At 20:35 06/11/2004 +0000, Lars Alvik wrote:
Ok, there are some basic facts, that the request didn't provide.
- Most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål.
- The debate started on nn:, and is probably an attempt to claim (or deny
the other part use of the no; domain) 3. A split (practicaly a move) would give bokmål (the dominant language) a unfamiliar name.
Hello Lars & everyone else, As an active Nynorsk / Norsk Bokmål / Swedish Wikipedia writer, I find your list of "basic facts" a bit skewed, Lars.
I can assure you that there is no conspiracy to claim the no: domain for another non-exclusive language of Norway (be it Nynorsk, Norsk Bokmål, Norsk Riksmål, Høgnorsk, Sámegiella (Northern Sami), other Sami languages, languages of national minorities or whichever).
As for the no: articles being mostly in Norsk Bokmål/Riksmål (and near 100% of the user interface), that is true -- and you seem to wish to use this argumentatively against the Nynorsk Wikipedia people. The logical consequence of that would in fact be to also admit that the use of no: as a language code for our Norsk (mainly Bokmål) Wikipedia is linguistically inappropriate.
Here is an alternative list of "basic facts", for the case of balancing the arguments:
1. "Either Bokmål or Riksmål" makes little sense, since the two are part of one orthographic/morphologic continuum officially (but not amongst the Riksmål proponents) known as "Bokmål" -- a continuum with a difference magnitude roughly equivalent to the difference between UK and US English, minus (!) the clarity of norms. 2. The Bokmål name is unfamiliar partially because its proponents prefer, for political reasons, to call it (incorrectly) simply "Norsk" (Norwegian). 3. The majority of the Norwegian population write Bokmål but speak dialects that are closer to Nynorsk than Bokmål. 4. The Nynorsk Wikipedia people are definitely not interested in taking over the no: domain. (Rebuttal of your "basic fact" #2 -- which I find suspicious that you included in a "basic facts" list at all....) 5. The discussion most likely takes place on Nynorsk because the debate culture there is easier on its participants than the one on no:. 6. The logical name for a nb: Wikipedia would probably be "Norsk Bokmål" rather than simply "Bokmål". That is what the code nb: stands for anyway -- and it is as familiar as Norsk, but more precise. (Rebuttal of your "basic fact" #2.) 7. The domain name no: as such transcedes: nb or nn:, and should, logically speaking, be a common site with contents and/or links reflecting both Nynorsk and Bokmål. 8. In the hypothetical event of a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia, the no: domain could either a) remain as a mixed entity, as it is to some degree now (which is a basic assumption within the nn: discussion); b) be used as a common portal to nb: and nn:, and possibly also the national minority languages of Norway; c) or be a disambiguation link page. 9. The reasons for the wish of a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia may vary for the various users. My personal view is that a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia may be a better strategy for the work towards a future common-Scandinavian interface with parallel articles in the four main written forms of Scandinavian (defining Bokmål and Riksmål as one, since there is no single definite linguistical trait that defines these as separate codes rather than a socio-linguistic continuum). 10.I know that the sometimes fiercely high-profile POV from some central people on no: serves to scare some people away. This has already been referred to in the wikipedia-l debate as part of the reason why some people who wish to keep writing in Norsk Bokmål may wish a separate Wikipedia as a way to "come clean".
I personally do not have a strong preference either way, but I do think that it is important to try to keep the discussion on a factual level.
Best regards,
Olve
___________________
Olve Utne http://utne.nvg.org
Here my proposal on what to do with no:
* Create nb: for Norsk Bokmål * Move the current contents of no: to nb: * Create on the main page of no: as a sort of disambiguation page between nb: and nn: * Let other pages on no: redirect to nb: so existing links keep working.
Andre Engels
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:34:13 -0500, Olve Utne utne@nvg.org wrote:
At 20:35 06/11/2004 +0000, Lars Alvik wrote:
Ok, there are some basic facts, that the request didn't provide.
