speaking regions needing to be differentiated from the original South Scandinavian Scania. Best wishes, Pia 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Good. Actually, I suspect we do not have very different opinions in these matters. Perhaps I find the pattern less clear than you do.
Not that it's extremely important; but this also goes for the Brunswick/Braunschweig articles. Brunswick starts
Brunswick is the English name for the German city of Braunschweig, the Braunschweig region, and the former German states of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Duchy of Brunswick.
and if you follow the last two links, you find that both refer to the original and German Brunswick. (Of course, I didn't pick this example at random. The historical relation between U.K. and Brunswick is a bit intricat.) Best, JoergenB 19:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Joergen, I have never impied that this was or should be a discussion on sv:wiki. In my mind, this is a discussion on wether Scania should be called Scania or Skåne on en:wiki. What's important for solving this issue is what name is used in English. Neither the names of other Swedish provinces (like e.g. Dalecarlia/Dalarna) nor any common use in the Swedish language context has anything to do with this. John Anderson 07:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Scania. Incoming links should be also sorted out though; I urge the maintainers of this page to do it. Duja 07:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Skåne → Scania — as is most people's view on Talk:Skåne — John Anderson 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Because e.g. the changes 29 July 2003, 13 June 2004, 23 May 2005, 10 July 2005. (In the latter case, Skåne was moved to Scania and reverted the same day. Anyone recognising a pattern?) Not to speak about the changes back and forth between Skåneland and Terra Scania, et cetera. Category:Scania is deleted; hopefully all its items were placed on Category:Skåne. At the beginning of 10 August 2005, the text within article Skåne referred to modern Skåne but historical Scania (cf. Braunschweig vs. Brunnswick); in the early morning, the Scanias were replaced with Skånes 'for conformity'. Not to speak about Halland vs. Hallandia... Stable solutions, please! JoergenB 07:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - in the possibly naïve belief that a stable move now is tenable. JoergenB 22:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Olessi, I would much have preferred if you had waited a little, or tried to get the attention of other 'geography people'. Note that I put a more general question for the Geography project just a couple of days ago. The pages of regions in Sweden and Finland that have Swedish names have been moved back and forth between Swedish and traditional English names for years, and so have references to them. It would be better to have a more general consensus policy; it won't stop people from doing changes, but we may revert and refer to this.

Joergen, User:John Anderson listed this on WP:RM on October 10th. I found the move proposal there, followed the link to this talk page, and noticed that steps 2 and 3 of the RM process had not been followed. I finished the proposal process. Olessi 00:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got a small, preliminary answer, which at least made it possible to find the relevant guideline pages. It was particularly intriguing that there is a specific page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish), which was not so long ago labelled with guideline status, then having this immediately reverted, and very resently (after having had a 2 month summer hiatus) being relabelled {{historical}}. However, it seems mostly to concern NLH fans, and mainly whether or not to use å, ä and ö... In its talk side, there are a few mentions of using existing alternative English names, in the 'rare cases' when they do exist

The proposals centre around the concept 'modern English names'. They stress usage in modern contex for articles of the modern items, but historical names for historical items. Proposal number F in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) contains a rather restricted definition of 'modern English usage'. By its criteria, probably Skåne would be retained in articles about modern times. The definition was criticised for being too restrictive. Proposal number G lacks a definition of the concept. The discussion is ongoing, and rather active. I recommend checking both this and the existing guidelines first, and to postpone the voting here until guidelines are more clear. JoergenB 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph F, referred to above, reads in its entirety: "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists and should be used in articles with caution. I'm not quite sure I understand. Is Skåne to be considered "modern English" and Scania "unmodern English"? If "modern" means "used in modern research" and "used by the contemporary media outlets as a name for the modern region" (such as the BBC), then the use of Scania fits the bill for "modern English". I believe that the real problem here is that, for some reason, it is considered threatening that "modern Scania" and "historic Scania" is in any way or fashion connected. As you may notice, any pre-1658 history has been weeded out here and placed elsewhere, preferably not even linked to what is considered the "real" Skåne but placed in two separate articles, one called "History of Skåne" and one unmentionable one that can be brushed off as "regionalistic" and thus derided. It's as if Scania must by definition be considered a black hole without a history, where Scanian's real ancestors move like seaweed with the enemy under the surface, only to be acknowledged when there's a need to depict traitors and enemies of the state in Swedish history books. Now, all this wouldn't matter here if it wasn't for the fact that the history books Scanian children have to read are composed with the same ideology at play---the children are told that Scanians made no contributions to science, art, literature, etc, etc because after all, the people who lived there before them were the "other" and not real Scanians but Danes, and as well must all realize, "modern" Skåne didn't exist until the first Swedish duke rode in on his black stallion. As you may have noticed in this article, there are no leaders, no common "Scanians", nothing worth mentioning here until that duke showed up, to the rescue. Pia 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ;) Pia 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There was not just a 'paragraph' F, but a suggestion F comprising half the article; please reread the article! The restricted and criticised definition in F runs
Definitions:
1. ^ The geographic location is considered to have a single widely accepted English name in modern context (swaEn) if the following two conditions are satisfied simultaneously:
1. The English-language encyclopedias (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta, each published after 1993) consistently use this name in all articles where the corresponding location is mentioned in modern context.
2. This name obtains the largest number (75% or more of total hits considering all possible variants) of Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in modern context. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count.
If either condition is unsatisfied, the location is considered as not having a single widely accepted English name in modern context.
In the present suggestion G, the definitions field seems to be empty. However, G ends with a seven-step long list of Recommendations, which I think in practice largely acts as a substitute of the definitions in proposal F. Read them! The last talk contributions propose to consider G taken by consensus, "since the discussion died down again" (during the last three days). The reason for proposing the guidelines seems to be exactly what I wanted: a better method than edit wars to solve geographic naming disputes. The question is: Do we or don't we think these guidelines are good? Will the 7 step procedure work, and mostly yield the desirable outcome? (Notice the focus on very modern literature; I personally find this is bad.) What would the procedure yield for Skåne/Scania?
Read the whole proposals; think them over; test them; and if you don't like them, protest at their talk side!
As to modern versus historical contents in the Skåne/Scania article: Pia, you made a good point. In most cases, historical and modern regions do not coincide; but for Skåne/Scania they do, better than just a few years ago (before the Swedish test with larger regions started). I am not sure whether or not to separate articles about the present 'län' from the historical 'landskap', though; precisely since you are right again, when you note that the pre 1658 'landskap' history absolutely belong here. Perhaps the article will be split for size reasons (with the 'landskap' history in Danish and Swedish times united in one of them).
However, if the article is not split, the proposals F and G seem to mean that the modern name takes prevalence for the article name, but the historical may be used in the historical sections. Thus, the usage after 1993 would be decisive for the article name. JoergenB 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Joergen, it seems to me that the section you refer to above is a proposal to add a "recommended" short version to the recommendations "rule list" below. It would also seem to me that there is no actual decision to forbid people from running the complete set of tests recommended when there is a need to establish if a name is used in modern English, namely points 1-7 below. What you seem to imply is that maybe Scania has become "unestablished". I would say it has not, in spite of it's 278 years of "unofficial" existence after loosing its status as an official county. This becomes appearant if you run all 7 recommended tests. Please note that "Scientific studies" in number 3 refers to modern usage, as does "news sources" in number 4 and also the tests in number 5, 6 and 7. Scania easily satisfies a majority of the tests recommended. Also: Scania is definitely "used by the group of people which inhabit this geographical place," if anybody should care even the least bit about that. See for example Region Skånes new educational site for the schools in the region, to help balance the lack of Scanian history taught in traditional Swedish history books and Øresundstid, the cooperative educational project established by Scanian and Danish history teachers Etc, etc. Pia 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Oh OK, Joergen, sorry, I didn't understand at first that there is actually an active discussion page for the G and F "naming recommendations". I have entered a link to this discussion over there now, in case they want to give input here. But I think they are only designing general guidelines and recommendations anyway, not hard core rules, so it may not be that crucial to wait for them to come to a formal decision. Right now, it doesn't appear as if people over there are leaning towards the F version either. Pia 07:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on WP. I think the following happens, when (and if) a consensus is reached for one of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) proposals.

