On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask again if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that they all understand both.
Dear Andy Rablagliati:
Norwegians also understand English, Swedish and Danish. Swedes mostly understand Norwegian and English, and, to varying degrees, Danish. Danes mostly understand Norwegian Bokmål and English, and, to varying degrees, Swedish. Most Dutch and many Belgians understand English. Bokmål and Nynorsk are not dialects, they are written languages -- each with a solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of the four Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how about the Afrikaans one? (English, Dutch) Or the Alemannish one? (German, French) Or the Panjabi one? (Hindi, Urdu) How about the Spanish/Asturian/Galego/Portuguese situation? If you know either Spanish or Portuguese and you know a bit of language history, it is reasonably easy to read all of them! But that doesn't make it any more or less "justified" for them to have a feeling of what is their language identity!
As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my background in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the German or French wikipedias instead!
Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the information business, and the information comes first.
Information indeed comes first.
In this case, we are talking about two literary languages, each with a solid tradition going back about a hundred years as a separate language for Bokmål (defined as the time of the first major orthographic reform away from Danish) and 150 years for Nynorsk (defined by the publishing of Ivar Aasen's dictionary and grammar of "Det norske Folkesprog". Both Bokmål and Nynorsk have their own, extensive literature -- with authors like Olav Duun, Tarjei Vesaas, Aslaug Moren Vesaas, Arne Garborg, Kjartan Fløgstad, Olav H. Hauge and many others in Nynorsk; and André Bjerke, Knut Hamsun, Johan Falkberget, Johan Bojer, Anne-Cath. Vestly, and many others in Bokmål. Both Bokmål (< Riksmål < Rigsmaal < Danish) and Nynorsk (< Landsmål < Landsmaal < "Det norske Folkesprog") have had separate, clear identities continually since the mid-1800s.
Both Bokmål and Nynorsk each have status as official languages in Norway.
The morphology and orthography of Bokmål and Nynorsk differ to a much higher degree than is the case of UK vs. US English or the Portuguese of Portugal vs. Brazil.
It has also been made clear a few times already in this discussion that we are not talking about splitting up Bokmål and Nynorsk. *That has already happened,* after it became clear that the experiment of joining the two didn't work all that well for practical reasons. It appears that that was a good move in that it created a new base of recruitment, and the new users tend to work in both Nynorsk and Bokmål, making it a win-win situation for everyone. There is what appears to be a minority opinion (Ulf Lunde) of splitting the "mostly Bokmål" and an "entirely Bokmål" Wikipedia -- a proposal it appears that most of the debattants on wikipedia-l do not in fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokmål Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the language code nb: for Bokmål. Also, we are discussing -- and your input would be appreciated there -- is how to implement a solution where we can let these two languages, together with Swedish and Danish, have optimal opportunities for integration and cooperation while also keeping them separate enough that it is possible to have a good workspace for fine-tuning of grammar and orthography within each language as well as having an easier time figuring out what information is lacking in one or more of these languages.
Looking forward to your input in these topics.
All the best,
Olve
___________________
Olve Utne http://utne.nvg.org
På 16. nov. 2004 kl. 22.51 skrev Olve Utne:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask again if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that they all understand both.
Dear Andy Rablagliati:
Norwegians also understand English, Swedish and Danish. Swedes mostly understand Norwegian and English, and, to varying degrees, Danish. Danes mostly understand Norwegian Bokmål and English, and, to varying degrees, Swedish. Most Dutch and many Belgians understand English. Bokmål and Nynorsk are not dialects, they are written languages -- each with a solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of the four Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how about the Afrikaans one? (English, Dutch) Or the Alemannish one? (German, French) Or the Panjabi one? (Hindi, Urdu) How about the Spanish/Asturian/Galego/Portuguese situation? If you know either Spanish or Portuguese and you know a bit of language history, it is reasonably easy to read all of them! But that doesn't make it any more or less "justified" for them to have a feeling of what is their language identity!
As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my background in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the German or French wikipedias instead!
Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the information business, and the information comes first.
Information indeed comes first.
In this case, we are talking about two literary languages, each with a solid tradition going back about a hundred years as a separate language for Bokmål (defined as the time of the first major orthographic reform away from Danish) and 150 years for Nynorsk (defined by the publishing of Ivar Aasen's dictionary and grammar of "Det norske Folkesprog". Both Bokmål and Nynorsk have their own, extensive literature -- with authors like Olav Duun, Tarjei Vesaas, Aslaug Moren Vesaas, Arne Garborg, Kjartan Fløgstad, Olav H. Hauge and many others in Nynorsk; and André Bjerke, Knut Hamsun, Johan Falkberget, Johan Bojer, Anne-Cath. Vestly, and many others in Bokmål. Both Bokmål (< Riksmål < Rigsmaal < Danish) and Nynorsk (< Landsmål < Landsmaal < "Det norske Folkesprog") have had separate, clear identities continually since the mid-1800s.
Both Bokmål and Nynorsk each have status as official languages in Norway.
The morphology and orthography of Bokmål and Nynorsk differ to a much higher degree than is the case of UK vs. US English or the Portuguese of Portugal vs. Brazil.
It has also been made clear a few times already in this discussion that we are not talking about splitting up Bokmål and Nynorsk. *That has already happened,* after it became clear that the experiment of joining the two didn't work all that well for practical reasons. It appears that that was a good move in that it created a new base of recruitment, and the new users tend to work in both Nynorsk and Bokmål, making it a win-win situation for everyone. There is what appears to be a minority opinion (Ulf Lunde) of splitting the "mostly Bokmål" and an "entirely Bokmål" Wikipedia -- a proposal it appears that most of the debattants on wikipedia-l do not in fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokmål Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the language code nb: for Bokmål. Also, we are discussing -- and your input would be appreciated there -- is how to implement a solution where we can let these two languages, together with Swedish and Danish, have optimal opportunities for integration and cooperation while also keeping them separate enough that it is possible to have a good workspace for fine-tuning of grammar and orthography within each language as well as having an easier time figuring out what information is lacking in one or more of these languages.
Never the less, it's these users that should decide the fate of no:, perhaps a vote for these suggestions: 1. My (profoss) suggestion (identical to Utnes except no: stays on no: and becomes de jure (compared to todays de facto) bokmålwiki. 2. Utnes suggestion (no: moves lock, stock to nb: and no: is kept (forever!) as a redirect to nb: 3. Status quo.
The redirect serverside ensures that we don't have to mess with manual redirects and supervise an otherwised closed wiki, perhaps give a special status to nn: interwikilinks, print "Denne artikkelen finnes også på nynorsk (articlename on nynorsk) on the top or some other solution. The permanent no: redirection is to ensure that the dominating language in norway can still use no: without hassel, disambigulationpages only serve to confuse. Someone that clicks on no: expects to end up with bokmål, it's after all the perfered written language for around 90% of the population.
As much as i respect nynorsk (it's not my language, but some of my fellow countrymen use it)
It's nessicary that the debate is dropped dead after that, really dead.
mvh. Lars Alvik
My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the opinion of Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!
And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as alternative solutions between which to choose. I think that is what we need now!
Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference) comprised these choices:
1. no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de facto) bokmål-Wikipedia. 2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect to nb: 3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokmål user interface.
I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to include my initial proposal: 4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave no: untouched).
I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial solution, based on my observations that: "1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive. "2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no matter how good they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the same title. "3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokmål, since it implies that we do not get a pure bokmål Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati, most current users of no: do not seem to care about that).
All other proposals seem to include more or less complex schemes of dis- ambiguation pages and advanced cross linking. Perhaps we should keep it simple.
Ulf Lunde
Ulf Lunde wrote:
My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the opinion of Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!
And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as alternative solutions between which to choose. I think that is what we need now!
Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference) comprised these choices:
- no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de
facto) bokmål-Wikipedia. 2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect to nb: 3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokmål user interface.
