Talk:Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think this would be better placed under Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 06:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'll wait until later today, or perhaps tomorrow, and then move to the proposed title. — Jeblad 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the exact page with the correlated RfC on nowiki?[edit]

There has to be a correlated RfC (whatever it's called on noWP) about this, with a decision to take this here. Could you provide links for this? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not written a separate RfC on nowiki. It should be sufficient to translate the RfC and link it. Feel free to write one at nowiki if you feel it is necessary, but then you should also write one at nnwiki. — Jeblad 11:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion this is not something that should be decided upon by the community at nowiki, in fact the use of no is a misrepresentation of the site that imply The Norwegian Wikipedia while it is in fact The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia. This is an insult for people at The Norwegian Nynorsk Wikipedia, and because of that any discussion should be on neutral ground. — Jeblad 11:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read the you started, and in it there was cited an old RfC from noWP, what has changed since this rejection of your proposal to make you believe, they will now support it? And of course it's up to them, perhaps together with nnWP, to decide this, not some matter for meta. Meta should just follow the decentralized decisions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Knowing nowiki I doubt they will agree on anything involving nnwiki, but that does not imply that the situation should continue. The use of no is an factual error as nowiki does not contain both official written forms of Norwegian. And yes, there are users that claim that nowiki allows Nynorsk, but that is a joke. There are also those that claim that because nowiki allows both Riksmål and Bokmål it should use no because the site covers more than Bokmål. As I write on the subject page there are no real differences.
Each time this is discussed the community at nowiki claim that they alone should use the no prefix, and that they alone should use the no language code. Some years back I managed to get them to accept the language code nb for the interface, but not without struggle. I'm not sure they have realized that the site language is also set to nb. Because the site language is Bokmål the subdomain (actually just a domain prefix - I should fix that) should reflect that and not be the code for the macrolanguage. — Jeblad 12:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sänger The general issue here is when one community thinks a domain should be common property while another thinks its theirs. If one of them already possesses the domain in question, then without outside intervention there will in effect be a "finders keepers" policy when it comes to domains. --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Sänger ♫: When it comes to change Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb I think there's not much resistance against that. We have two official languages in Norway, Norwegian and Sami. Within Norwegian there are two equal written versions, Nynorsk and Bokmål. At the same time there has not been any request for changing Wikipedia Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb in the last years.

If there is a demand from the active contributors on Wikipedia in Nynorsk about such a change I don't think there will be much resistance against it from the active contributors at Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. In general many of the active contributors at Bokmål/Riksmål both support Wikipedia in Nynorsk and also see its growth as an asset, so a request from the Wikipedia Nynorsk community I assume would be met with interest and understanding. Regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is one of the most discussed topics on and the community has rejected this proposal formally with a vote (no consensus, achieved) back in 2009 no:Wikipedia:Avstemninger/Prefiks, it surfaced again in 2011 no:Wikipedia:Tinget/Arkiv/2011-35#no._vs._nb.. In the current notification of this issue at's deciding organ no:Wikipedia:Tinget#Flytting_av_nowiki.3F (permament link). The forwarding this request was banned from editing for three days due to noise[4]. This looks like an escalation of this issue unfortunately. Please close this request immediately to avoid more noise. nsaa (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stay on topic, but yes, I made complaints about mass blockage of a major telecom provider in Norway. The blockage is questionable, but I can't see what it has to do with this case.
The prefix is factually wrong and should be changed. Voicing an opinion on this issue is not very popular at nowiki, but that does not invalidate the fact that this prefix is actually wrong. Proponents for keeping no claim that because Riksmål is allowed the code is correct, but note that Riksmål is not an official written form of Norwegian. It doesn't even have an unofficial language code. It is a private standard made and supported by a rather small but very vocal group. Those interested can look up the history.