  • -- A short summary ('the rule is a nutshell') is placed somewhere in the main document Wikipedia:Naming conventions, under a heading Geographic names (or something similar). This document seems rather official. It start with a box with the following text:
This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
  • -- Within the Geographic names section, a link is made to the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which contains the full text of the accepted proposal.
  • -- The top of the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) will contain a box with the text
This page is a naming conventions guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how the authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

As you see, this text is slightly less official sounding than the text of the main document. Still, I think that in conflicts its wording will be considered as rather important. The idea would be: Browse the brief rule summary in the main document, and follow that. When in doubt, read the full geography names subdocument, and follow that.

Personally, I think it's excellent if some guidelines are adapted. I'm still a bit doubtful of the 1993 time limit, which I do not consider very encyclopedic. JoergenB 15:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations

The following steps may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):

  1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
  2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the world is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
  3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
  4. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexus, if accessible.
  5. Discuss the question at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is widely accepted.
  6. If a name is widely used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted. For example, the use of Tenedos in this website.
  7. Some names will be widely accepted, but happen to fail all these tests. They are phrased to make it certain that no name not widely accepted will pass. These should be decided case by case; on the evidence of the substantial body of data accumulated in the previous steps. Names which fail each by a small margin or single exception are probably widely accepted.

Step 1: Checking usage of Scania/Skåne in a selective list of encyclopedias

  • In Encyclopædia Britannica (2006) the policy seems to be to attempt to introduce more non-English terms on a broader, more general level, such as using the word "län" for county: "Skåne also called Scania län (county)". EB does not use "Scania" (nor Skåne) exclusively. One article on Scania reads: "The population of Skåne was not receptive to Swedish rule, a fact that helped the Danes win the Scanian War (1676–79) against the Swedes. Victory, however, did not result in a return of the province; France vetoed the move. Further Danish attempts at recovery in the 18th century were likewise foiled by the maritime powers, which did not want any one power to control the Baltic–North Sea passage; the fast political and cultural assimilation of the Scanian population..". Another reads: "Denmark-Norway resented its loss to Sweden of provinces in the Scandinavian peninsula, especially Scania (Skåne)". In some articles, the use of Scania is exclusive: "Brahe, Tycho born December 14, 1546, Knudstrup, Scania, Denmark", and: "Although this battle was inconclusive, the Danish fleet was later annihilated by the combined mavies of Sweden and Holland, and Christian was compelled to conclude a humiliating peace in August 1645 that cost him possessions in the Baltic, Norway, and Scania", as well as one about a modern Scanian author: "One of her finest novels, De utsatta (1957; "The Exposed"), takes place in 17th-century Scania and has a primitive country priest as its main character. Her next novel, En berättelse från kusten (1961; "A Tale from the Coast"), is a legend about human suffering, set in Scania."
  • In the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05, the province/county entry mirrors Ency.Brit.: "Skåne or Scania, historic province of extreme S Sweden, now included in Malmöhus co."
  • MSN Encarta uses both as well and also has the following to say about the use of Scania and Scanian: "Skåne, a Germanic language, is a mother tongue for around 1.5 million in Sweden, although the language has had no formal recognition since Scania was gained from Denmark by Sweden. Finnish, Tornedalen Finnish, Jamska, Tavringer Romani, Saami languages, and other languages are mother tongues for other minority groups." [3]. They seem a little bit confused about the usage, no? ;)

