The Norwegian language code problem might get a better solution using ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 is not out yet, but it seems to be getting there. Here is the url to the draft http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsi&form...
In ISO 639-3 we will have nor= {nob, nno}, Norweigian (so called macrolanguage code) nob= Norweigian Bokmal nno= Norweigian Nynorsk
For example, one can try to use nob exculsively for Bokmal, nno exclusively for Nynorsk, and nor for common Noreigian (mixed script, including other minority script, etc)
Another macrolanguage example is the Serbo-Croation hbs= {bos, hrv,srp}, Serbo-Croatian bos= Bosnian hrv= Croatian srp= Serbian
best pektiong
On Nov 10, 2004, at 5:05 AM, Pochung(Pektiong) Chen(Tan) wrote:
The Norwegian language code problem might get a better solution using ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 is not out yet, but it seems to be getting there. Here is the url to the draft http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php? site_id=nrsi&format=file&media_id=ISO_DIS_639 -3.5&filename=ISO_DIS_639-3.5.pdf
In ISO 639-3 we will have nor= {nob, nno}, Norweigian (so called macrolanguage code) nob= Norweigian Bokmal nno= Norweigian Nynorsk
This doesn't really provide anything that ISO 639-1 doesn't already in no, nb, nn.
Another macrolanguage example is the Serbo-Croation hbs= {bos, hrv,srp}, Serbo-Croatian bos= Bosnian hrv= Croatian srp= Serbian
ISO 639-1 sh, bs, hr, sr. (Technically the sh code has been retired.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber ti 2004/11/10 EP 03:51 sia-kong:
On Nov 10, 2004, at 5:05 AM, Pochung(Pektiong) Chen(Tan) wrote:
In ISO 639-3 we will have nor= {nob, nno}, Norweigian (so called macrolanguage code) nob= Norweigian Bokmal nno= Norweigian Nynorsk
This doesn't really provide anything that ISO 639-1 doesn't already in no, nb, nn.
Utility aside, the "no" in ISO 639-1 may not be semantically identical to "nor" in ISO 639-3. Though how "no" has actually been used by Norwegian users is probably more relevant.
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
Many (but by no means all) Bokmålites despise Nynorsk (a Norwegian must be proficient in both forms in order to graduate), and see Bokmål as "Norsk", THE Norwegian language, and Nynorsk as "Nynorsk", the Cinderella of the Scandinavian tongues (with the exception of those which are disputed, for example Jamskt, Scanian, Gutnish, etc. which some say are dialects and others say are languages, and Norn which is beyond this world), a unique Norwegian creation that to many Bokmålites is more of an annoying pest than it is an object of linguistic nationalistic pride.
Nynorskians, however, being a minority, see it slightly differently. Those who are passionate about Nynorsk may see Bokmål as not Norwegian at all and Nynorsk as *the* Norwegian, but I think most Nynorsk users see both Bokmål and Nynorsk as equally valid written varieties of the Norwegian language.
A technical solution might be a bit difficult.
I think the best idea is to create nb: paralell to no:. People can move those articles which are in Bokmål, and ONLY Bokmål will be allowed there. Pages on no: would continue to exist and new pages could be created, but...
Anyhow, I do *not* think it is OK to change the language name for no: from "Norsk" to "Norsk (Bokmål)", as it is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia.
Mark
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:21:10 -0500, Henry H. Tan-Tenn share2002nov@lomaji.com wrote:
Brion Vibber ti 2004/11/10 EP 03:51 sia-kong:
On Nov 10, 2004, at 5:05 AM, Pochung(Pektiong) Chen(Tan) wrote:
In ISO 639-3 we will have nor= {nob, nno}, Norweigian (so called macrolanguage code) nob= Norweigian Bokmal nno= Norweigian Nynorsk
This doesn't really provide anything that ISO 639-1 doesn't already in no, nb, nn.
Utility aside, the "no" in ISO 639-1 may not be semantically identical to "nor" in ISO 639-3. Though how "no" has actually been used by Norwegian users is probably more relevant.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
Many (but by no means all) Bokmålites despise Nynorsk (a Norwegian must be proficient in both forms in order to graduate), and see Bokmål as "Norsk", THE Norwegian language, and Nynorsk as "Nynorsk", the Cinderella of the Scandinavian tongues (with the exception of those which are disputed, for example Jamskt, Scanian, Gutnish, etc. which some say are dialects and others say are languages, and Norn which is beyond this world), a unique Norwegian creation that to many Bokmålites is more of an annoying pest than it is an object of linguistic nationalistic pride.