I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to include my initial proposal: 4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave no: untouched).
I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial solution, based on my observations that: "1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive. "2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no matter how good they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the same title. "3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokmål, since it implies that we do not get a pure bokmål Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati, most current users of no: do not seem to care about that).
All other proposals seem to include more or less complex schemes of dis- ambiguation pages and advanced cross linking. Perhaps we should keep it simple.
Ulf Lunde _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
In the coming 1.4 mediawiki software there will be, if I am well informed, a new option in the user preferences that allow you to select a user interface. This would allow for having Nynorsk, Danish, Dutch or Chinese as your userinterface.
1.4 will be there before the end of the year is the plan. Otherwise this could end up in 1.4.1 ??
Thanks, GerardM
På 17. nov. 2004 kl. 09.58 skrev Ulf Lunde:
My thanks to Olve Utne for summing up the situation (including the opinion of Ulf Lunde and the lack of expressed support for that view) correctly!
And thanks to Lars Alvik for proposing some simple one-liners as alternative solutions between which to choose. I think that is what we need now!
Lars Alvik's list (in what may or may not be his order of preference) comprised these choices:
- no: stays on "no:" and becomes de jure (compared to todays de
facto) bokmål-Wikipedia. 2. no: moves lock, stock to "nb:", and "no:" is kept as a redirect to nb: 3. Status quo: no: stays a mixed Wikipedia, but with a bokmål user interface.
I hope it does not come as a surprise that I would like the vote to include my initial proposal: 4. "The split": Do with nb: exactly as we did with nn: (and leave no: untouched).
As i pointed out before, this is assisted suicide of no: and bokmål and it only serve the nynorsk minority. It'll create extra work, confusion and deversion. Least controversial for you eh. Well it's the most controversial suggestion (after what i've gather from talking to other users on no:).
I would vote for 4 because in my view it is the least controversial solution, based on my observations that: "1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.
Bokmål is, unlike nynorsk, can accualy be called a national language, with 90% of the population speaking/writting in it. You should perhaps look at Lars Aronsens mail: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/ 035836.html its a clear and unbiased view on the conflict.
"2" is unfair to nynorsk since it would "hide" articles from nn:, no matter how good they are, if there exist articles on nb: (no matter how poor) with the same title.
Interwikilinks!
"3" is asymmetrical and unfair to bokmål, since it implies that we do not get a pure bokmål Wikipedia anywhere. (However, in the spirit of Andy Rabagliati, most current users of no: do not seem to care about that).
We allready got a "de facto" bokmål wiki, we don't need a new one.
I wonder why this debate is held over the heads of the bokmålusing community on no:, perhaps the reason is that most users on no: don't care about the debate.
mvh. Lars Alvik
Lars Alvik:
"1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.
Bokmål is, unlike nynorsk, can accualy be called a national language, with 90% of the population speaking/writting in it.
I wish you would stop citing relative size as if it were an argument which entitles the *bigger* of the two languages to special treatment (such as the right to call itself "the" Norwegian language).
You should perhaps look at Lars Aronsens mail: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/035836.html its a clear and unbiased view on the conflict.
I have read it (and all other contributions to this discussion). Aronsen does indeed state that "There is an oppression component here, where the mere number of people who prefer Bokmål creates a problem for the brave Nynorsk minority." He does not use the number 90%, but rather 85% (which is probably pretty close to being accurate). Remember, there are also Norwegian people without any preference, who can write with equal ease in both languages.
The only numerical statistics I know about concerning the size of bokmål vs. nynorsk, I found at a pro-nynorsk web site: http://www.nm.no/english.cfm It claims that 640 000 Norwegians (14%) use nynorsk as their primary written language. The no: Wikipedia puts the number at 10%-12%. But even if it were just 1%, nynorsk would still deserve fair (meaning equal) treatment. At any rate, it is small enough for its users to scream "oppression" when the larger bokmål community carelessly ignores nynorsk's rights.
I do not wish to be part of conscious oppression of a minority language.
