Hi, everybody
First things first, I have by no means been active in the list lately, but I have been checking in with things. This is one topic I felt the need to discuss.
As a fairly competent (though not fluent) Norwegian speaker, I am well familiar with the bokmål/nynorsk contrast and the political connotations they entail. Norway's unique lingual situation has been going on for over a century. While Swedes may not get it (and I understand that leaving bokmål at no: might make a lot of sense), the use of no: (or a "macro-language" Norwegian code) for bokmål implies that bokmål is the "normal" form of Norwegian, whereas nynorsk is "specialty" Norwegian. They are neither. Nynorsk and bokmål (I'm most fluent in the latter, which is admittedly the "big brother" in this situation) truly are equal forms of the greater spectrum of Norwegian dialects, and they deserve their place. To Norwegians, dialect matters much more than in many other countries. There are a lot of viable options here, but using no: or a general Norwegian code for bokmål is simply not one of them.
Moving onto Swedish, the language of greater communication issue largely comes down to a matter of a linguistic nation's history of colonialism. Let's get real here, people: all languages are equally valuable. No language is inherently better than another language. Swedish is a large language by world standards. Let's look at some of the world's largest language populations, focusing on languages from Europe: French (colonialism), Portuguese (colonialism), Russian ("domestic" colonialism as the empire expanded; USSR connection), Spanish (colonialism), and English (colonialism: "native-language" areas, like Ireland, created in themselves by colonialism). Remaining top-ten languages tended to be spread by empires or areas where historical population booms happened. No comment. These languages are the exceptions, not the rule.
In regards to Norwegian, whatever happens, let Wikipedia be sensitive to the lingual needs of speakers of the "macro" Norwegian language. Thank you for your time.
-- Jeremy
På 11. nov. 2004 kl. 05.10 skrev jneden@bellsouth.net:
Hi, everybody
First things first, I have by no means been active in the list lately, but I have been checking in with things. This is one topic I felt the need to discuss.
As a fairly competent (though not fluent) Norwegian speaker, I am well familiar with the bokmål/nynorsk contrast and the political connotations they entail. Norway's unique lingual situation has been going on for over a century. While Swedes may not get it (and I understand that leaving bokmål at no: might make a lot of sense), the use of no: (or a "macro-language" Norwegian code) for bokmål implies that bokmål is the "normal" form of Norwegian, whereas nynorsk is "specialty" Norwegian. They are neither. Nynorsk and bokmål (I'm most fluent in the latter, which is admittedly the "big brother" in this situation) truly are equal forms of the greater spectrum of Norwegian dialects, and they deserve their place. To Norwegians, dialect matters much more than in many other countries. There are a lot of viable options here, but using no: or a general Norwegian code for bokmål is simply not one of them.
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. I recon there are probably no more than 300 nynorsk arcticles on no:. These and new nynorsk articles on no: will not get deleted but will not get "protected" against translation either. We don't want no trouble with the nynorskpeople (eventhough we are indeed very tired of the debate in general). 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).
The reason why i've not been debating earlier is that my written english is quite crappy and i perfer my own language, norwegian (bokmål).
mvh. Lars Alvik
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
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
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
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
I have explained my views in Norwegian in the discussions on no: and on nn:, which I think are both a more suitable language and more suitable places to *debate* these issues than this mailing list (where many of the recipients probably couldn't care less about Norwegian language issues) is. I have not intentionally ignored any approaches from English speakers. In fact, I think that I already have written more than my share of replies in this thread, and I feel that the debate has now become very much out of place in this forum.
This mailing list uses only English (as far as I can tell), so I had to write *the request* in English. Ideally, the entire debate should be held elsewehere, and only the *conclusions* of the Norwegian debate should reach this level.
Those who feel that more debate is needed, are still welcome to join the discussions on the Wikipedia discussion pages, even if they are not able to write in Norwegian! Or they can start a discussion about new solution proposals (and their merits) somewhere else, e.g. in the Metawiki, and just send this list a link.
One current discussion: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vannposten#Bokm.C3.A5l_og_nynorsk_wik... Some earlier discussions: http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia-diskusjon:Wikipedia_p%C3%A5_bokm%C3%A... http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_p%C3%A5_nynorsk
Ulf Lunde
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
På 11. nov. 2004 kl. 11.48 skrev Lars Alvik:
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:
- Ads to nynorsk (provided nynorsk does the same)
- 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
Ignore this mail, it was sent with the wrong mailaddress.
Ulf Lunde wrote:
But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars Alvik) apparently still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies
Sorry, your Microsoft analogy doesn't help. You're full of feminist-style rhetoric, where all opposition is disqualified as a matter of "not getting it". There's nothing I can do here. I'm glad I'm not part of this conflict.
