-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l- bounces@Wikimedia.org] På vegne av Mark Williamson Sendt: 26. april 2005 02:33 Til: bjarte@pingpingping.com; wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Emne: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Language policy agreement in the NorwegianWikipedia community
Bjarte,
If these people really did receive positive reactions, which I'm doubtful they did, it's because most of the people in charge don't like having two Wikipedias where there "could" be 1 instead. It is seen as a tragic division of effort, and no doubt those who were discussing it with them played down dramatically the actual differences between Bokmål and Nynorsk.
Seems like a good analysis; I would add that it seems likely, from what they've written on no:, that they have misrepresented the actual situation. They seem to labour under the misconception that having a mixed Wikipedia means having one Norwegian Wikipedia, whereas it means having three, thus creating a further division of effort.
Their hopes of merging Nynorsk and Bokmål are quite misplaced, and it seems to be obvious to most users that the losing part in such a merger would be the Nynorsk users; their Wikipedia is the first modern encyclopedia in Nynorsk, and thus a great step forward for the Nynorsk community.
I also have an opinion regarding no: and nb:.
no: should be moved to nb:, and no: should redirect to nb:.
However, this should eventually be changed so that no: is a portal containing a link to both, but there should be enough time in between for people to get sort of used to the new URL, as there was with "wikipedia.org" vs "en.wikipedia.org" for the English Wikipedia. As with the English Wikipedia, however, actual article requests to no: such as http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge should automatically be redirected to the Bokmål article, with perhaps special exceptions when the title is obviously Nynorsk.
To continue forever to use no: for Bokmål and/or Riksmål is inherently non-neutral. no: is listed in the ISO standard as "Norwegian", yet if Nynorsk is disallowed on no: but no: remains at the current subdomain, that means we are actually endorsing the view that "Bokmål is the _real_ Norwegian language".
I agree, in principle, but I do hope that we can take his slowly. Both Wikipedias (with the exception of one user) seem to agree that we should figure out the best way to create a portal before moving. As long as we have an open dialogue and continue to move towards a portal solution (perhaps including also the Swedish and Danish Wikipedias in a Scandinavian portal), I think that all of us would be better served with a slightly problematic domain name than with a frustrating half-baked portal.
The move from no: to nb: with no: as a redirect to nb: could of course be made straight away, but I fear that this would all to easily become a permanent solution, and doesn't really fix the problem; no: would still equal Bokmål/Riksmål.
Chris Nyborg [[:no:User:Cnyborg]]