- Most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål.
- The debate started on nn:, and is probably an attempt to claim (or deny
the other part use of the no; domain) 3. A split (practicaly a move) would give bokmål (the dominant language) a unfamiliar name.
Hello Lars & everyone else, As an active Nynorsk / Norsk Bokmål / Swedish Wikipedia writer, I find your list of "basic facts" a bit skewed, Lars.
I can assure you that there is no conspiracy to claim the no: domain for another non-exclusive language of Norway (be it Nynorsk, Norsk Bokmål, Norsk Riksmål, Høgnorsk, Sámegiella (Northern Sami), other Sami languages, languages of national minorities or whichever).
As for the no: articles being mostly in Norsk Bokmål/Riksmål (and near 100% of the user interface), that is true -- and you seem to wish to use this argumentatively against the Nynorsk Wikipedia people. The logical consequence of that would in fact be to also admit that the use of no: as a language code for our Norsk (mainly Bokmål) Wikipedia is linguistically inappropriate.
Here is an alternative list of "basic facts", for the case of balancing the arguments:
- "Either Bokmål or Riksmål" makes little sense, since the two are part of one orthographic/morphologic continuum officially (but not amongst the Riksmål proponents) known as "Bokmål" -- a continuum with a difference magnitude roughly equivalent to the difference between UK and US English, minus (!) the clarity of norms.
- The Bokmål name is unfamiliar partially because its proponents prefer, for political reasons, to call it (incorrectly) simply "Norsk" (Norwegian).
- The majority of the Norwegian population write Bokmål but speak dialects that are closer to Nynorsk than Bokmål.
- The Nynorsk Wikipedia people are definitely not interested in taking over the no: domain. (Rebuttal of your "basic fact" #2 -- which I find suspicious that you included in a "basic facts" list at all....)
- The discussion most likely takes place on Nynorsk because the debate culture there is easier on its participants than the one on no:.
- The logical name for a nb: Wikipedia would probably be "Norsk Bokmål" rather than simply "Bokmål". That is what the code nb: stands for anyway -- and it is as familiar as Norsk, but more precise. (Rebuttal of your "basic fact" #2.)
- The domain name no: as such transcedes: nb or nn:, and should, logically speaking, be a common site with contents and/or links reflecting both Nynorsk and Bokmål.
- In the hypothetical event of a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia, the no: domain could either a) remain as a mixed entity, as it is to some degree now (which is a basic assumption within the nn: discussion); b) be used as a common portal to nb: and nn:, and possibly also the national minority languages of Norway; c) or be a disambiguation link page.
- The reasons for the wish of a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia may vary for the various users. My personal view is that a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia may be a better strategy for the work towards a future common-Scandinavian interface with parallel articles in the four main written forms of Scandinavian (defining Bokmål and Riksmål as one, since there is no single definite linguistical trait that defines these as separate codes rather than a socio-linguistic continuum).
10.I know that the sometimes fiercely high-profile POV from some central people on no: serves to scare some people away. This has already been referred to in the wikipedia-l debate as part of the reason why some people who wish to keep writing in Norsk Bokmål may wish a separate Wikipedia as a way to "come clean".
I personally do not have a strong preference either way, but I do think that it is important to try to keep the discussion on a factual level.
Best regards,
Olve
Olve Utne http://utne.nvg.org
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I propose a different solution.
* Create nb: for Bokmål * Allow nb: users to copy-paste articles from no: that are in Bokmål, since no: is a mixture and to just move everything would create a problem * Place links to nn: and nb: prominently on the mainpage of no: * Place interwiki links to nn: and nb: on all applicable pages on no:
Mark
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:57:01 +0100, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
Here my proposal on what to do with no:
- Create nb: for Norsk Bokmål
- Move the current contents of no: to nb:
- Create on the main page of no: as a sort of disambiguation page
between nb: and nn:
- Let other pages on no: redirect to nb: so existing links keep working.