I've already performed a book search, in which I found that "Scania" far outweighed "Skåne" in English literature and in scholarly papers, so I guess what's left is the Nexis Lexus search of media mentions. Pia 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pia! I think your arguments will hold under proposal G; which means that it would be rather hard for someone else to name revert Scania → Skåne. They would have to argue the factual grounds of your investigation.
However, don't leave unneccessary openings for this by biased choices of examples supporting Scania! Your book search may have found Scania far outweighing Skåne; but the list I found when I followed your link only contained the Scania examples. It is better to produce the facts, as unbiased as possible, and then add the conclusion 'Scania wins'. Similarly, you give one reference to what you call Region Skånes new educational site; but when I follow it, I find a (rather nice and important) project by teachers from both sides of Oresund, which has got financial support from Region Skåne. Now, this project says they got support from Region Scania, but all (or all other?) official pages for the region uses the former name; except the extremely stupid (IMO) use of Skane in the compound Skaneleden. I think it is much better just to accept that the region home page authorities do this, Pia, and concentrate on other criteria. (Accepting that this is their present policy does not mean accepting that it is the correct policy. No one will miss your stand on this.) In that way you build a stronger case! JoergenB 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words Joergen. What I was actually hoping to avoid is that it becomes policy to require that the burden of proof (the building of cases) becomes the responsibility of those who want to follow the established practice "English name (Swedish name, German name, Danish name)". In my opinion, those who want to create exceptions from this rule should be doing the footwork and bear the responsibility of "building cases". I must admit that I don't think I have read a single compelling reason so far as to why the enforcement of Skåne (Scania in English) should be such an exception, but you are right: it could be because my heart is in Scania (Skåne), not in the region where the policy makers who try/tried to disconnect the people of Scania (Skåne) from their history are located. To be more specific: my heart is in a Sweden that is open to differences and tolerant of all the cultures and peoples that now constitute and represent "Swedishness" within the state's political borders, not just what comes out of the rather small, historic Sweden proper. Pia 20:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment from WP:NC (geographic names). I wouldn't wait for this; it's an attempt to codify existing practice, but has been under discussion for some time (one reason there are two texts still shown.) Examples of existing practice are of interest to us, including this one; as are your opinions.

We recommend recent editions of encyclopedias for two reasons: to foil the troll who chooses editions to suit his purposes (I've seen the 1911 Britannica cited for current English usage); and to have editions compiled since the end of the Cold War. (This page evolved out of an essay on Eastern Europe.) Septentrionalis 02:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, the "recent editions" caveat is reasonable and not a problem. The troubling aspect in regards to number 1 is instead what to do in situations where a geographic entity has a native name and an English name that are both in parallel use in English. The way number 1 is worded, this situation of parallel usage will always mean that the Wikipedia article will default to the non-English name if the recommendations in the F version are followed, even when there is a modern English version also in use in the encyclopedias mentioned. In the case of Scania, this is unfortunate because the English name has a long history and is well received and often used in English texts written by the people of the geographical entity in question as well. There are no negative connotations and no drive in Scania to make the English name disappear to be replaced by the Swedish name in English texts, as far as I know. Pia 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; I agree - this is why I oppose F. You have in any case demonstrated that Version G needs rephrasing: these are intended as parallel methods, not sequential steps. Septentrionalis 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Note from not-to-be closing admin (after tiresome reading of entire discussion and banging my head against the wall). Sorry, I can't make heads and tails of this. What I see are three articles (Skåneland, Skåne County and Skåne) which should be reorganized into one or two first; as an innocent reader, I see a lot of duplication of information on what is basically the same subject. I acknowledge that the territorial definition of the first was wider than the modern region, but it's IMO just a glitch, as the "Scania proper" apparently was the heart of the region. May I suggest making two articles first:

or making whatever order you'd agree on WikiProject Sweden, and then repeat the RM. Making an order in my head out of this is really painstaking. Duja 09:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Duju, thank you. (Sorry about the headache). I agree, the history should not be duplicated but put in one place. However, the name change from Skåne to Scania does not really require any content reorganization or merging as a first step though, because as can been seen in an article like Luxembourg, it is pretty uncomplicated to have a link to an disambiguity page to the top that explains the different uses. It will be a lot easier than deciding how, if and what to merge. Just thinking about that right now makes me want to join you in a head banging session. Not to make your headache worse by forcing more info on you, but merging counties and old unofficial provinces would be a major, thankless and unnecessary task as all the subnational geographical areas of Sweden have this disambiguation issue (see for example Halland (disambiguation)). Some have different region/county borders and province borders, as can be seen here: Counties_of_Sweden#Map. The fact that the historical province of Scania while Danish had different borders shouldn't really be a problem affecting the renaming either, because that info doesn't need to be in its own article until it has become big enough to move out on its own. It can easily be integrated into the main article for Scania or a History of Scania article. Pia 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Using Luxembourg as an example

Example of a name that represents more that one kind of geographical entity in one and the same country (i.e. being a country, a district, a canton and a city):

Luxembourg (in some contexts spelled "Luxemburg") is a European geographical name with various derived uses.

The following may in English be spelled either Luxemburg (German) or Luxembourg (French) — (though in Luxembourgish Lëtzebuerg):

Pia 12:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where is the talk page of this talk page?

JuergenB asked for conformity and I will provide him with consensus: See WP:SWNB#Announcements:

The Swedish province articles were moved from Latin to Swedish names in May/June [2005], e.g Ostrogothia --> Östergötland. If you see Latin provincial names, you are encouraged to change them, except in the case of Scania where both Skåne and Scania are OK forms.

This should prove that there is little risk of other provincial articles being moved back to their Latin names.

When it comes to Skåneland I think a better name might be Scanian lands because it is so descriptive, but we'll deal with that some other day.