Nynorskians, however, being a minority, see it slightly differently. Those who are passionate about Nynorsk may see Bokmål as not Norwegian at all and Nynorsk as *the* Norwegian, but I think most Nynorsk users see both Bokmål and Nynorsk as equally valid written varieties of the Norwegian language.
A technical solution might be a bit difficult.
I think the best idea is to create nb: paralell to no:. People can move those articles which are in Bokmål, and ONLY Bokmål will be allowed there. Pages on no: would continue to exist and new pages could be created, but...
Anyhow, I do *not* think it is OK to change the language name for no: from "Norsk" to "Norsk (Bokmål)", as it is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia.
Mark
*Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail* Your mail have inaccuancies to bokmål and nynorsk, bokmål people view nynorsk as a pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly hates nynorsk (or bokmål) is teenagers that is forced to learn a different language in school, that they don't feel they have any use for (unlike english or perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is stronger with the bokmålusers (since nynorsk is smaller and is, in their eyes, less useful).
Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western and the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway with the largest population was largely ignored, like the farming areas of eastern norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark, Akershus, Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold) also the northern part of norway was largely ignored. If you see this tabell from the norwegian censors http://www.ssb.no/aarbok/tab/t-040220-183.html you can se that 519 528 of 610 297 norwegian elementary schoolstudents use bokmål in school, only in two fylker is there more nynorskstudents than bokmålstudents, in Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal (the heartland of nynorsk, Mr. Aasen was born in Ørsta in Møre og Romsdal). Historicaly the nynorsk language gained ground during the last part of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century when nationalromantism was the order of the day and norway wanted to break up the union with sweden. It was the same time that part of the norwegian history was romantized, the union with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear nigth", eventhough this where directly false.
Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there are none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokmål (allthough some of them speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a endings (these are allowed on bokmål too). However, the languages are equal in terms of administrative language. But on a national basis bokmål is more used.
btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokmål) wiki. And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål, some 100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where just ~800 articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of articles in either language. Knowing that a large part of this work would fall on me i don't cherish this idea, and the fact that it's creating a chaos, two rcs to monitor and a devertion of work. Also, there are no bokmål grasroot movement that wants to do this work, the people that supports this solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary nynorsk atleast).
I vote for a solution where bokmål keeps no: (but creates a page with reasons to why bokmål have no:, that's going to get linked from the mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes to "norsk (bokmål)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokmål.
This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope most parts would be happy with the solution.
mvh. Lars Alvik
Maybe this is a silly thought... But couldn't both forms of the language coexist as in a "samnorsk" implementation of the language at least in Wikipedia?
The differences between Nynorsk and Bokmal seem not too different from Mexican, Argentine and Central Spanish forms of Castilian. Also when considering Brazilian and European forms of Portuguese the difference seems greater in pronunciation and style than that experienced between Nynorsk and Bookmal at least in my understanding of the situation.
So why couldn't there be a "Samnorsk" Coexistence between the Norwegian flavors of the language of Norway... I know the political issues involved may be too much for a simple discussion of the linguistic problems involved, but couldn't a Norwegian wikipedia take as an example the Spanish and Portuguese wikis?
With naive regards, Jay B.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:43 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
Along those lines, as far as I know, in the English wiki, if you're discussing British politics, issues, etc., then you use British English and spelling, and American issues use America spelling and rules, and so on for Australian, etc. Is there some way to do such a thing with Nynorsk and Bokmal?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ilooy Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:58 PM To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no or nb for Bokmal,or time to move to ISO 639-3?
Maybe this is a silly thought... But couldn't both forms of the language coexist as in a "samnorsk" implementation of the language at least in Wikipedia?
The differences between Nynorsk and Bokmal seem not too different from Mexican, Argentine and Central Spanish forms of Castilian. Also when considering Brazilian and European forms of Portuguese the difference seems greater in pronunciation and style than that experienced between Nynorsk and Bookmal at least in my understanding of the situation.
So why couldn't there be a "Samnorsk" Coexistence between the Norwegian flavors of the language of Norway... I know the political issues involved may be too much for a simple discussion of the linguistic problems involved, but couldn't a Norwegian wikipedia take as an example the Spanish and Portuguese wikis?