Ulf Lunde
På 17. nov. 2004 kl. 12.46 skrev Ulf Lunde:
Lars Alvik:
"1" is unfair to nynorsk and politically very explosive.
Bokmål is, unlike nynorsk, can accualy be called a national language, with 90% of the population speaking/writting in it.
I wish you would stop citing relative size as if it were an argument which entitles the *bigger* of the two languages to special treatment (such as the right to call itself "the" Norwegian language).
It's not the right to call one self the only norwegian language. It's an argument that "most" norwegians consider their language for norwegian and most norwegians use bokmål, simple train of though. But yes, i belive norwegian should keep no:.
I cite relative size because i mean it's a important agrument. And to this date i haven't heard any argument that counter it (besides "stop" and "you don't seam to get it" (the last one is freely translated from norwegian)).
You should perhaps look at Lars Aronsens mail: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/ 035836.html its a clear and unbiased view on the conflict.
I have read it (and all other contributions to this discussion). Aronsen does indeed state that "There is an oppression component here, where the mere number of people who prefer Bokmål creates a problem for the brave Nynorsk minority." He does not use the number 90%, but rather 85% (which is probably pretty close to being accurate). Remember, there are also Norwegian people without any preference, who can write with equal ease in both languages.
97,3 % of all statistics is made up :P Yep, i can't argue with the oppression, but i belive you missed the important parts of that mail: " 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."
And the comparison of a renaming and extreme political correctness. And i hold the same views, That you seem to ignore, so in your own words "you don't seem to get it do you" (translated from norwegian).
The only numerical statistics I know about concerning the size of bokmål vs. nynorsk, I found at a pro-nynorsk web site: http://www.nm.no/english.cfm It claims that 640 000 Norwegians (14%) use nynorsk as their primary written language. The no: Wikipedia puts the number at 10%-12%. But even if it were just 1%, nynorsk would still deserve fair (meaning equal) treatment. At any rate, it is small enough for its users to scream "oppression" when the larger bokmål community carelessly ignores nynorsk's rights.
I do not wish to be part of conscious oppression of a minority language.
I still don't see how awarding (ie. officialzing) the bokmål/no: wikipedia the no: code is oppression of the other. Nynorsk is still going to be advertised on the frontpage and probably get some extra attention on each page.
As i said earlyer the debate should be taken at the villagepump at the no: wiki, and the debate that has been going on there has resulted in this: 5 no: admins have said that they wanted suggestion (1.) (4 of them have publicly stated that they are tired of the debate), 3 non-admins (allthough they are admins on nn: so i consider them as primary nynorskusers) have stated that they want another solution. Some of them was initatialy positive to my suggestion. Others have not dared to come forward.
mvh. Lars Alvik
Olve Utne wrote:
solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of the four Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how about the
I personally think Bokmål, "a northern version of Danish", would be a good candidate for the single language of a (re-)united Scandinavia. Perhaps Gothenburg would be a good compromise for a common capital. But we would have to find a way to turn back time some 150 or 200 years to make this real. Or maybe 500 years.
All of Scandinavia was one united kingdom between 1397 and 1523, as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:51:19 -0500, Olve Utne utne@nvg.org wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask again if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that they all understand both.
[snip]
As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my background in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the German or French wikipedias instead!
I don't think any of your many analogies about linguistic communities than can read multiple languages apply here. Bokmål and Nynorsk are (apparently) separate orthographical conventions for the same spoken language, which is not true for any of your other examples (e.g. Alemannic is not spoken like German or French).
That said, if Bokmål and Nynorsk differ orthographically to the degree that people have said, the idea of having two wikipedias certainly makes sense to me.
Just one more middling factual point:
[snip]
fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokmål Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the language code nb: for Bokmål. Also, we are discussing -- and your input
In this context, 'no:' is not the ISO countrycode for Norway (NO) but the ISO 639-1 language code for the Norwegian language (no).
None of the wikipedia subdomains correspond to country codes. For example, Swedish wikipedia is sv.wikipedia.org (because Swedish language has ISO 639 code 'sv'), even though the country code for Sweden is SE.