Fred-Chess 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling e.g. Dalecarlia a Latin name is rather doubtful - if you imply it isn't an English name. See the very few contributions by native English speakers on this page. But never mind.
Thanks for directing me to WP:SWNB! I'll certainly consult it in the future. (Btw, the name Sweden related notice board would be better, wouldn't it? In that way it's immediately clear why the Österbotten → Ostrobothnia (region) move wasn't reverted: A Swedish province name was changed to an English (and Latin) name form, but the province lies outside Sweden.)
When you summed up this consensus in August, 2005, there is reference to the discussion on this page, and on a talk page for a project on swedish provinces. Do you know what happened with that talk page?
Finally, do you agree with this description of the rôle of regional notice boards (my emphasis):
Unlike most WikiProjects, the scope for regional notice boards is very broad, covering a wide variety of regional topics. Additionally, these boards are structured differently than WikiProjects. Rather than attempting to standardize and unify a set of articles, regional notice boards seek to simply improve a broad category of articles.
Regional notice boards are complementary to WikiProjects. It is altogether possible that a board's topics will overlap with one or more WikiProjects, and this is fine. The boards are a more general, informal, and user-friendly means of collaboration.
And, yes, this may start a little to look as a debate to end all debates (with as little chance to success...:-). That is to some extent my fault. In any case, I think my wait has served its purpose, and we could move the page by an unanimous 'consensus' decision; and revert anyone reverting the name to Skåne without refuting Pia's argumentation:-) JoergenB 22:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm moving the page. Duja 06:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of name change of Skåneland

Please see Talk:Skåneland to discuss a possible name change. -  AjaxSmack  00:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Preamble

The preamble (or ingress as we say) is too long. I tried to make it shorter, but it was not accepted. All that with the Danish past is already under "History". Why must it also be mentioned in the beginning of the article? The preambles should be short and not a summary of the whole article. And "politics" has nothing to do with the historical province - it should by found under Skåne County. --Muniswede 11:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, what is called the lead is not too long, but rather too short considering the lenght and size (39 Kb) of the article. See suggestions at WP:LEAD#Length. I've noticed that you are cruising several articles to delete all references to Danish history in the leads. Please respect that Wikipedia has an international readership and that a non-nationalistic approach is preferable. Scania was a province of Denmark before it became a historical province of Sweden and there is therefore no reason to attempt to prevent a chronological approach in the lead. Pia 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation of "ingress". I did not know the proper word. Most of the articles I am "cruising" are about municipalities. So, it´s not applicable. But sometimes I also check up on provinces and counties. Too often they are a bit mixed up. For instance when it comes to Scania there is too much about today´s administration in the article about the landskap. It should be very short with links to the länand region(formally landsting) instead. Of course important historical facts should not be forgotten. But there is a section called "History". This section must instead be enlarged. There is for instance nothing about the 19th and 20th centuries. I agree with you, that a "non-nationalistic approach" is preferable. But I don't think I have written anything with a "nationalistic approach". --Muniswede 14:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Province and county names in English

I have gone through a lot of articles on different subdivisions of Sweden. I have found that there is much to do. I have also read the discussions here. One of the few historical provinces (landskap) with an English name in everyday use is Scania. Osthrogothia and such things sound very obsolete. But there are some users who mix the names up anyhow. My suggestion is as follows: Use always the form Scania when you mean the landskap but Skåne County when you mean the län and Region Skåne for the landsting. After all the county and region by that name is a rather recent invention and has no tradition in English. I think that it is rather a good compromise, making it possible to use both names, but not mixing them up. --Muniswede 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the name Scania should always be used, regardless of "what" Scania is meant (old province (landskap), county, region). Mixing the translated name and the untranslated name depending on the circumstances will just cause confusion. The borders are also almost the same for all of these impersonations of Scania. John Anderson 13:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It is somewhat confusing, but I still see a difference between the historical use of "Scania" and the modern use of "Skåne län" for the administrative entity. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0927090/ for an example of "Skåne län".
In Sweden, "Skåne län" is only used for administrative purposes and it can be used for that purpose here aswell. They are also geographically different although not by much.
Yours truly, Fred-J 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course there's a difference, but not enough to justify the lack of translation in some cases but not in others. In Swedish, the name is always the same, Skåne. In English, the name should also always be the same, Scania. John Anderson 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Flag of Scania

I find it strange that it isn't mentioned how the colours of flag represents those of the Swedish ASWELL AS those of the Danish. That should undoubtly be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skowie (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Scania in modern times - Debate Yule tide 2007

What about the modern relationship between Danes, Swedes, the issue of Scania and the relationship between people in Scania and people in Stockholm?

According to a (mildly speaking) funny series of articles, the population in Sweden wants to give Scania away, not to mention people in Scania wanting to get rid of Sweden.

http://politiken.dk/indland/article450166.ece http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article1514813.ab http://hd.se/skane/2007/12/22/droemmar-om-stor-danmark http://www.dr.dk/Regioner/Kbh/Nyheder/Hovedstadsomraadet/2007/12/24/063832.htm

