Hello Lars, Your English is quite OK, Lars -- no need to worry about that. :-) As for this discussion taking place on wikipedia-l (and therefore in English) in addition to locally on no: and nn: (in the respective written language forms of Norwegian), I think that there are good reasons for that:

* The Norwegian language situation has some characteristics similar to the Czech/Slovak, the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, the Bulgarian/Macedonian, and the Langue d'Oc/Catalonian/Castilian/Extremaduran/Gallego/Portuguese language clusters, and therefore of some interest to the general Wikipedia community. * A bit of international perspective and input can be useful for the debates locally on no: and nn:. * Potentially moving a Wikipedia of over 11,000 content pages is a significant change and has interest beyond the local user community. * Use of an incorrect language code, whether this be changed (for correctness) or kept as is (for reasons of continuity of usage).

At Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:04:21 +0100, Lars Alvik wrote:

...

...

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!

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.

Nobody is trying to say that your language is foreign, as far as I can see anywhere. What some people are trying to say is: Neither is the other main written form of Norwegian. Bokmål as it currently exists is not inherently more or less foreign than Nynorsk.

My personal view, as I have pointed out on this list as well as in the discussions on both the no: and nn: Wikipedia, is that it would be the most *correct* solution to move no: to nb:. This would be, as someone recently pointed out on wikipedia-l, a pretty simple dump that would be of no practical consequence to the no:/nb: users. I have also pointed out that the solution of *not* moving no: is acceptable to me personally, even though I see it as less correct in the strict sense of the term -- mostly since a large number of nb contributors presumably would feel hurt by the political implications a move to nb: would carry -- namely, of nb: being a subset rather than the only standard Norwegian. While, as mentioned before, Bokmål and Nynorsk are indeed subsets of Norwegian (each with its solid literature, and each with equal status as official language), the political consequences of stirring up this rather delicate "balance" by explicitly moving Bokmål to its language code (nb, nob or nb-no) instead of the national domain (.no) would be likely to result in much resentment amongst high-profile Bokmål users. This resentment, regardless of its logical accurateness, might be counterproductive for the local wikipedia society as a whole.

I do not believe that a split of no: into no: and nb: is constructive. I do personally believe that a move of the current no: (which is, de facto, in Bokmål) to nb: would be best. However, if this move is going to create an impossible ebvironment for cooperation between Bokmål and Nynorsk, then it is NOT worth it, and no: would (will?) be better of where it currently is.

All the best, Olve

___________________

Olve Utne http://utne.nvg.org