Another claim that is made is that because nowiki has used this prefix for so long it should remain so. That hardly makes it anymore correct. It should have been changed when nnwiki split off, but it wasn't. Now the claim is made that nowiki "owns" the prefix, "dette prosjektet har opparbeidet seg «eiendomsrett» på" ("this project has earned the "ownership" on domain"). I can't see that any such ownership exist.
The language code no cover Norwegian, that is Bokmål and Nynorsk, both are valid and official forms of Norwegian. The site nowiki does not include Nynorsk, only Bokmål, and should use the language code nb. — Jeblad 16:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can see, all Wikipedias use the same prefix as the ISO 639-1-code for the language the given Wikipedia is written in, except Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål. The no prefix is a relic from a time when there were only one Wikipedia in Norwegian, written in both Norwegian Bokmål and Norwegian Nynorsk. At that time, the no prefix was a natural choice for the project. As the situation is today, the project is written only in Norwegian Bokmål, while the project is written only in Norwegian Nynorsk, and the prefix should reflect this on both Wikipedias, not only the one written in Nynorsk.
Just to clarify: Norwegian Bokmål nb is a subset of the language Norwegian no, as Norwegian covers both languages Norwegian Bokmål nb and Norwegian Nynorsk nn. --Bjarkan (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nowiki has the right to use, any change here to will be a robbery of some 15 years of reputation building in External sources, newspapers, books (online and offline), Google, peoples mind etc.. The nowiki was there before nn choose to leave the nowiki. no covers the Norwegian language except for Nynorsk (nn) after they choose to leave to nowiki-project. The no code cover much better the unofficial but highly used riksmål ("This was Norway's de facto written language, used by most large newspapers and by the majority of the population as a written standard " ). If some people want to start nb they are free to do so. I will suppose that nowiki still will allow both bokmål and riksmål even after such a creation (highly unlikely). This is noise and should be stopped right now. nowiki will continue as nowiki. If there is some that want to start nbwiki they are free to do that I assume. But nowiki's highest organ no:Tinget has stated multiple times that nowiki will not move. nsaa (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"15 years of reputation building" - Do you have any proof that users of no.wikipedia are so aware of the fact that the domain starts with no that they would be confused if it changed? If links to no.wikipedia are redirecting to nb.wikipedia or shows the nb and nn articles side by side (or in any way shows the corresponding nb article), then the links are not broken and there will be no link rot. Furthermore, making sure that version-specific links continue to yield the correct nb version should not be very hard.
I am not aware of that there were any debates on which Norwegian wikipedias should exist before no.wikipedia was founded. Naturally, the community with the greatest incentive to split is likely to be the smaller one, as a common wikipedia is likely to have more articles in the other language version. The larger the difference in the community size, the larger the difference in number of articles per language version is to be expected.
Once no.wikipedia was founded, there was not much the Nynorsk community could do. Either they stay at no.wikipedia or they split off. If they stay, they risk seeing a lot of their articles converted into Bokmål as they are expanded or rewritten, and a lot of (perhaps the large majority of) important articles would be near-impossible to write about in Nynorsk because Bokmål users would already have written comprehensive and up-to-date articles on the subject.
Although I have no specific reason to believe any such motivation was acted on, the situation described above means that a user of from the majority language version could gamble on claiming the common language code for their language version by starting a wiki on the common language code with little or no prior discussion about language codes, and then let nature do its work. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sänger ♫ asked a question and the answer is: There is no request from noWP.
-- After this request was posted here we were made aware of it on our main discussion page Wikipedia:Tinget&oldid=16770801#Flytting_av_nowiki.3F. At the time Jeblad was unable to respond due to being blocked on noWP for 3 days. He should have raised the issue on noWP first. At the time I write this the comments have for the most part advised to ignore the question.