All articles are in Danish or Swedish. Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, there is no such debate, not really. As far as I am aware, the only thing that's happened is that one (1) Danish politician has stated that Scania should belong to Denmark because it was annexed to Sweden by force, back when. That could possible be mentioned in the article, but it's not really got anything to do with Scanian relationships to the rest of Sweden.
Of course people in different regions of Sweden poke fun at/are exasperated with one another, but that's true in any country :-) --Bonadea (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you read the comments (mostly in Swedish) from people in Scania, you'll see that it goes beyond "poking fun" at people from Stockholm. And claiming there is no debate is inaccurate after all. Unless one wants to deny the existence of separatist (as well as regionalist) movements in Scania. That said, I think it belongs to some sort of "funny thing"-section. Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It is funny that a Danish politician could formulate such claims. I think it is possible just because nobody takes it seriously. Mr Hitler once upon a time wanted to gather all "Germans" in his "Grossdeutsches Reich". Now Mr Krarup wants to create a "Stor-Danmark" including millions of people who do not even "know" that they really are "Danes"! I hope that the consequenses of Mr Krarups claimes will not be as devastating for Europe and the world as the claimes of Hitler. --Muniswede (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Krarup never stated anything about a "Stor-Danmark" (unlike the existing Stor-Sverige, which is mostly consisting of parts of Denmark and Norway), but merely talked about his dream, and a statement that Skåneland should become a part of Denmark if the population in Skåneland chose to do so in a plebiscite. There is something in this story that is deeper than just poking fun, but the question is how much deeper it is. I think it is comparable to Danes "poking fun" at Bruxelles (EU). In that case it is serious without being dangerous - and of course a little fun, too.212.10.141.64 (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) - posted by Dylansmrjones (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (forgot to log in)
I do not know which words were used by Mr Krarup. I just made the comparison with a man in recent history who wanted to expand the borders of his country, and what the results were. The country he ruled ended up smaller than it was before and millions of people died in a most cruel way. I have lived my life in the firm convicion that Danmark and Sweden since about 200 years now are close frieds and that the centuries of fighting for supremacy in the north of Europe are over once and for all. The two monarchs are cousins and the countries have close and good relations. But sometimes one is reminded of the fact that there are some people in our neighboring contry who still want to unearth the hatchet. Of course they are very few, and therefore not regarded as dangerous. I know that WP is not a forum, so we should perhaps not debate the present borders in Scandinavia. The discussions are about this page. What I mean is that these "claims" should not be mentioned here, as they are the point of wiew of extremely small fringe groups.--Muniswede (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The linked article proves otherwise. Besides that the Danish People's Party probably doesn't qualift as an extremely small fringe group. I find your comparison between democratic border modifications based on UN-rules and Nazism as extremely offensive. The only reason you (and other swedes) think there is nothing to debate now is because Sweden got it Greater Sweden-dream fulfilled. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain, which is why you won't even talk about it :P (calling 70% of the population in former Eastern Denmark for a fringe group is quite an attack on reality). I could say much more but I'll refrain from it, since there is no kind way to reply to such a far right extremist view as yours (hiding Swedish imperialistic nationalism under the guise of freedom and anti-nationalism is far right).212.10.141.64 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) again I forgot to log in.. ahh crap. Dylansmrjones (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"Far right extremist view". What on earth are you talking about? Do you really mean that defending the present borders between Denmark, Norway and Sweden as they have existed since the Treaty of Copenhagen in 1660 is "far right extremism". In that case all governments of the world, the EU, the UN and an overwhelming majority of the people of the countries concerned are "far right extremists". Mr Krarups party, however, is mostly considered at least "far right" and xenophobic. But I do not think that Mr Krarups "dreams" of a Greater Denmark including not only large parts of Sweden, but also parts of Germany are even included in his party's official policy. The leadership of the Danish People's Party should speak out and dissociate from such expansionist ideas. And what "Greater-Sweden dreams" have been fulfilled? Sweden has also lost territory (Finland, parts of the Baltic states and parts of northern Germany). But there is (as far as I have heard of) no Swedish politician claiming them back. Not even on the Internet one could find "movements" with such intentions. The very thought of claiming territory from neighbours is utterly absurd. Sweden has had its present borders since almost 200 years and they are accepted by all (with some extremely small exceptions), and I strongly believe they will stay for the future. Of course, if a situation would arise where a wast majority of people in a particular region would prefer to leave the country and joining another it has to be a peaceful solution to that problem. But I do not think I (or my children) will live to see such such a development. --Muniswede (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr Krarup has now, in an interwiev in a Swedish newspaper, scaled down his demands. He says that the Danish loss of Scania "was not good", but to revert it now is "not possible". The storm in the teacup is over. And the original interwiev was mostly about Slesvig so the whole story has been "blown up". --Muniswede (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Translating latin, Scaniae and Scaniam

Map from 1710 of "Scaniae" (Skåneland), consisting of the provinces "Scaniam, Hallandiam et Blekingiam".

This caption as seen on the right could suggest that the old latin name of Scania was Scaniam or Scaniae, when pulling words out of the context and using quotation marks. I wanted to change this so that the caption among other things reads consists of the provinces Scania, Hallandia and Blekingia. My changes were restored. I would like to reinstate the changes however, this time without quotations. I think it looks like illiteracy to quote 'Map of "Scaniae"' like we do right now. -- Sverdrup (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like either version, simply because your concerns are both correct. How about something like "This map of Skåneland from 1710 is entitled "Nova Tabula Scaniae" (New Map of Scania), but also uses Scania as the name of the province."? -- Jao (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, agree. To avoid confusion in this case, it might be best if the caption contains both an explanation as per Jao, using the modern names, and the unaltered title. It's true, as per Sverdrup, that the use of Latin names with case-endings could confuse, although quotation marks were used to indicate that the names are taken directly in the form they are found on the original map. That said: Changing titles, whether titles of antique maps, books, pop albums or scholarly journals etc., is certainly never OK. I also find it rather presumptuous to imply that the choice of case is a sign of "illiteracy" on behalf of the map's creator or as quoted. This type of -ae ending is fairly common on maps from this era, where it is used in titles referring to countries, "lands", provinces, cities, islands, etc, so the form should not appear a conflicting or confusing mystery to anybody. See for example the map Sveciæ, Norvegiæ et Daniæ Nova Tabula; or the various forms in this long title; the forms Lapponiam, Livoniam, Nordlandiam, Ingriam et in omnes subiacentes provincias used here; or the use of "Stockholmiae" in locative case on this page. However, agree, alternative or modern names of the provinces should definitely be included if, as pointed out, some readers might otherwise fail to realize that place names in Latin can be inflected. 71.106.242.31 (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to implement changes according to the discussion here. Now it's really verbose and I'm not totally satisfied with translating "Scaniam, Hallandiam et Blekingiam" to Scania, Halland and Blekinge, but I did so since those were the default names for the corresponding articles. -- Sverdrup (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Should there not be a disambiguation page when people search for scania, before getting to this page? Since there are so many other options? What do you think? Birtitia (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Many people who search for "Scania" could of course be more interested in the famous lorry and bus manufacturer (Scania AB). There is a disambiguation note on top of the article. Perhaps that is enough. I am not so sure myself. All other Swedish provinces are placed under its Swedish name (not Dalecarlia, Sudermannia and the like). But in this very case I think the English name is widely used. --Muniswede (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would it be more proper to rename this article to the swedish name? I am Swedish myself and have never refered to 'Skåne' as 'Scania'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birtitia (talk • contribs) 10:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this article should be renamed and called 'Skåne'. The reason I suggest this is because 'Skåne' is the most common used word. Even if 'Scania' is the English name, the most commonly used name is 'skåne'. According to the naming policies, native word should be used in cases where they are more commonly recognice. The naming policy also states that the most common name should be used. While searching for 'skåne' and 'province' in google I get mor hits than 'scania' and 'province'. Taken in consideration scania is also a big corporation, many of the hits on 'scania' and 'province' will not be about the Swedish province and therefore it is probable that it is even less common than the google hit list.

