Talk:Bergen Region

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Bergen Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127042845/http://www.ssb.no/kommuner/region.cgi?nr=12 to http://www.ssb.no/kommuner/region.cgi?nr=12

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Name
My concern about this article, for which I proded it, was that earching for "Greater Bergen Region" finds nothing, the sources don't mention it either. Given the sources you provided for Trondheim Region, I'd think that just "Bergen Region" would be a better name, and more like the Norwegian "Bergensregionen". Would you agree? Batternut (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I get only 1 hit on "Greater Bergen Region" "Bergensregionen" but a few thousand on "Bergen Region" "Bergensregionen". There is currently a redirect from Bergen Region to Greater Bergen Region, I will swap the two titles. Sam Sailor 09:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Really sorry, but I do not think this region as described in the article exist at all. The Norwegian counterpart most certainly is about something else entirely. The Norwegian article seems to be about an institution/organization/cooperation that existed between 1989-2010. The name of this was Bergensregionen or Regionrådet Bergen og Omland, but I would take a good look at the sources (including finding some more) in the Norwegian article. The article is linked to Bergen og omland which consist of the members of Bergensalliansen. As this stands this article does not seem to describe an existing region.
 * -- When I count "kommuner" in the english articles Bergen Region and Bergen og omland and compare with their Norwegian counterparts nothing seems to add up. When I look at the sources Bergen Region none of them mentions Bergensregionen so this article in English is etirely without sources.
 * -- The article can be moved to what seems to be the correct name Bergensregionen, but if it is moved all of the content needs to be replaced with a translation of the Norwegian article. It is also a possibility to disconnect the article from the Wikidata item and create a new one. Before anything is done I would look closely at all of the articles in Norwegian which might be describing different regions in the Bergen area.--ツツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The announcement here lists the same 14 regions as this article. no:Bergensregionen lists the same 14 communes (in the footnote after Bergensregionenin the Byregion table). The bigger difference seems to be that the Norwegian article describes it as a regionråd (regional council), not as a statistical metropolitan region, and furthermore that it was superseded by the Bergensalliansen in April 2011. Alas there is no citation for no:Bergensalliansen superseding no:Bergensregionen, in fact the latter has no citations at all. Batternut (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * no:Bergen og omland lists 18 communes, whereas the uncited no:Bergensalliansen lists 22, with Gulen, Kvam, Tysnes and Voss being the extra ones. Batternut (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And a search in the books scanned by Nasjonalbiblioteket reveals another three "definitions" or rather usages of the word. I find
 * -- 8 "kommuner" Os, Hordaland, Sund, Norway, Fjell, Askøy , Vaksdal ,Osterøy, Meland and Bergen in
 * -- 9 "kommuner" Lindås, Os, Hordaland, Sund, Norway, Fjell, Askøy , Vaksdal ,Osterøy, Meland and Bergen in
 * -- 5 "kommuner" Askøy, Meland, Lindås, Osterøy and Bergen in
 * -- In addition to this the source cited above, St.meld. nr. 31 (2002-2003), clearly states "Den avgrensingen av storbyregion som er gjort er ikke ment normativt – som en definisjon av en regiongrense fra regjeringens side." which means that the government did not intend these greater city regions to be normative, as definitions of any regional borders., alternative url []. The list is found on page 145 i the document and is what in Norwegian is called "et vedlegg", i. e. an enclosure to the report.
 * -- Some of the books I have provided with an url is digitally available to read from everywhere in the world, some are only available if you read from a Norwegian ip-adress.
 * -- I once tried to find exactly were Nordvestlandet is/was and ended up with more than three clearly different definitions and to different spellings as well.
 * -- Bergensregionen or Bergens-regionen or "Bergen med omland" etc does not have one definition. Having tried to find a clearer answer to this conundrum in Norwegian books I also find a lot of authors just using the term and in some cases providing figures, but forgetting to tell the reader exactly what they have included in Bergensregionen.
 * -- The Norwegian twin article does not look ok so right now this is not a straightforward translation job either. --ツツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine work Dyveldi! In general I'm not surprised when metro areas / commuter belts etc slowly grow in area. But these changes seem to go down instead, judging by the dates of those docs: 9 communes in 1982, 8 in 1989, 5 in 1991 (though I counted 7 in that doc). Batternut (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've put my head on the block haven't I? I still remember how much work it was trying to find Nordvestlandet apart from generally knowing it was on the coast up north and east someplace. When I critizise the article please bear in mind that I do know how difficult it sometimes is to find out what an article should be about and how to source it. Sometimes things just happen to head in the wrong direction however well meaning and constructive the individual edits are.