Andre Engels
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:34:13 -0500, Olve Utne utne@nvg.org wrote:
At 20:35 06/11/2004 +0000, Lars Alvik wrote:
Ok, there are some basic facts, that the request didn't provide.
- Most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål.
- The debate started on nn:, and is probably an attempt to claim (or deny
the other part use of the no; domain) 3. A split (practicaly a move) would give bokmål (the dominant language) a unfamiliar name.
Hello Lars & everyone else, As an active Nynorsk / Norsk Bokmål / Swedish Wikipedia writer, I find your list of "basic facts" a bit skewed, Lars.
I can assure you that there is no conspiracy to claim the no: domain for another non-exclusive language of Norway (be it Nynorsk, Norsk Bokmål, Norsk Riksmål, Høgnorsk, Sámegiella (Northern Sami), other Sami languages, languages of national minorities or whichever).
As for the no: articles being mostly in Norsk Bokmål/Riksmål (and near 100% of the user interface), that is true -- and you seem to wish to use this argumentatively against the Nynorsk Wikipedia people. The logical consequence of that would in fact be to also admit that the use of no: as a language code for our Norsk (mainly Bokmål) Wikipedia is linguistically inappropriate.
Here is an alternative list of "basic facts", for the case of balancing the arguments:
- "Either Bokmål or Riksmål" makes little sense, since the two are part of one orthographic/morphologic continuum officially (but not amongst the Riksmål proponents) known as "Bokmål" -- a continuum with a difference magnitude roughly equivalent to the difference between UK and US English, minus (!) the clarity of norms.
- The Bokmål name is unfamiliar partially because its proponents prefer, for political reasons, to call it (incorrectly) simply "Norsk" (Norwegian).
- The majority of the Norwegian population write Bokmål but speak dialects that are closer to Nynorsk than Bokmål.
- The Nynorsk Wikipedia people are definitely not interested in taking over the no: domain. (Rebuttal of your "basic fact" #2 -- which I find suspicious that you included in a "basic facts" list at all....)
- The discussion most likely takes place on Nynorsk because the debate culture there is easier on its participants than the one on no:.
- The logical name for a nb: Wikipedia would probably be "Norsk Bokmål" rather than simply "Bokmål". That is what the code nb: stands for anyway -- and it is as familiar as Norsk, but more precise. (Rebuttal of your "basic fact" #2.)
- The domain name no: as such transcedes: nb or nn:, and should, logically speaking, be a common site with contents and/or links reflecting both Nynorsk and Bokmål.
- In the hypothetical event of a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia, the no: domain could either a) remain as a mixed entity, as it is to some degree now (which is a basic assumption within the nn: discussion); b) be used as a common portal to nb: and nn:, and possibly also the national minority languages of Norway; c) or be a disambiguation link page.
- The reasons for the wish of a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia may vary for the various users. My personal view is that a separate Norsk Bokmål Wikipedia may be a better strategy for the work towards a future common-Scandinavian interface with parallel articles in the four main written forms of Scandinavian (defining Bokmål and Riksmål as one, since there is no single definite linguistical trait that defines these as separate codes rather than a socio-linguistic continuum).
10.I know that the sometimes fiercely high-profile POV from some central people on no: serves to scare some people away. This has already been referred to in the wikipedia-l debate as part of the reason why some people who wish to keep writing in Norsk Bokmål may wish a separate Wikipedia as a way to "come clean".
I personally do not have a strong preference either way, but I do think that it is important to try to keep the discussion on a factual level.
Best regards,
Olve
Olve Utne http://utne.nvg.org
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
Andre wrote:
- Create nb: for Norsk Bokmål
- Move the current contents of no: to nb:
- Create on the main page of no: as a sort of disambiguation page between nb: and nn:
- Let other pages on no: redirect to nb: so existing links keep working.