On top of this, all Swedish provinces gå by their native name on wikipedia, changing the name to 'Skåne' would help creating uniformity. (Birtitia (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Oppose. I'm not convinced that Skåne is more commonly used in English than Scania. I get 124,000 Google hits on scania province and 76,600 on skåne province. "scania, southern sweden" gives 9,850 and "skåne, southern sweden" only 2,210. Granted, these figures are pretty unreliable, and other searches might give opposite results, but I don't see a WP:NC(CN) argument for Skåne. I do share your concerns about conformity, though, but we really can't eat our cake and have it too. -- Jao (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am interested in the subject, but I am not sure what is best. I agree that all other provinces are found under their Swedish names. If there are Latin or English varieties these are also mentioned, but the name of the articles is always the Swedish name. With this only exception. The uniformity is of course a reason for a change. Another reason is that the administrative county since about ten years has the name Skåne län. The third reason for a change is that Scania is perhaps more well known as a trade mark. But, on the other hand, ifScania is the most commonly used name in English it is of course a reason not to change. So, I am very split myself, 66% pro and 33% contra. --Muniswede (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Britannica uses Skåne as its article title, including in other articles as does Encarta, which doesn't even mention Scania and Columbia Encyclopedia, top result and in other Columbia articles, and the CIA Factbook uses Skane (see admin. divisions section). Also used in The Times The Guardian, New York Times, NYT last month, Canada's Globe and Mail G&M again. It does seem the Swedish spelling is gaining more than occasional use and acceptance in English-language texts. I would expect to see the Swedish spelling in the vast majority of modern-day contexts, and Scania in texts about the history of the region. The encyclopaedia results were quite surprising to me. Knepflerle (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the move has now been done. As I said above, it is O.K. with me. I just thought the very Scandinavian letter å could be problematic in the English language. But the change has to be followed up. --Muniswede (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify (I normally hate this bolding thing, but I fear long streams of consciousness like mine do get somewhat overlooked without it) - given my research above I support the move as common English usage. But the comments below indicate I might be missing something, and if the weight of evidence changes naturally so will my opinion. Knepflerle (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I´m really sorry I moved the article before the discussion was finished, I am somewhat new here and did not realize the discussion would continue, I will not make the same mistake again. Birtitia (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Scania is the most common name in English. Also, please don't move this article to Skåne until this discussion is closed by an admin. Húsönd 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose oer Husond. Welcome, stranger, what are you doing in this galley? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't support all moves to titles containing diacritics, only the ones where the most common name in English may be spelled with diacritics. Not this case. Húsönd 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the move was somewhat premature; it came immediately after my comment above and I don't like to think my comments have a completely decisive say on matters - that would be a bit of a responsibility ;-) If you don't mind, could you please show me some evidence about the prevalence of Scania? As you can see from my comment above I didn't find it at all hard to find Skåne as primary usage in wide range of English-language reference sources, so I'd be a little surprised if I've missed an overwhelmingly prevalent use of Scania. But not that surprised. And I like surprises! Knepflerle (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Source numbers would be very hard to interpret because most English sources on the internet about this are probably written by Swedes who naturally prefer "Skåne". But "Scania" is undoubtedly a commonly used English term for the province, appearing in many English language sources about it. In fact, "Scania" is quite a well known word, much to the merit of the truck company (which by the way greatly complicates the task of getting source numbers for this name issue). Húsönd 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I Agree, the fact that the company Scania is so famous greatly complicates the use of search engines as an evidence, therefore, even if you search for 'scania (skåne)' it can also refer to the truck manufacturer. Birtitia (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the two learned gentlemen. Searching around for Scania vs Skåne seems to produce quite a few that use Scania with Skane as a 'also' name. Narson (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Husond. If any move is to be made, it should be to Skane, not Skåne. Several of the sources listed above to justify the move to Skåne don't use the letter å, for example, the CIA World Factbook, the NYT, and the Times. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • But that I would disagree. "Skane" and "Skåne" read very differently. Any English speakers who know the correct pronunciation of "å" would be unnecessarily mislead. Húsönd 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly the reason to retain the current spelling. Parsecboy (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per directive "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists and should be used in articles with caution", as per recommendations discussed here, as per step 1 here, as per literarure list here, and in the name of article stability. Pia (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A search for "travel to scania" produces about 20 times less hits in my google as "travel to skåne" does. Birtitia (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"Travel to Skåne" gives 11 unique Google hits. For travel sources in book form using Scania, please see for example Adventure Guide Scandinavia, where the author states: "Scania (Skåne in Swedish) is the southernmost province of Sweden." Another travel writer gives the following explanation: "Skåne (pronounced "scona" and rendered Scania in English)" [4]. Also, by using Google books and Google scholar, you'll get a brief overview of the wide range of reliable English sources using Scania. For academic usage of Scania in Sweden, please note how Skåne is translated in the English abstracts and summaries in recent Swedish BA and MA theses and PhD dissertations. Pia (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was discussed when the article was moved from Skåne to Scania.--Berig (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