 * -- I think something also needs to be done about Bergen og omland. It also involves finding which articles is involved.. The first obvious step is to identify the Norwegian articles and not just the articles involving Bergen, but Trondheim (at least Trondheim og omland and Trondheim Region), Tromsø, Oslo, and so on. Then probably fix at least some the Norwegian articles. All the time bearing in mind that Wikipedia is about what was and should reflect how things have changed over the years. This means identifying historical units that no longer exists. We need sourced definitions and to make sure that they are dated, i.e. when was the definition used or even correct and who used it. The articles need to ble clear about what the article describes, is it a collection of land for statistical purposes or is it an actual decision making body.
 * -- This entails not just looking closely at the sources I have found till now. Bokhylla (The Bookshelf new version - old version) where our Nasjonalbiblioteket have scanned and made more than 250 000 Norwegian books electronically readable and available is a wonderful tool, but some of the books/reports are only available from a computer in their reading room in Oslo. I have identified quite a few sources that are quoted in other sources, but i'll need to visit the reading room physically to read them.
 * -- Quite a bit of the sources is statistical research about patterns, where are the transportation and how is it used in an area (region), what does the population look like in an area and how does it compare to other areas/regions in Norway and so on. The statisticians might have used one definition for a period and then later on changed their mind and conformed to different demands from the politicians. See for instance
 * -- A lot of this confusion is due to what we call Interkommunalt samarbeid which is different forms of cooperation between "kommuner" and gave rise to Interkommunale regionråd, Interkommunalt selskap and so on.
 * -- A lot of this is about politics and how politicians intend to develop areas. Politicians and politics change, but they do tend to build on and refer to previous politics and previous research. Right now two huge regional reform is in progress, Regionreformen i Norge and Kommunereformen i Norge which is changing the landscape as we speak and it will change what the statisticians provide statistics for.
 * -- I think English WP should use the Norwegian article names and then explain what the article name means in English. In some cases these cooperation/decisionmaking bodies will be given English names by their owners, but that will have to be properly sourced. Statistical collections of areas will need to be properly sourced and connected to the time period the term was used. Using the Norwegian article title as the main name for the article ensures that it is clear (as far as it is possible to ble clear) what the article actually is about.
 * -- When an article is up for deletion on Norwegian WP I always try to look at alternative solutions with the purpose of keeping the edit history and letting the users keep their edits in their log. In this case this is possible. The content though, as I see it, is not possible to keep. An article about the region/area surrounding and including Bergen can not list populations way back in 1769 or predict them for 2040. The table in the article unfortunately does not make much sense and to my mind is Original research, i.e. based on someone looking at SSBs pages and adding the population data given on their pages without looking at what the data actually represents. Source no 1 does not give the population data it claims to give (several "kommuner" is not included in the source). Furthermore Norwegian "kommuner" did not exist back in 1769, they were created in 1837 with Formannskapslovene (which by law introduced and institutionalized local democracy in Norway). Source no 2 gives population data for 2014 but the column is called 2017 and the figures does not tally with what the source says. Source no 3 gives estimated population data for 2040. The estimate is made in 2012 and already old news and probably have changed, in addition the source gives three estimates and the article have chosen one of them without explaining this.
 * -- Conclusion for now, move the article to Bergensregionen and leave a redirect. Then replace the content entirely with a short text explaining some of the different "definitions"/explanations of what the word/"name" Bergensregionen might mean. --ツツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 14:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Useenglish is a strong pointer otherwise, assuming "Bergen region" is a good translation. It does seem to be used on Norwegian pages written in English. The article should mention the Norwegian name, ie Bergensregionen, and a redirect from Bergensregionen to Bergen region should be created. Batternut (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In most cases I would agree, but in this case Bergen og omland speaks against it as Bergen and surrounding areas means the Bergen region. The Bergen region does really not have a content without a solid connection to the Norwegian term. I think you safely can redirect "Bergen og omland" here. Bergen and surrounding areas really are the region consisting of Bergen and surrounding areas. I'll see what I can do about rewriting. I suspect someone might be slightly upset if i get rid of the lovely and well made tables. I'll need to have solid sources for what I do and read the sources closely. This includes what I can do on Norwegian WP. I'll bear in mind that we need to describe the region of Bergen "with attachments", Bergensregionen, on Norwegian WP so that it is possible to accommodate what we have discussed here, i.e. different descriptions and definitions. If I find a more solid basis for calling it Bergensregionen in Norwegian and not the Bergen Region in English I'll ping you here. If not I'll just make a redirect from Bergensregionen. I don't think two articles is appropriate and Bergen og omland really is Bergensregionen written with a different choice of words. As to a timetable the above mentioned St.meld. nr. 31 (2002–2003) is central and it alone is more than 160 pages and I will probably not read the whole thing tomorrow, but I'll need to read it and other sources well before I actually start writing. Write first and if the writing reveals that new article names are appropriate take the decision then on the basis of a better text. --ツツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 22:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rewriting first is wise, yes. And I find the table highly misleading - the 1769 column implies a regional concept which I doubt existed then, and the 2040 is column similarly speculative. I'd support pointing "Bergen og omland" here too. Batternut (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)