With naive regards, Jay B.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:43 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
No, since the two are used side by side in the same nation, even by people who live next door to each other.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:03:11 +0100, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Along those lines, as far as I know, in the English wiki, if you're discussing British politics, issues, etc., then you use British English and spelling, and American issues use America spelling and rules, and so on for Australian, etc. Is there some way to do such a thing with Nynorsk and Bokmal?
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of ilooy Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:58 PM To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no or nb for Bokmal,or time to move to ISO 639-3?
Maybe this is a silly thought... But couldn't both forms of the language coexist as in a "samnorsk" implementation of the language at least in Wikipedia?
The differences between Nynorsk and Bokmal seem not too different from Mexican, Argentine and Central Spanish forms of Castilian. Also when considering Brazilian and European forms of Portuguese the difference seems greater in pronunciation and style than that experienced between Nynorsk and Bookmal at least in my understanding of the situation.
So why couldn't there be a "Samnorsk" Coexistence between the Norwegian flavors of the language of Norway... I know the political issues involved may be too much for a simple discussion of the linguistic problems involved, but couldn't a Norwegian wikipedia take as an example the Spanish and Portuguese wikis?
With naive regards, Jay B.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:43 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:43 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
Many (but by no means all) Bokmålites despise Nynorsk (a Norwegian must be proficient in both forms in order to graduate), and see Bokmål as "Norsk", THE Norwegian language, and Nynorsk as "Nynorsk", the Cinderella of the Scandinavian tongues (with the exception of those which are disputed, for example Jamskt, Scanian, Gutnish, etc. which some say are dialects and others say are languages, and Norn which is beyond this world), a unique Norwegian creation that to many Bokmålites is more of an annoying pest than it is an object of linguistic nationalistic pride.
Nynorskians, however, being a minority, see it slightly differently. Those who are passionate about Nynorsk may see Bokmål as not Norwegian at all and Nynorsk as *the* Norwegian, but I think most Nynorsk users see both Bokmål and Nynorsk as equally valid written varieties of the Norwegian language.
A technical solution might be a bit difficult.
I think the best idea is to create nb: paralell to no:. People can move those articles which are in Bokmål, and ONLY Bokmål will be allowed there. Pages on no: would continue to exist and new pages could be created, but...
Anyhow, I do *not* think it is OK to change the language name for no: from "Norsk" to "Norsk (Bokmål)", as it is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia.
Mark
*Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail* Your mail have inaccuancies to bokmål and nynorsk, bokmål people view nynorsk as a pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly hates nynorsk (or bokmål) is teenagers that is forced to learn a different language in school, that they don't feel they have any use for (unlike english or perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is stronger with the bokmålusers (since nynorsk is smaller and is, in their eyes, less useful).
Inaccuracies? Such as what? I said "many", not "all". Please, read carefully before falsely accusing me of such things.
Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western and the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway with the largest population was largely ignored, like the farming areas of eastern norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark, Akershus, Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold) also the northern part of norway was largely ignored. If you see this tabell from the norwegian censors http://www.ssb.no/aarbok/tab/t-040220-183.html you can se that 519 528 of 610 297 norwegian elementary schoolstudents use bokmål in school, only in two fylker is there more nynorskstudents than bokmålstudents, in Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal (the heartland of nynorsk, Mr. Aasen was born in Ørsta in Møre og Romsdal). Historicaly the nynorsk language gained ground during the last part of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century when nationalromantism was the order of the day and norway wanted to break up the union with sweden. It was the same time that part of the norwegian history was romantized, the union with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear nigth", eventhough this where directly false.
What is your point here? I know the figures as regards what %age of Norwegian schoolchildren choose which. In addition, from what I have heard, both Landsmål and Riksmål have been polluted over the years by official government policies aimed at uniting them, the current result is modern Nynorsk and Bokmål which aren't as different (another thing is that some forms were introduced as "optional", but when you use them the two are closer).
Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there are none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokmål (allthough some of them speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a endings (these are allowed on bokmål too). However, the languages are equal in terms of administrative language. But on a national basis bokmål is more used.
