For future reference the Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Svalbard/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.
Information For Contributors
The following information may assist contributors who wish to improve this article
To do before it's a DotM
We are heading (partly owing to me opening my big fat mouth) toward this article as a possible Destination of the Month for May 2006. However, as I look at it, I'm not convinced it's ready for that. Fleshing-out of the "Sleep" section is really very important, and more clarity on things to see and do wouldn't hurt either. Anybody? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:37, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Never mind. The daughter pages seem adequate for the "Sleep," and while improvement on "See" and "Do" would still be nice, it's not essential. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:30, 3 Feb 2006 (EST)
So Svalbard is a bit of an interesting case. It's administered by and sovereign territory of Norway, but the Svalbard Treaty's provisions mean that Norway's actual control is limited. Most notably for the traveller, it's possible to visit Svalbard without getting a Norwegian visa or dealing with Norwegian immigration. Other opinions? Jpatokal 02:10, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Seeing the article about the town of Longyearbyen, I went "up" to the region (island) of Svalbard, and fully expected to be able to go up the trail to the country that the island was part of, but instead was forced to jump up to the continental region of Northern Europe. So is Svalbard a country? Is it something like Antarctica? (I knew only that Longyearbyen was about 3cm above the top of the page on the route map in the SAS in-flight magazine...)
- I think the isIn trail should give the reader an idea at a glance where the subject is located, in familiar terms, as city-region-country. And in this case it's the reader's concern "where in the world is this?" that comes first, before the travelers need for visa issues or (someone?)'s need for administrative divisions. If I were planning a trip to Longyearbyen and needed a mainstream published guide, I would expect to find the best information in "Rough Planet:Norway", not "Lonely Guide:Northern Europe".
- Places of this type aren't common, so maybe ad-hoccing it is best; Easter Island probably doesn't have to be placed under Chile. -- Paul Richter 04:07, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
- For what it's worth, Hawaii and Alaska are both listed (using isIn) as being in the United States, despite the fact that they are geographically far away from the mainland US, so using that as a precedent it makes sense (IMHO) to list Svalbard and Easter Island as being part of (isIn) Norway and Chile, respectively. Additionally, the argument above about whether a traveler would expect to find info about Svalbard in a Norway travel guide is a good one since isIn could eventually be used to produce country and region specific guides. -- Ryan 04:12, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
- Yabbut Hawaii and Alaska are full-fledged states and undeniably parts of the US. On the other hand, the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory, aren't under "US" but (IMHO correctly) under "Micronesia", and the stamp in my passport from there doesn't say "US", it says "CNMI". Svalbard is similar: it's Norwegian territory, but not quite a full-fledged part of Norway the country. (I didn't get any stamps, but they did check my passport when returning to Oslo, which they wouldn't do for a purely domestic flight.)
- And I'm not actually sure about how The Other Guide classifies Svalbard; I am quite sure, though, that it got its own section in the LP Arctic guide. Jpatokal 04:24, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)