One problem here is that the Britannica does not distinguish between the län and the province; we do, so it will be more difficult than usual to do meaningful searches. A more serious problem is that the history section here is missing almost a millennium; Scania was Danish before the Union of Kalmar and its history should begin with the Geats. It may possible to split the article again without making a POV fork, and that might solve the naming question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the history of Scandia should not start with the Geats, since the Scania was not included in Götaland until the 17th century.--Berig (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
History sections should, if possible, start with the arrival of the first humans. --Muniswede (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


The landskap/län distinction is always rather problematic. Even many Swedes have problems with that. The landskap are non-administrative, but perhaps more "living" in daily speech, with some exceptions, e.g. when it comes to Norrbotten and Västerbotten. Some län are named for landskap, but just in few cases the borders are exatly the same. So there is place for confusions. I agree that the history section is too short.It concentrates on the tranistition period. But most landskap articles have much smaller history sections. --Muniswede (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, the mentions of pre-Swedish history is short because someone has just finished removing large chunks of reliably sourced sections this week (text relating to, among others, the scholars Benny Jacobsson "Konstruktion av landskap. Exemplet Uppland" Idéhistoriska perspektiv in Arachne 16, 2000, Göteborg, and Tomas Germundsson "Regional Cultural Heritage versus National Heritage in Scania’s Disputed National Landscape" in International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2005). The sections about Danish hundreds and parishes have also been erased. Instead, there has been an addition to the already long section about the Swedish-Danish dispute over the province, in the form of speculative, unsourced stuff like: "a thorn in the flesh", "the most important source of income", "most important land", "most commonly used name". Cited text has been altered (from Skåneland. SAOB) and we now have a lead stating that "Skåne" is an English name. We also have a POV exclamation that a right-wing, xenophobic, populist party "only gained 11 (!) votes in the general election" (as if many more votes were to be expected), etc, etc. It's a mess now. However, it's no use to start work on restoring erased sections, sourcing/removing additions, etc. until the current campaign has settled down. But splitting this article in two, a Swedish and a Danish Scania article, because of this sort of upheavals/campaigns?! Well, no, I don't think that's such a good idea. The people of the region (and the province concept itself) have managed to survive with a pretty strong identity intact through both periods (Danish and Swedish), so I think careful and proper sourcing, fact checks and patience will be a better solution. It's true that there is a lot more to say on the topic of this article (history especially), but I think we can wait with the forking until the article has actually started to grow too big to manage. Best, Pia (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improomements deleted

