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.

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]

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).

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(a)Wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >

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(a)Wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >

But since some people on this list (notably Lars Aronsson and Lars Alvik) apparently still do not get it, I will attempt some analogies

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.

In a previous posting, I wrote: 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(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l