Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Request for new Wikipedia: bokmål

Mon Nov 8 19:02:55 UTC 2004

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 at 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 at 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.
> > >
> > >1. Most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål.
> > >2. 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>