[Wikipedia-l] Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion

[Lars Alvik]

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:
>
>   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).

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