At 20:35 06/11/2004 +0000, Lars Alvik wrote: 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