During March and April 2007 this article was very much improoved. Suddenly someone changed it and made it much more flummy. Espacially the introduction has been changed too much. I am not so good in english to remake it in my own words but I will try to put back the last version of the introduction such as it was befor the great change. And I hope thar the two or three persons who had been hard-working will not feel they had made it all in wane. Many province article had been made better so I hope they will not all be destroyed. Greetings to all who make improovements here, Trabbe --83.241.234.4 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my first editing here so it was perhaps not so good. But this had to be done. I hope there could be a concensus about the province articels. But I have seen here on Wikipedia thatthere is always problematic with some of them Many changes all the time. Some bull-shit could be removed all togethers. Keep on making them better. When I learned moore Ican also come back, Trabbe. --83.241.234.4 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was very astonished today, when I found that the lead of the article had been reverted to my last version. I wished to wait to make any more contributions to the article myself, because I do not want to start an "edit war". That is when articles are being changed and reverted all the time. I have had some controverses with Pia L, but I also recognize that she has much knowledge of history. We must respect each other. I can also give you some advice. I think you are rather young. I think your English will be better in the future. And be careful and check spellings and so on. You had better open an account. It is very easy and costs nothing, but it will make you more credible. Welcome! --Muniswede (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your changes were reverted for the following reasons:
1. "Skåne" is not "in English", anymore than 'Göteborg' is "in English". Native names are used in English texts for both entities [5],[6], as is the case with countless other entities (sometimes English travel writers even write about Cote D'Azur "in English", rather than using the English name "the French Riviera"). There is no reason whatsoever to put "Skåne in English" into the lead in this particular article, while leaving other Swedish articles such as Gothenburg alone. Try it there first instead and if it gains acceptance, then let's talk about changing all Wikipedia articles were entities are sometimes referred to in their native name in English texts.
2. "Province" is a historical and cultural concept in modern Sweden. Judging by the scholarly journals and the books published about Scania, the main "historical and cultural" aspect of this entity is its cultural landscape, which differs from the national emblematic landscape of Sweden (pine forest, red wooden cottages with white trim, "kobbar och skär", different urban development (Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län: "De skånska medeltidsstäderna skiljer sig från de som anlades i Sverige", etc, etc. The sections about the province's geography, towns, history and culture are the largest sections of this article and (right now at least), the focus of the article. It must be referred to in the lead, which is a summary of what will follow in the article.
3. Removing Denmark from the lead of this article will mean having two articles, as suggested above by Septentrionalis. There are plenty of articles like that, such as for example Swedish Pomerania. I was hoping to avoid that, because in Scania the people still feel that their culture is part Danish part Swedish (as opposed to the people in Poland and Germany, who, I would venture to suggest, do not feel and have never felt that their culture is "Swedish") but if this campaign continues, maybe it will be the only solution. Then you can have Scania created as a "traditional province" in 1658, and only write about dukes and heraldry, delete all mentions about Scanian culture and move all the regional development stuff to the county article. Or will we also need a separate article called Regional development in Swedish Scania? Pia (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, PL. I do not really know if this was ment for me or for the accountless contributor "Trabbe". But I think he/she did no write anything, but just restored my part of the lead so I presume it is for me.
1) I did only write that the name "Skåne" is sometimes also used in English. There has been many debates about that, and the article has been moved several times. I thought that there was a consensus now to use the Latin/English name Scania, but also mention that the native name Skåne is also sometimes used in English. Now "Knepferle" has put it back, so the struggle continues. In the case of Göteborg/Gothenburg there is even a whole section of the article dealing with the names used in English, so you cannot say that "Gothenburg is left alone".
2) Most people in Sweden (in Scania and in other places) consider Scania to be one of the non-administrative traditional provinces (landskap) of the country. That might be wrong in some strictly historical way (as it is with Norrbotten), but it is the normal and commonly accepted way of putting it. A province must not be "typical" or "emblamatic". Many of the landskap are not. Now Scania is called "a geographical region", whatever that means.
3) I did not remove Denmark from the lead. One sentence in my version of the lead was: It is part of the transnational Oresund Region and was Danish territory up until the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658.. And in the history section there shall of course be much about the Danish era. I am not interesting in deleating historical facts, even if you have accused me of that before. --Muniswede (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be picky, but the edit history of this article proves otherwise. There has been repeated removals of mentions of Denmark (as well as Skåneland) in this article by one particular user. See for example the removal of Denmark and Danish (bolded here for emphasis) in these two random edits: "the Danish era arms for the city of Malmö, which was also used to create the arms for the province of Scania"[7], "(Skåne in Swedish language and Danish language) [...] a historical province (landskap) in the Kingdom of Sweden, before 1658 a province in the Kingdom of Denmark [...] Due to the historical connection to Denmark]"[8]. I could go on, but it's boring. About "in English": the lead of the article Gothenburg does not say that the name is "Göteborg in Swedish and English". Yes, there is a section about which Swedish entities in Göteborg are using the Swedish name in English texts and a notation of the fact that some British newspapers and the navy also use Göteborg (not Goteborg, then I assume, as is the case for "Skane" in almost all of the the articles listed above as proof of the use of the "Skåne"?). About your statement that there is no emblematic Swedish landscape - well, that's your word against academically well-respected and well-renouned scholars in the field of cultural geography. Suggest you start looking for sources and we can make an article about that. Maybe we can include the non-existence of emblematic buildings... Pia (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Issue 1: OK, I will leave the comment about Skåne "sometimes being used in English" as a footnote, and I've also added the other versions which are "sometimes used in English", although I personally think the "sometimes used in English" is a ridiculous addition - Most native names "are sometimes used in English". See the article section about de-anglicisation. As others have pointed out (since 2005, or earlier?), and as someone put it above: "Skåne is not an all around used name". Scania is for example called de:Schonen in German, fr:Scanie in French, es:Escania in Spanish, and Sconia in Latin (by Adam of Bremen). Seeing the use of the native name Skåne in texts in other languages is not "a matter of national pride" in Scania. (And I don't even think people fret when the name is misspelled "Skane" either, as in NYT, because people are used to seeing similar forms in older literature, mostly as [Skaane], especially in older English texts building on [Danish] sources, so it's not that jarring on the eye). But the "in Swedish and English" edit implies that "Skåne" could be considered the English equivalent of the French Scanie or of Adam of Bremen's Sconia - which is absurd! About the "proof": Most of the links presented to demonstrate the use of "Skåne" for the province do not even use this form, but instead Skane, as people have already pointed out in the blue box above. (The Times - referring to skane.com; NYT 1 - "Skane (pronounced SKOH-nah)"; NYT 2: "Skane, a region"; G&M (no mention in the link provided); G&M again - "trains to Sweden's Region Skane"; CIA Factbook - referring to "Skane County" for which WP already has a correctly-spelled article called Skåne County. Still, I'll leave it alone while you figure out if you have consensus for the idea that such an addition is in line with how "in English" is normally used in WP articles, and while you establish that there is stated consensus that the sources listed by User:Knepflerle above actually support such an addition, as per the edit summary here
  • Issue 2: Nobody is arguing that Scania should not be referred to as a "non-administrative, traditional province in Sweden". The current lead states that Scania is just such a "traditional province (landskap)". However, it is also a historical Danish province, a part of the historical region Skåneland, and used as a general reference to a geographical region (as in research about the periods before the rise of the modern kingdoms..the landscape has been the focus of a lot of attention during the last decade, especially in archeology, anthropology and in investigations related to state-formation theory, often within the fields of history and political science.) The major aspects in focus in the running text cannot go missing in the lead, because as per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Pia (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In copying my remarks here with added scare quotes, you appear to have utterly missed the all-important word sometimes in my edits, which changes the meaning and stress of the statement entirely and renders the vast majority of what you have written superfluous. The fact is that that spelling is used sometimes, and the evidence supports this (and I add, no stronger conclusion than this). Your argument of possible misunderstanding as a translation of Scania relies entirely on your misquotation of my words - there is no ambiguity in the full version to fluent readers.
The argument comparing it with the Gothenburg is a straw-man - de-anglicisation affects places differently according to how frequently they are used in English, and Gothenburg is much more established in modern English usage. Scania is disappearing from use faster, simple. Anyway - bearing in mind this and this, maybe a note is in fact in order at Gothenburg - using case law within Wikipedia is a fragile base for argument indeed. A better illustration where such a wording would be not used is Munich, where München is used so vanishingly infrequently in English that such a notice would be inappropriate. Indigenous names are alway used to some extent in English - but that extent varies on a very wide scale from practically never (München) to predominant in modern literature (here) - and cases at the extremes are worth noting.
Relegate it to a footnote if you wish - I don't care to fight about it, or edit to that effect again - but the arguments above for doing so are specious. Knepflerle (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I arrived here about a year ago in order to work with Swedish municipalities and their localities. My first task was to separate muncipalities from seats. After that I have also been dealing with oher subdivisons. A few weeks ago I began examining the provinces (landskap). I started to try to make the province articles more congruent. I made Öland, Småland and a lot of others. No problems. But when I tried to remake Scania in the same pattern it took hus i helsike in pure Swedish. I do not know why this very province should be treated differently from all the others. But it has been "monopolized" here on WP. I will now take a "time-out" from editing anything on the Scania article. There are many other things to do. --Muniswede (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Earlier this month I tried to return to this article. I also got some support in the beginning. But suddenly everything was reverted. A new time-out. --Muniswede (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skåne/Archive_1&oldid=1137189944"