I know that. I know that, too. So what if Bokmål is more widely used? Hooray for Bokmål. But that doesn't change the fact that BOTH are equally valid ways of writing Norwegian. It doesn't somehow give Bokmål a claim to being THE "Norsk" (and thus the no: code).
btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokmål) wiki. And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål, some 100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where just ~800 articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of articles in either language. Knowing that a large part of this work would fall on me i don't cherish this idea, and the fact that it's creating a chaos, two rcs to monitor and a devertion of work. Also, there are no bokmål grasroot movement that wants to do this work, the people that supports this solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary nynorsk atleast).
How would it kill it? Most likely growth at nb: would be very slow, and 99% of the users would stay at no:.
If you think no: should be labelled "Bokmål"... how would you feel if I went and wrote 10000 new, non-stub articles in Nynorsk for no:? It must be stressed that no: is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia and it SHOULD NOT BECOME the Bokmål Wikipedia - it is the Norsk Wikipedia. Regardless of the ratio (which you are slightly exaggerating, I think it's more like 1:10 and not 1:100 like you say), even if there are only 11 pages in Nynorsk, it is the Norsk Wikipedia, belonging to all Norwegian languages (Oh no... I didn't mean to say that... I take it back... if people started writing articles at no: in Sámi, things would quickly descend into chaos).
I vote for a solution where bokmål keeps no: (but creates a page with reasons to why bokmål have no:, that's going to get linked from the mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes to "norsk (bokmål)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokmål.
What do you mean "keeps"? Bokmål has no Wikipedia right now. no: belongs to NORWEGIAN, not Bokmål.
This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope most parts would be happy with the solution.
When did I say anything about restricting usage on no:? Why would the creation of a Wikipedia exclusively for Bokmål content kill no:? It would undoubtedly start out as a very small effort.
Mark
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 21.19 skrev Mark Williamson:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:46:43 +0100, Lars Alvik larsal@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
På 13. nov. 2004 kl. 07.59 skrev Mark Williamson:
It can be summed up this way:
Most Bokmålites use no: for Bokmål and nn: for Nynorsk. Most Nynorskians use no: for *both*, nb: for Bokmål, and nn: for Nynorsk.
The intention is that no: should apply to the "Norwegian language".
Many (but by no means all) Bokmålites despise Nynorsk (a Norwegian must be proficient in both forms in order to graduate), and see Bokmål as "Norsk", THE Norwegian language, and Nynorsk as "Nynorsk", the Cinderella of the Scandinavian tongues (with the exception of those which are disputed, for example Jamskt, Scanian, Gutnish, etc. which some say are dialects and others say are languages, and Norn which is beyond this world), a unique Norwegian creation that to many Bokmålites is more of an annoying pest than it is an object of linguistic nationalistic pride.
Nynorskians, however, being a minority, see it slightly differently. Those who are passionate about Nynorsk may see Bokmål as not Norwegian at all and Nynorsk as *the* Norwegian, but I think most Nynorsk users see both Bokmål and Nynorsk as equally valid written varieties of the Norwegian language.
A technical solution might be a bit difficult.
I think the best idea is to create nb: paralell to no:. People can move those articles which are in Bokmål, and ONLY Bokmål will be allowed there. Pages on no: would continue to exist and new pages could be created, but...
Anyhow, I do *not* think it is OK to change the language name for no: from "Norsk" to "Norsk (Bokmål)", as it is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia.
Mark
*Paints "POV" in huge red letters over Williamsons mail* Your mail have inaccuancies to bokmål and nynorsk, bokmål people view nynorsk as a pest? This goes both ways, the ones that mostly hates nynorsk (or bokmål) is teenagers that is forced to learn a different language in school, that they don't feel they have any use for (unlike english or perhaps german). Perhaps this "haterd" is stronger with the bokmålusers (since nynorsk is smaller and is, in their eyes, less useful).
Inaccuracies? Such as what? I said "many", not "all". Please, read carefully before falsely accusing me of such things.
It was the entire mail, it's POV, not just one sentence.
