Could you give some examples of the differences between the three forms of Norwegian?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lars Alvik Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:04 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: An honorable compromise and no: or nb: for Bokmål?
På 11. nov. 2004 kl. 10.56 skrev Ulf Lunde:
I have presented all my arguments in favor of a separate nb:-Wikipedia, and I don't have any new ones. (Jeremy has understood the political issue perfectly.)
But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars Alvik) apparently still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies which may make it easier (for anyone not familiar with nynorsk) to grasp the provocativeness of the problem. I will also try again to explain why there will be no "dead links" and only very little "extra work" associated with my proposed solution.
Lars Alvik wrote:
The idea nowadays is to change the interwikicoding and provide a list of reasons why bokmål is no: (like Utne suggested). This would create a bokmål/riksmål wiki on no: and formalize the language situation. And yes, i see this as an permanent solution.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
To most non-Norwegians, and I think also for many Norwegians, the concept of the "Norwegian" language (written and spoken) is easy to understand and unambigious. [meaning that for most foreigners, Norwegian = Bokmål]
My reply to both of these comments is (and I hope there are some Mac or Linux users on this list, or my point may be moot):
To most web surfers, and I think also for many wikipedians, the concept of "computer" is easy to understand and unambiguously identical to "Windows".
The problems arise when Microsoft (read: either of the Norwegian languages) pretends to have monopoly on the concept "computer" (read: "Norwegian").
When Bokmål users or Nynorsk users pretend this, the other group is just as upset as amerindians are when third generation European Americans pretend to have monopoly on American heritage.
Lars Alvik also wrote:
Just moving no: to nb: creates a lot of problem and establish an own nb: wiki idependantly of no: would kill the community and confuze new users (i for one don't think it's fun to move around 11 500 articles).
I, for one, don't think that what Lars Alvik thinks is fun should dictate the name of the Bokmål Wikipedia, when we have an unambiguous set of ISO language codes which is used for all other Wikipedias. :-)
The fact that many foreigners (and some Norwegians) "feel" that "Norwegian" equals "Bokmål", is an emotional issue which should not lead a serious project like Wikipedia to break with established naming conventions.
Having given the problem a lot of thought, I can see no *practical problems* in having separate no: and nb: Wikipedias (in addition to the nn: one) alive at the same time. There need be no *confusion*, either:
Articles which exist only in Bokmål or only in Nynorsk, can be left at the common no: Wikipedia indefinitely. No "moving around 11.500 articles" is required.
New articles may be written in the no: Wikipedia, regardless of language form. Visiting users need not even know that Norwegian has two written forms; they will find only articles in *Norwegian* (of which some will be in Bokmål, some in Nynorsk).
When someone writes the same article in the other language, the first article should be moved from no: to nb: (if it is in Bokmål) or to nn: (if it is in Nynorsk). The no: article should leave only pointers to both, preferably with some indication about the length (or other attributes) of each article. Admittedly, this is slightly more work than just writing an interwiki link in the new article, but it is hardly "a lot of extra work". Given the amount of eager programmers in the Wikipedia community, I reckon that a tool for "moving the article, calculating its size, and leaving a link" would probably soon appear as a simple click-button on every page of no:. (Or a bot could periodically be set to just move all pages where the language is known, out of no: and into their respective databases.)
Other Wikipedias may (and perhaps should?) always link to no: (Norwegian), regardless of whether the article is in Bokmål or in Nynorsk. If only one of the two forms exists, there should be a #OMDIRIGER (which equals #REDIRECT) directive in no: to the existing article, so there will not be any intermediate pages or any extra clicking when there is no ambiguity.
Of course, brand new articles would be written in the nb: and nn: Wikipedias also. When this happens, we should make sure that links to these appear in no: within a reasonable amount of time. Personally I think this will happen on its own account, because of alert Wikipedians who like to look for, and correct, such missing redirections. But it would be simple to get a bot to do the search on a daily basis, if necessary.
An open question is how to write intrawiki links. Should nn: contain links only to no:, or should it be possible to link from one nn: article to another (which is the default today)? Note that this is not a problem which arises from the proposed change, it is an existing problem today, and something which should be adressed anyway, as long as we allow for Nynorsk (or Bokmål) articles to exist solely in no:, like we do (for both languages) today.
Norwegian is a special language and merits special treatment. Wikipedia sysops may see the case of the Norwegian language as an exercise and a step in the direction of a multilingual Wikipedia!
Ulf Lunde _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I still don't se the problem, and i don't like being told as a 12th generation norwegian, that my language are foreign. I still don't see your point of view.
Ok, what i think is fun is building a enclopedia, in norwegian, the last days i've seen the fun in that evaporate slowly. And i know that a new nb: wiki would be a cripped one, so in effect it's cripping us. And i belive the point that the overwhelming majority of no: is accualy articles in bokmål is a important one.
A bokmål wiki at no:
1. Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same) 2. Change in interwikidecoding to "norsk (bokmål)" (and nynorsk to "norsk (nynorsk)") 3. An own page on the mainpage of no: explaining why bokmål is no: 4. Bokmål and Riksmål (conservative bokmål) is allowed on the bokmål wiki, nynorsk would be allowed but articles in nynorsk wouldn't be "protected" from translation.
PS. i don't know why you wanted this debate in english, you ignore the english speaking when they try to aproch the matter, and my english is crappy (atleast that's something we all can agre on).
mvh. Lars Alvik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l