On Nov 11, 2004, at 9:11 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
Ulf Lunde wrote:
But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars Alvik) apparently still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies
Sorry, your Microsoft analogy doesn't help. You're full of feminist-style rhetoric, where all opposition is disqualified as a matter of "not getting it". There's nothing I can do here. I'm glad I'm not part of this conflict.
Cool down. There is no particular group that has a monopoly on the attitude "if you don't agree with me, I obviously haven't made myself clear." More over, while the dicussion has been pointed, the participants should be praised for patiently explaining these issues. I don't know about other people, but I've found the exchange enlightening and interesting, and would like to thank Mssrs Lunde and Alvik for taking their valuable time to present differing viewpoints.
<OFF TOPIC>
while the di[s]cussion has been pointed, the participants should be praised for patiently explaining these issues. I don't know about other people, but I've found the exchange enlightening and interesting, and would like to thank Mssrs Lunde and Alvik for taking their valuable time to present differing viewpoints.
Darn! :-) What fun would flame wars be if there were many people around with such calm and reflected attitudes! Come to think of it, there probably wouldn't ever *be* any flame wars if most people shared Stirling's attitude! :-)
No need to thank us for taking part in an argument! That's what we like most! I apologize to the Larses if in the heat of the battle some words were chosen unwisely. My primary goal was to explain my thoughts. (Provocation was only a secondary goal. ;-) By the looks of it, I think I may have succeeded a little.
Actually, I, too, have found the exchange rewarding! My thanks to all who have shared their views on my idea!
Ulf Lunde
</OFF TOPIC>
In a previous posting, I wrote:
Sorry, your Microsoft analogy doesn't help.
I should clarify this. While Microsoft has a dominating position in the desktop computing software market, this situation is too far from the language situation in Norway to be a useful analogy. Microsoft is a single vendor with a marketing department, and there is no corresponding agency (or conspiracy) behind the majority language in Norway.
Bokmål is today the name for the dominating written language in Norway, but this name was not invented by the users of the same. They themselves called it Norwegian, because they contrasted their spelling to Danish, starting in the 1840s. Only in the late 19th century when Ivar Aasen's Landsmål (country language, a synthesis of dialects) had entered the scene, did the need arise for a name for the other version, and in 1899 it was officially named Riksmål (nation language, as opposed to country language). In 1929, Riksmål was renamed to Bokmål (book language) and Landsmål to Nynorsk (new Norwegian), and today's Riksmål is a classic form of Bokmål.
It is estimated that 85 percent of Norwegians use Bokmål today, and the old popular movement for Landsmål, once filled with hopes of democratization and progress and higher education available to all, appears somewhat like Esperanto. I'm a great admirer of the Esperanto movement, and they might have a better chance on the Internet than anytime before. But I write this message in English, because that way I will reach more readers. To most Bokmål contributors to no:, it has felt natural simply to call it "the Norwegian Wikipedia", because it is neither in English nor Danish. It might be a good idea to call it "norsk (bokmål)", but I'm surprised by the strong sentiments that met me when I suggest the renaming of no: to nb: would be unnecessary.
There is an oppression component here, where the mere number of people who prefer Bokmål creates a problem for the brave Nynorsk minority. For example, parents trying to teach their children Nynorsk might find fewer choices of spelling training software for Nynorsk, or a daily newspaper in Nynorsk might not be available for your town. This situation is similar to women entering professions with a male dominance or for ethanol car owners trying to find a gas [sic!] station where they can fill up ethanol. Political correctness or affirmative action can lead to titles such as "mailman" being changed to "letter carrier" (a translation of the German/Scandinavian Briefträger/brevbärare), but as far as I know gas/petrol stations have not (yet) been renamed to fuel stations.
But this kind of perceived oppression is not a conspiracy. Most mailmen didn't chose a profession based on a desire to suppress women, most gasoline drivers didn't actively chose to avoid ethanol or diesel, and the majority of Norwegians don't hate Ivar Aasen, even though they prefer to read and write in a language that resembles that of the former Danish regime.
I am not a part of the problem either, and maybe I don't get all the points.
There are countries with more than one official language, and it seems to be the case in Norwegia.
Is there "switzer" wikipedia for switzerland, which would use mixed german, french and italian articles? I don't think there should be one.
If there would be a "Norwegian language" it would be right to have a wikipedia for it. Reading the infos (mainly from [[norwegian language]]) it seems that there is no such thing. There are languages used in Norwegia, Nyorsk and Bokma~l and whatever, so they should have their own Wikipedia, since they're different enough and official enough.