Mr. Aasen made nynorsk by collecting dialects (dominantly the western and the valleys in central-south norway. However the parts of norway with the largest population was largely ignored, like the farming areas of eastern norway, the south part of Oppland, Hedmark, Akershus, Østfold, Buskerud and Vestfold) also the northern part of norway was largely ignored. If you see this tabell from the norwegian censors http://www.ssb.no/aarbok/tab/t-040220-183.html you can se that 519 528 of 610 297 norwegian elementary schoolstudents use bokmål in school, only in two fylker is there more nynorskstudents than bokmålstudents, in Sogn og Fjordane and Møre og Romsdal (the heartland of nynorsk, Mr. Aasen was born in Ørsta in Møre og Romsdal). Historicaly the nynorsk language gained ground during the last part of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century when nationalromantism was the order of the day and norway wanted to break up the union with sweden. It was the same time that part of the norwegian history was romantized, the union with denmark was seen as "the four thousandyear nigth", eventhough this where directly false.
What is your point here? I know the figures as regards what %age of Norwegian schoolchildren choose which. In addition, from what I have heard, both Landsmål and Riksmål have been polluted over the years by official government policies aimed at uniting them, the current result is modern Nynorsk and Bokmål which aren't as different (another thing is that some forms were introduced as "optional", but when you use them the two are closer).
The point is how many people that accualy use bokmål, compared to nynorsk (with all due respect to nynorsk. And it was the only reliable statistic here. The samnorsk policy where ditched in the 1950'ies. Moderate bokmål and moderate nynorsk isn't that far from each other. But most people writes either one or the other, not the middle.
Yes, no: should point to the norwegian written language, but there are none such thing. 80% of norwegians use bokmål (allthough some of them speaks a dialect that contains some nynorsk words, like -a endings (these are allowed on bokmål too). However, the languages are equal in terms of administrative language. But on a national basis bokmål is more used.
I know that. I know that, too. So what if Bokmål is more widely used? Hooray for Bokmål. But that doesn't change the fact that BOTH are equally valid ways of writing Norwegian. It doesn't somehow give Bokmål a claim to being THE "Norsk" (and thus the no: code).
De facto, not de jure, that's the reason for the page explaining this.
btw. the paralell solution would kill the no: (informaly bokmål) wiki. And since most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål, some 100-200 on nynorsk (i've been rcpatroling on no: since we where just ~800 articles, so i have a pretty good idea of the amount of articles in either language. Knowing that a large part of this work would fall on me i don't cherish this idea, and the fact that it's creating a chaos, two rcs to monitor and a devertion of work. Also, there are no bokmål grasroot movement that wants to do this work, the people that supports this solution is mostly nynorskusers (primary nynorsk atleast).
How would it kill it? Most likely growth at nb: would be very slow, and 99% of the users would stay at no:.
If you think no: should be labelled "Bokmål"... how would you feel if I went and wrote 10000 new, non-stub articles in Nynorsk for no:? It must be stressed that no: is NOT the Bokmål Wikipedia and it SHOULD NOT BECOME the Bokmål Wikipedia - it is the Norsk Wikipedia. Regardless of the ratio (which you are slightly exaggerating, I think it's more like 1:10 and not 1:100 like you say), even if there are only 11 pages in Nynorsk, it is the Norsk Wikipedia, belonging to all Norwegian languages (Oh no... I didn't mean to say that... I take it back... if people started writing articles at no: in Sámi, things would quickly descend into chaos).
The ratio is true, just look at the statistics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/DA/TablesWikipediaNO.htm , the 8 "top contributers" is bokmål/riksmålusers, the 9th is nynorsk user, but have written mostly on bokmål. Perhaps it's even worse than 1:100. If you accualy know nynorsk (no machinetranslated crap) you are free to write 10 000 non stubs on no:, i would accualy been deligthed, it would be a real boost.
I vote for a solution where bokmål keeps no: (but creates a page with reasons to why bokmål have no:, that's going to get linked from the mainpage, and "ads" for nynorskwiki), the interwiki decoding changes to "norsk (bokmål)" to clairify for non-norwegians that it's bokmål.
What do you mean "keeps"? Bokmål has no Wikipedia right now. no: belongs to NORWEGIAN, not Bokmål.
De facto man, de facto. The user interface, among other things are also in bokmål
This way we don't kill a well functioning wiki, and i belive/hope most parts would be happy with the solution.
When did I say anything about restricting usage on no:? Why would the creation of a Wikipedia exclusively for Bokmål content kill no:? It would undoubtedly start out as a very small effort.
Diversion of users, forking the language. Most people would still go on writing to the no: wiki, it's a de facto bokmål wiki.
I would also recommend you to read Lars Aronsens mail in this thread.
Mvh. Lars Alvik
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org