Hello Mark,
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:10:12 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
What would http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg redirect to? It would be strange for somebody to end up at the nonexistant article :nb:Noreg, or be re-directed to :nb:Norge only to have to click on the Nynorsk interwiki link to get to where they wanted to be originally.
Try this:
http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg
Yes, this does take you to the Norsk (bokmål) article Norge, where you can then click on the interwiki link to Nynorsk (soon probably to be renamed Norsk (nynorsk)) to be taken to the Nynorsk article Noreg. I think this is a relatively minor problem that is outweighed by the general advantages of the drafted solution. There is an alternative solution though:
Thus I propose there be an additional provision of some sort so that when article titles are different between nn: and nb: (they aren't always different), the Nynorsk name on no: redirects to a Nynorsk article rather than a Bokmål article.
That can be done quite easily in specific cases by creating a disambiguation page on nb: -- in this particular case it would contain links to :nb:Norge and :nn:Noreg
In addition, I think one extremely important thing regarding promotion of other Scandinavian Wikipedias is this:
While the Sami language(s) may not be related to sv:/da:/nn:/nb:/, since they are a national minority in all of these countries (excepting Denmark), there should be prominently placed invitations in Sami, if possible (otherwise in the language of the Wikipedia they're on), to come contribute to the Sami Wikipedias if you can.
For the inclusion of Sámi and other minority languages, please see the "recent changes" page on nn: and no:/nb: for an example of how this issue is already being handled:
http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spesial:Recentchanges
Note how the languages are listed in the links near the top of the page: 1) Scandinavian languages (minus nn): no: - sv: - da:, and also the languages Faeroese and Icelandic 2) Local Finno-Ugrian languages of Finnish and Northern Sami; 3) Languages of national minorities: Greenlandic, Hebrew & Yiddish. 4) Common immigrant languages in Norway: Albanian, Arabic, Bosnian, Farsi, Kurdish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu & Vietnamese. 5) Major languages like English, French, German, Russian & Spanish; 6) Commons and Meta projects.
On the Nynorsk main page, there are currently three links to Northern Sami: Near the top of the interwiki list; in its alphabetical place in the interwiki list; as one of the specially listed local languages in the section "Wikipedia i Skandinavia / Norden og nærområda".
Further actions, like having an "ad" for the Northern Sami Wikipedia on the main page of nn:, have not been implemented yet, but I will tend to this soon.
Just to make things more complicated (and forseeing a possible future issue)... currently, TTBOMK, we only have http://se.wikipedia.org/ for Sami (more specifically N. Sami). Should we create additional Wikipedias for the other Sami languages/dialects/whatever? If so, perhaps we should have a notice on the Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish Wikipedias (don't forget, Finland has Sami people too!) in some sort of "unified Sami" (which everybody can understand, even if it's not a standard in everyday use) inviting people to contribute to the appropriate Sami Wikipedia.
For Norway, Lule Sami and Southern Sami wikipedias would probably be useful -- and possibly also Skolte Sami and Enare Sami. In my opinion, the Lule Sami and Southern Sami languages should be offered the possibility of creating wikipedias.
Two other national minorities in Norway and Sweden are the Romani people (Tatrar, Tatere, Tattare) and the Roma (Sigøynarar, Sigøynere, Zigenare, "Gypsies"). I suspect that the interest for wikipedia work may be relatively low in these groups, but it might still be worth checking out.
All the best,
-Olve
========================================== MODIFIED SUGGESTION FOR LONG-TERM SOLUTION ==========================================
(This suggestion is based primarily on Lars Alvik's previous suggestion, with modifications/additions based on arguments that have emerged in the debate locally on no: and nn: as well as here on wikipedia-l.)
- The "Norsk" and "Nynorsk" interwiki names are changed to "Norsk
(bokmål)" and "Norsk (nynorsk)" respectively.
The "Norsk (nynorsk)" wikipedia uses the language code nn:
The "Norsk (bokmål)" wikipedia is moved to the proper language code
nb:, with the central Wikipedia developers/admins making sure that the extra workload on the current no: admins is kept to an absolute minimum. (This will in effect (see #4) only be an internal reversal of the two domains already de facto used by the Norsk (bokmål) Wikipedia, thus ensuring maximum continuity.)
- For reasons of continuity and relative size of community, "Norsk
(bokmål)" Wikipedia keeps the domain no:, but for reasons of impreciseness of the term as regards the language situation in Norway, this code will only be used as a redirect of links and URLs with the code to the corresponding nb: page. (Thus parallelling exactly the Danish usage of dk: and da:)
- The communities on nn: and nb: will commit themselves to
implementing the solution locally, with a special emphasis on information about and promotion of the other Wikipedia on the "Main" and "Latest edits" page; and also, to the extent possible, through putting the interwiki link to the other language first in the list of links in each article.