Mark wrote:
- Create nb: for Bokmål
- Allow nb: users to copy-paste articles from no: that are in Bokmål,
since no: is a mixture and to just move everything would create a problem
- Place links to nn: and nb: prominently on the mainpage of no:
- Place interwiki links to nn: and nb: on all applicable pages on no:
Like both Andre and Mark, I too think that it is best to keep "no:" and create "nb:" as a "parallel" to "nn:".
But is it necessary to disallow users from keeping on adding to the "no:" Wikipedia if they want to?
I think that the future of Wikipedias is that there will be only one (multi-lingual) Wikipedia article database, and that users can simply select a set of prefered languages for the user interface. When that happens, discussions like this will be meaningless. But in the meantime we need a simpler solution for Norwegian's two written forms.
Remember that all Norwegian speakers are able to read *both* written forms of the language. I think that most Norwegians, when clicking a Wikipedia link inside a bokmål article, would prefer to be taken directly to a nynorsk article about the word they clicked on, rather than being shown an empty article (because there was no bokmål variant yet) with the option of clicking an interwiki link to english, nynorsk, swahili, or any number of other language variants. And vice versa, of course (redirect to bokmål if article is missing in nynorsk).
I, for one, would like to see a "nn:" Wikipedia where missing articles would redirect me to the corresponding "nb:" article if it exists, and where any article that does not have a counterpart in the "nb:" Wikipedia, is opened (in "nn:") through a redirect-link if one tries to open the missing "nb:" variant.
If I am looking for information, I usually don't care whether it is in nynorsk or in bokmål. So if I try to open an article in "no:", and only *one* of the "no:", "nb:" and "nn:" Wikipedias actually has the article, I would like for *that one* to open directly.
If there are more than one variant, and I look under "no:", the expected effect would be to get the "no:" article if it exists (and ideally to be offered a choice between the other two if they exist and there is no article on "no:" itself).
So would it be best, perhaps, to first try Mark's solution? Then, during a "test period" of, say, a year, we could allow people to add articles to (and freely move articles around between) any of the three Norwegian Wikipedias, and just observe what happens.
If the "no:" grows fastest, it may inidcate that users prefer one common Wikipedia. In that case, we may want to move all articles from "nb:" and "nn:" to "no:" and live with the mix (until user interface language selection functions become so sophisticated that it doesn't feel mixed any more).
If "nb:" and "nn:" grow faster, at some point we can decide to switch to Andre's solution, and move any articles that might be left in "no:" to their respective Wikipedias.
Or is my proposal much too naïve? :-/
Ulf Lunde
Andre Engels wrote:
Here my proposal on what to do with no:
- Create nb: for Norsk Bokmål
- Move the current contents of no: to nb:
- Create on the main page of no: as a sort of disambiguation page
between nb: and nn:
- Let other pages on no: redirect to nb: so existing links keep working.
Are there really any no.wikipedia contributors who want this? I mean, outside of those who prefer the nn.wikipedia? Is this a "we should change our name" or "they should change their name" kind of issue? Or, if someone supports this change, how do we know they are among the "we" people and not covert nn.wikipedia supporters?
I'm Swedish and not contributing to any of no or nn, even though I have no problem in reading and understanding them. As much as I appreciate the efforts made to support dialects and small languages such as Icelandic and written Nynorsk, I think it would be a pity to abandon no.wikipedia and "Norwegian" as the name for it. 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, with Nynorsk being little more than a written dialect, such as we all have spoken dialects in various parts of our countries. We also have no problem with American English being called "English" or Hochdeutsch being called "German", despite their separation from England and Plattdeutsch (Low Saxon). Some 10--15 percent of Norwegians write in Nynorsk, about twice the population of Iceland. The no.wikipedia currently has 10 times more articles than nn.wikipedia. Even if the gap is closing, it seems likely that no.wikipedia will continue to be the larger one by a factor of 2 or more.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org