My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the opinion of Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!
And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as alternative solutions between which to choose. I think that is what we need now!
Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference) comprised these choices:
1. no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de facto) bokmål-Wikipedia. 2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect to nb: 3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokmål user interface.
I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to include my initial proposal: 4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave no: untouched).
I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial solution, based on my observations that: "1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive. "2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no matter how good they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the same title. "3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokmål, since it implies that we do not get a pure bokmål Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati, most current users of no: do not seem to care about that).
All other proposals seem to include more or less complex schemes of dis- ambiguation pages and advanced cross linking. Perhaps we should keep it simple.
Ulf Lunde