- A specific technical solution that has been brought up is the
splitting of the "Donations" link into a locally wikipedia-wide universal link to the other Wikipedia of the two. This solution, while admittedly clogging up the quick navigations field slightly, may have positive effects for the local cooperation, and should therefore be reciprocally applied to the nn: and nb: wikipedias.
- In the interest of strengthening the Scandinavian Wikipedia
community, I suggest to implement points 5) and 6) also to sv: and da:, thus facilitating quick navigation between these wikipedias, effectively creating a half-integrated article pool of about 83,000 articles (on 14 Nov. at ca 7 AM GMT) and an incitement for each of the four Scandinavian communities to cooperate and expand.
- Work towards more integrated multilingual wikipedias through making
the Scandinavian wikipedias a test project for the development of an interlingual search function limited to a specific pool of wikipedias, where searches and no-hit events lead to a search within the pre-defined pool of closely related languages. For Scandinavian, this would include, in order of community size, sv:, da:, nb:, and nn:.
___________________
Olve Utne http://utne.nvg.org
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:53:56 -0500, Olve Utne utne@nvg.org wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:10:12 -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
what would http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg redirect to?
Try this: http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg
Yes, this does take you to the Norsk (bokmål) article Norge, where you can then click on the interwiki link to Nynorsk (soon probably to be renamed Norsk (nynorsk)) to be taken to the Nynorsk article Noreg. I think this is a relatively minor problem that is outweighed by the general advantages of the drafted solution.
Hmmm... This looks like much more than a "minor problem" to me.
A Gedankenexperiment: What would bokmål users say if we turned the chairs around, making http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge point to http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg, and making them click on "norsk (bokmål)" to read about "Norge"?
I'll tell you what they (we) would say: "we will not accept it"!
So what makes you say that nynorsk users should put up with it?
There is an alternative solution though[, which] can be done quite easily in specific cases by creating a disambiguation page on nb: -- in this particular case it would contain links to :nb:Norge and :nn:Noreg
What if the title is exactly the same in "norsk (bokmål)" and "norsk (nynorsk)", which will in fact be the case for at least half of all articles? Should http://no.wikipedia.org then automatically make the choice for you and send you to bokmål, even if the nynorsk article is bigger or better? What if the bokmål article is a stub and the nynorsk one isn't?
To me, point 4) of Olve's proposal does not seem like an acceptable way to go.
Olve and some others have actually listed "relative size of community" as an argument *for* letting "no:" point to bokmål only. If anything, that should be an argument for promoting nynorsk; certainly not bokmål! It sounds to me like some of the people here are taking it for granted that the bokmål community will always stay bigger than the nynorsk community, "so why not just resign and give the bokmål camp exclusive rights to the common language code"?
That, I believe, is what's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy"! At least it is definitely the opposite of promoting equality between the languages.
The best argument for creating (not keeping!) a bokmål Wikipedia on "no:" that I have heard so far, came from Lars Alvik:
no: and nn: is right next to each other, compared to nb: and nn:
(nl: in between),
so in a alfabetizied interwikilist, nynorsk and bokmål would get splitted.
However, I think this beauty flaw is better solved by sorting the interwiki links by their legible output rather than by their cryptic language codes. (This would require no extra work when adding new interwiki codes, unless you do not know the name of the language you are adding, in which case you probably shouldn't be the one adding it anyway. Reordering existing interwiki links could be a nice little task for a bot.)
Ulf Lunde
http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg Yes, this does take you to the Norsk (bokmål) article Norge, where you can then click on the interwiki link to Nynorsk (soon probably to be renamed Norsk (nynorsk)) to be taken to the Nynorsk article Noreg. I think this is a relatively minor problem that is outweighed by the general advantages of the drafted solution.
If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokmål.
However, http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg would make more sense directing to http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg since if people are looking for Noreg rather than Norge, they're more likely expecting an article in Nynorsk than Bokmål.
It may be possible to start with moving no: to nb: and having all current pages redirect from no: to nb: to prevent breaking any external links to no:, but to leave no: editable so that people can make decisions about whether the no->nb redirect would be better replaced with a no: -> nn redirect. In cases where there was no consensus over where the redirect should go, a disambiguation page could be made. A policy could be created that says the only edits on no: must be redirects or disambiguation page to prevent any new articles being created there.
It sounds to me like some of the people here are taking it for granted that the bokmål community will always stay bigger than the nynorsk community, "so why not just resign and give the bokmål camp exclusive rights to the common language code"?