The "norwegian" wikipedia should cease to exist, and should be probably replaced by a single page showing neat links to the respective languages used in norwegia. Interlanguage links should be updated from no: to the respective languages, and articles moved too, fixed or probably both.
Naturally I only tried to use logic and not emotions (it seems to be the main driving force of this heated debate).
And usual general disclaimer apply: I may be wrong and clueless. Definitely nosy.
Peter [[user:grin]]
Peter Gervai introduced a fresh and unbiased view "from the outside", which is very interesting indeed!
Just to clarify a subtle point: The premise that there is no such thing as a single Norwegian language, would require a very narrow-minded definition of "language", I'm afraid.
Most Norwegians and most linguists would agree that there *is* a Norwegian language, but there are different (equally valid) ways of *writing down* this language. The written forms are not *dialects*, because one cannot tell from the way a Norwegian person *speaks*, which written form she prefers to use. That preference depends partly on her upbringing, partly on her own choice.
Ulf Lunde
På 12. nov. 2004 kl. 11.55 skrev Lars Aronsson:
In a previous posting, I wrote:
Sorry, your Microsoft analogy doesn't help.
I should clarify this. While Microsoft has a dominating position in the desktop computing software market, this situation is too far from the language situation in Norway to be a useful analogy. Microsoft is a single vendor with a marketing department, and there is no corresponding agency (or conspiracy) behind the majority language in Norway.
Bokmål is today the name for the dominating written language in Norway, but this name was not invented by the users of the same. They themselves called it Norwegian, because they contrasted their spelling to Danish, starting in the 1840s. Only in the late 19th century when Ivar Aasen's Landsmål (country language, a synthesis of dialects) had entered the scene, did the need arise for a name for the other version, and in 1899 it was officially named Riksmål (nation language, as opposed to country language). In 1929, Riksmål was renamed to Bokmål (book language) and Landsmål to Nynorsk (new Norwegian), and today's Riksmål is a classic form of Bokmål.
It is estimated that 85 percent of Norwegians use Bokmål today, and the old popular movement for Landsmål, once filled with hopes of democratization and progress and higher education available to all, appears somewhat like Esperanto. I'm a great admirer of the Esperanto movement, and they might have a better chance on the Internet than anytime before. But I write this message in English, because that way I will reach more readers. To most Bokmål contributors to no:, it has felt natural simply to call it "the Norwegian Wikipedia", because it is neither in English nor Danish. It might be a good idea to call it "norsk (bokmål)", but I'm surprised by the strong sentiments that met me when I suggest the renaming of no: to nb: would be unnecessary.
There is an oppression component here, where the mere number of people who prefer Bokmål creates a problem for the brave Nynorsk minority. For example, parents trying to teach their children Nynorsk might find fewer choices of spelling training software for Nynorsk, or a daily newspaper in Nynorsk might not be available for your town. This situation is similar to women entering professions with a male dominance or for ethanol car owners trying to find a gas [sic!] station where they can fill up ethanol. Political correctness or affirmative action can lead to titles such as "mailman" being changed to "letter carrier" (a translation of the German/Scandinavian Briefträger/brevbärare), but as far as I know gas/petrol stations have not (yet) been renamed to fuel stations.
But this kind of perceived oppression is not a conspiracy. Most mailmen didn't chose a profession based on a desire to suppress women, most gasoline drivers didn't actively chose to avoid ethanol or diesel, and the majority of Norwegians don't hate Ivar Aasen, even though they prefer to read and write in a language that resembles that of the former Danish regime.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hear! Hear! That's probably the best mail i've read in this debate.
mvh.
Lars Alvik
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:27:59 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no 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.
In other words, you propose to disregard the objection of the Nynorsk community, and want to collect arguments to do so.
I recon there are probably no more than 300 nynorsk arcticles on no:. These and new nynorsk articles on no: will not get deleted but will not get "protected" against translation either. We don't want no trouble with the nynorskpeople (eventhough we are indeed very tired of the debate in general). 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 don't see any problems that would be caused by my proposal, and I think the same holds for some other proposals. Moving the 11.5000 articles would happen "behind the screens" and not be noticeable except that you and up at nb.wikipedia.org next time you go to no:. Only those 300 Nynorsk articles would need to be 'moved around' - in this case meaning they have to be moved to nn.wikipedia.org.
Still, I feel that the discussion is starting to lose its value. It is time to get to a solution, or at least to appoint people to decide on the solution. Could someone step in in name of the foundation, and decide on a decision process? If we don't have that, there's three outcomes I find (in order of likelihood):
* This discussion ends, not because a solution has been found that satisfies all or most of those involved, but because people grow tired of it. * The discussion goes on and on for months without any hope of resolution. * Someone starts implementing their own solution singlehandedly, starting an edit war of unprecedented proportions.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org