Template talk:Scandinavia

Validity

I question the validity of this article series template. The scope of it is purely Scandinavistic, buth without any limitations. The template is also bound to overlap with anything concerning any of the three Scandinavian countries, and moreover, it does not take in consideration the idea of the inclusion of the Nordic countries.

Peter ^Isotalo July 6, 2005 20:21 (UTC)

Royal League as part of the Scandinavia-series

Does Royal League fit into the series? No doubt about it's Scandinavian relations, but the template seems more history-related to me. Note: It doesn't even link to the four countries, just the history of them. /AB-me (chit-chat) 17:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
(The above was copied, slightly edited from Talk:Royal League) /AB-me (chit-chat) 13:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sweden-Finland

How can the purely modern, theoretical definition "Sweden-Finland" be listed under "Political entities"? Gabagool (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't. The template needs cleanup as it has spread out to include areas that are not properly part of Scandinavia.--Berig (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the image be changed?

The cloud cover is obstructing one third of Scandinavia. I feel this is a problem, there is an image without cloud cover I feel would be more appropriate:

Atheuz (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Styling

This template currently sticks out like a sore thumb on transcluded articles due to the brown background colour. A couple of editors have tried inverting the colour scheme to alleviate this only to be summarily reverted. Does this template really need to be dark brown? Why? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now changed the colours of the template to white/pale blue. Peter (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please include an article about Scandinavian culture

I think it would be a good idea to include a whole article about Scandinavian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.80.140 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed name to Nordic Countries?

The template already has a few sections that are not just about Scandinavia, which in the strictest sense is only Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Scandinavia is sometimes loosely used to refer to nordic countries, however renaming to Nordic countries would make the template more accurate.

Bluealbion (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it would be better to completely remove Finland from the template.--Berig (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You should probably have a look at talk:Scandinavia before trying to decide what should be in a template about Scandinavia. In English, Scandinavia is usually defined much wider than in e.g. Swedish. Andejons (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I just stated my opinion.--Berig (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In Scandinavia, the definition of Scandinavia is always Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Andejons do you have a source supporting that this is not the most common definition in English usage? I see two options: (1) Other countries should be indicated as unusual part of the English definition. (2) The template should be turned into an infobox about Nordic countries. See Template:Nordic countries. Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Åland and Faroe Islands

Faroe Islands is there but why isnt Åland? Åland is also a area in Scandinavia --Averan Republic (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)