At the moment, nb is bigger than nn, so it makes sense for no: to redirect to nb, but if we leave open the possibility of creating manual redirects or disambiguation pages at no, this could change over time.
The best argument for creating (not keeping!) a bokmål Wikipedia on "no:" that I have heard so far, came from Lars Alvik:
no: and nn: is right next to each other, compared to nb: and nn:
(nl: in between),
so in a alfabetizied interwikilist, nynorsk and bokmål would get splitted.
Interlanguage links can be put in any order you like. This isn't a technical matter. There have already been discussions on the Hebrew Wikipedia about sorting links by relevance of a language to a topic rather than alphabetically (so the Hebrew page on France would have the fr: interwiki before the others), some Wikipedias prefer to sort by order of local language whilst others do it by order of language code, and a poll on the English Wikipedia showed no consensus on how links should be ordered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Language_order_poll ). Therefore, I don't see a reason why there couldn't just be a policy that says nb and nn should be next to each other.
Angela.
På 15. nov. 2004 kl. 19.50 skrev Angela:
http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg Yes, this does take you to the Norsk (bokmål) article Norge, where you can then click on the interwiki link to Nynorsk (soon probably to be renamed Norsk (nynorsk)) to be taken to the Nynorsk article Noreg. I think this is a relatively minor problem that is outweighed by the general advantages of the drafted solution.
If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokmål.
I think so too.
However, http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg would make more sense directing to http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg since if people are looking for Noreg rather than Norge, they're more likely expecting an article in Nynorsk than Bokmål.
It may be possible to start with moving no: to nb: and having all current pages redirect from no: to nb: to prevent breaking any external links to no:, but to leave no: editable so that people can make decisions about whether the no->nb redirect would be better replaced with a no: -> nn redirect. In cases where there was no consensus over where the redirect should go, a disambiguation page could be made. A policy could be created that says the only edits on no: must be redirects or disambiguation page to prevent any new articles being created there.
I don't know, the disambiguation thing sounds more or less like complicated to maintain, in my opinion. Why not go for the serverside redirect and let it be that way, like Utne suggested. But the nynorsk redirects is totally ok. I think that "common" names should be redirected stright to bokmål, since that is the most used language.
It sounds to me like some of the people here are taking it for granted that the bokmål community will always stay bigger than the nynorsk community, "so why not just resign and give the bokmål camp exclusive rights to the common language code"?
Hr. Lunde: It's two bloody letters god damn it. You have got your move now you start asking for more?
Yes i'm probably alittle bit aggresive there, but hey, when you have put down so much work in something and someone suggest to do the polite version of killing it i tend to get a little bit upset.
At the moment, nb is bigger than nn, so it makes sense for no: to redirect to nb, but if we leave open the possibility of creating manual redirects or disambiguation pages at no, this could change over time.
Considering the size of the bokmål userbase compaired to the nynorsk one i belive it'll stay this way for long, but hey, it's nothing wrong with a little competition.
mvh.
Hr. Lunde: It's two bloody letters god damn it. You have got your move now you start asking for more?
Hr. Alvik,
As long as "no:" does not prohibit contributions in nynorsk, I have no reason to request that it be moved to "nb:". And guess what? I never have!
Perhaps you haven't read my proposals? I have never been in favor of moving all articles away from "no:", nor have I supported (in Wikipeida-l, in the Wikipedia discussions, or anywhere else) a "move" of any current Wikipedias.
I have advocated from the start to keep status quo for "no:", in the hope that it can remain what it is today: a common Norwegian Wikipedia.
However, it seems that a majority of people here would prefer a move.
Yes i'm probably alittle bit aggresive there, but hey, when you have put down so much work in something and someone suggest to do the polite version of killing it i tend to get a little bit upset.
You have my sympathy, and if "no:"-Wikipedia does suffer, I for one may take some of the blame, since "nb:" was my request. However, I doubt that a (second) split of "no:" will deter many Wikipedians from continuing to contribute. Some of them will shift their focus to either "nb:" or "nn:", that's all.
I think it is in everyone's interest that we square the naming and location issues while the Norwegian Wikipedias are still relatively small.
If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokmål.
I think so too.
No one disputes that. (I guess I did not include enough context in my previous reply. It should be read together with Olve Utne's preceding post.)
I think that "common" names should be redirected stright to bokmål, since that is the most used language.
It would be really convenient for bokmål if most people believed in that kind of reasoning, for that would certainly guarantee that bokmål would still be the bigger of the two, say, fifty years from now! (Self- fulfilling prophecy...)
Considering the size of the bokmål userbase compaired to the nynorsk one i belive it'll stay this way for long, but hey, it's nothing wrong with a little competition.
Why does it have to be competition? I would much prefer cooperation!