Steve
No, Steve.
Bokmål and Nynorsk are not different written forms of the same spoken language, rather they are a separate tradition altogether. If you read either one, they will sound different from each other but will also not match colloquial speech since Norwegian has many dialects.
Mark
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:24:20 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:51:19 -0500, Olve Utne utne@nvg.org wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask again if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that they all understand both.
[snip]
As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my background in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the German or French wikipedias instead!
I don't think any of your many analogies about linguistic communities than can read multiple languages apply here. Bokmål and Nynorsk are (apparently) separate orthographical conventions for the same spoken language, which is not true for any of your other examples (e.g. Alemannic is not spoken like German or French).
That said, if Bokmål and Nynorsk differ orthographically to the degree that people have said, the idea of having two wikipedias certainly makes sense to me.
Just one more middling factual point:
[snip]
fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokmål Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the language code nb: for Bokmål. Also, we are discussing -- and your input
In this context, 'no:' is not the ISO countrycode for Norway (NO) but the ISO 639-1 language code for the Norwegian language (no).
None of the wikipedia subdomains correspond to country codes. For example, Swedish wikipedia is sv.wikipedia.org (because Swedish language has ISO 639 code 'sv'), even though the country code for Sweden is SE.
Steve
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:41:40 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
No, Steve.
Bokmål and Nynorsk are not different written forms of the same spoken language, rather they are a separate tradition altogether.
Point Of View, and I beg to differ.
To make an analogy, if you and your friend both write "I'm not" in English, but one of you says "I aint" and the other "I am not" in your respective dialects (or sociolects), then all three are valid examples of the same language: English.
In much the same way, Norwegian is Norwegian, whether represented by written bokmål, written nynorsk, or some spoken dialect. It is all one and the same language, and I would agree with Stephen Forrest that nb and nn are just two orthographical notations (notably, the official ones) for that language.
Ulf Lunde
Right, that's exactly what I said. Note, "separate tradition" and not separate language.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:10:27 +0100, Ulf Lunde ulf.lunde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:41:40 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
No, Steve.
Bokmål and Nynorsk are not different written forms of the same spoken language, rather they are a separate tradition altogether.
Point Of View, and I beg to differ.
To make an analogy, if you and your friend both write "I'm not" in English, but one of you says "I aint" and the other "I am not" in your respective dialects (or sociolects), then all three are valid examples of the same language: English.
In much the same way, Norwegian is Norwegian, whether represented by written bokmål, written nynorsk, or some spoken dialect. It is all one and the same language, and I would agree with Stephen Forrest that nb and nn are just two orthographical notations (notably, the official ones) for that language.
Ulf Lunde
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:33:28 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Right, that's exactly what I said. Note, "separate tradition" and not separate language.
I really don't want to belabour this point, but if you don't disagree with Ulf Lunde, then why did you disagree with me?
I said:
Bokmål and Nynorsk are (apparently) separate orthographical conventions for the same spoken language".
You said:
No, Steve. Bokmål and Nynorsk are not different written forms of the same spoken language, rather they are a separate tradition altogether.
If you acknowledge that they are in fact the same spoken language (Norwegian), which you seem to have just done, then what do you object to about what I said?
Steve
Because they have different grammars and vocabulary from any single dialect. Thus, they are like dialects, except they are only written.
In this way, both of my statements still stand.
Mark
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:07:59 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:33:28 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Right, that's exactly what I said. Note, "separate tradition" and not separate language.
I really don't want to belabour this point, but if you don't disagree with Ulf Lunde, then why did you disagree with me?
I said:
Bokmål and Nynorsk are (apparently) separate orthographical conventions for the same spoken language".
You said:
No, Steve. Bokmål and Nynorsk are not different written forms of the same spoken language, rather they are a separate tradition altogether.
If you acknowledge that they are in fact the same spoken language (Norwegian), which you seem to have just done, then what do you object to about what I said?
Steve
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org