Ulf Lunde
På 15. nov. 2004 kl. 21.42 skrev Ulf Lunde:
Hr. Lunde: It's two bloody letters god damn it. You have got your move now you start asking for more?
Hr. Alvik,
As long as "no:" does not prohibit contributions in nynorsk, I have no reason to request that it be moved to "nb:". And guess what? I never have!
Perhaps you haven't read my proposals? I have never been in favor of moving all articles away from "no:", nor have I supported (in Wikipeida-l, in the Wikipedia discussions, or anywhere else) a "move" of any current Wikipedias.
What proposals? I've read the first one, i havn't seen anyone since then, that's formulated as a proposal and not written between the lines.
I have advocated from the start to keep status quo for "no:", in the hope that it can remain what it is today: a common Norwegian Wikipedia.
However, it seems that a majority of people here would prefer a move.
I don't prefer a move, i was happy with the current situation. But since all the fuss started i suppose something should happend, i don't like to move it, but hey if it please the nynorsk people why not. I don't object to the move, since the interwikilinks wouldn't get messed up. But i strongly object to a splitting, it would fork the manpower and workhours and create total chaos.
Yes i'm probably alittle bit aggresive there, but hey, when you have put down so much work in something and someone suggest to do the polite version of killing it i tend to get a little bit upset.
You have my sympathy, and if "no:"-Wikipedia does suffer, I for one may take some of the blame, since "nb:" was my request. However, I doubt that a (second) split of "no:" will deter many Wikipedians from continuing to contribute. Some of them will shift their focus to either "nb:" or "nn:", that's all.
I think it is in everyone's interest that we square the naming and location issues while the Norwegian Wikipedias are still relatively small.
If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokmål.
I think so too.
No one disputes that. (I guess I did not include enough context in my previous reply. It should be read together with Olve Utne's preceding post.)
I think that "common" names should be redirected stright to bokmål, since that is the most used language.
It would be really convenient for bokmål if most people believed in that kind of reasoning, for that would certainly guarantee that bokmål would still be the bigger of the two, say, fifty years from now! (Self- fulfilling prophecy...)
*Choghs* Yeah right :P, nynorsk isn't excatly growing, with the sentralization going on and everything. Also Finnmark and Oslo is thinking about ditching their teaching in nynorsk as a side language. But, hey this is derailing.
If there is going to be change i certiantly support Utnes version, and being probably the only primary bokmålspeaking/writing (i accualy speak a dialect that's as bokmål as you get it, generic østlending, eventhough i've heard from nynorskusers that there's no such thing, but derailing) i think that ought to count for something.
mvh. Lars Alvik
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Angela wrote:
If no: were moved to nb:, I think it would be best for http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noreg to redirect to http://nb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norge since it's an nb URL, so people will expect Bokmål.
[ a lot of other excellent suggestions snipped ]
I speak neither language.
However, I notice the initial If.
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.
Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the information business, and the information comes first.
Cheers, Andy!
Hello,
I guess all of you read the article of Robert McHenry, former editor in chief of the Britannica "so-called" Encyclopedia...
I wrote a piece of paper about it as it helped me realize that Wikipedia is not pretending to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is pretending to accuracy but... whatever, Wikipedia is the only real encyclopedia of our days because it is the only knowledge base project to pursue a political goal in our days !
The political importance of the Wikipedia Project : the only true encyclopedia of our days. Wikipedia : towards a new electronic enlightenment era ?
http://soufron.free.fr/soufron-spip/article.php3?id_article=71
I am now really convinced of it.
Commentaries, critics and anything are welcomed :)
Before making fun of Wikipedia Robert McHenry and other EB FUD writers should compare our content to theirs.
For example, the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica had *exactly* the same error as our article had. EB should have had an article on Alexander Hamilton for about 100 years by the time the 11th edition was published in 1911.
See http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMILTON_ALEXA NDER.htm
Wikipedia is less than 4 years old.
More in my Slashdot post (somebody mod me up!):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129854&threshold=0&commentsort=3...
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
EB is not an encyclopedia, it's a book where scholars write about the stuff they know.
It has nothing to see with an encyclopedia as it was created by the philosophers of the Enlightenement. That kind of compendium existed long before and will continue to be useful... but it's not an encyclopedia !
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Before making fun of Wikipedia Robert McHenry and other EB FUD writers should compare our content to theirs.
For example, the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica had *exactly* the same error as our article had. EB should have had an article on Alexander Hamilton for about 100 years by the time the 11th edition was published in 1911.
See http://14.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMILTON_ALEXA NDER.htm
Wikipedia is less than 4 years old.
More in my Slashdot post (somebody mod me up!):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129854&threshold=0&commentsort=3...
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org