-- Personally I do not see the problem. noWP have been located at for years and is well established as the connection to Wikipedia in bokmål and riksmål in the same way as is well and truly established as wikipedia in nynorsk. The domain is owned by Wikimedia and the domain is owned by WMNO (Wikimedia Norway). The domain connects to both nynorsk, bokmål and sami and should be a sufficient equalizer between the official languages of Norway. --Dyveldi (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stay on the topic. Thank you. — Jeblad 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sänger ♫ asked a question and the answer is: There is no request from either Wikipedia in Nynorsk or Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. There is however a vote about this question on Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål back from 2009 there the proposal was turned down with 85 to 39 votes. There was a similar vote on Wikipedia in Nynorsk, with 21 votes for moving no to nb, and one vote against. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This thread can be closed, as my, slightly rhetorical, question was de facto answered with: No, there is no current proposal for this move in any Norwegian WP. It's just a lonely man on a mission here atm. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right in saying that there's a lonely man on a mission, but you're wrong in saying that there's just that: There is also a project with an incorrect language code. Just saying (IBTL). - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sänger (talk · contribs), you're right. The thread found here no:Wikipedia:Tinget#Flytting_av_nowiki.3F at the nowiki Village pump (no:Tinget) about this request clearly states to close this issue down, mostly from users that back in 2009 wanted to do the move from no to nb. The proposal to move has left out most of the important point to keep See this list no:Bruker:Nsaa/Prefiks#Nei_til_flytting_fra_nowiki_til_nbwiki (in Norwegian) Google translated to English. nsaa (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two projects, one use the code for the macro language Norwegian (no) and claim they own the code. That project is a Bokmål project, which is abundantly clear as they now use the code for Bokmål (nb) internally.[5] The other project is in Nynorsk, and has the correct language code for Nynorsk (nn) both externally and internally. No there are no project that can claim they are the only one for "Norwegian". The language code for nowiki is a lie and has been so since Nynorsk split off from the then common project. — Jeblad 19:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sänger (talk · contribs), you are mostly right, as you can see from the threads about this on both Wikipedia in Nynorsk and Bokmål/Riksmål (as equals Village pump at Wikipedia in English), there is scant support for Jeblads proposal. At the same time he is not totally without support. To repeat myself, when it comes to the issue of moving Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål from no to nb I believe Jeblad is basically right, and if it came to a new vote I would cast my vote as in 2009, that is for changing from no to nb (and not abstain, as Jeblad did then).
But... As I have written earlier I see such a new debate or a forced move (if that is possible) as very unfortunate for the community (to use an understatement). In Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål we already face an uphill battle of trying to attract and keep contributors while we sometimes have a toxic internal debate. I expect that a new discussion about moving, or a forced one (again, if thats possible) would be very damaging. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a RfC, nothing is concluded. — Jeblad 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the present situation on nowiki when it comes to attracting and keeping new users, a change in prefix will most likely not correlate with this at all. The most likely cause of the continued drop in new users is probably caused by the very toxic environment on w:no:Wikipedia:Sletting. [As of this writing the tone is of the more civil I have seen!] New users gets their contributions deleted at a very high rate, and there are virtually no attempt to salvage articles. In fact if new users tries to argue against deletion they are often told in a very hash tone to stay away. This is observed by readers, and gives a impression that the environment isn't very welcoming for new users, and instead of writing new articles they back away.
In my opinion the hostile environment on w:no:Wikipedia:Sletting is a major cause, but increasing use of large range blocks should not be neglected. That creates a situation whereby people are told they are vandals before they have edited at all.
I've been writing about trends on Wikipedia, and made graphics and tried to analyze whats going on since around 2009. I also provided Wikimedia Norway with text and graphics, so this is nothing exceptional that no-one knows about. See also w:no:Category:Norwegian Wikipedia statistics.
A discussion about why nowiki has such a massive drop in new editors is although outside the scope of this RfC. — Jeblad 19:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes from 2009 about site rename[edit]

There were votes for and against back in 2009, where almost all votes cast from people in the nnwiki community were rejected. The rejected votes are listed at w:no:Wikipedia:Avstemninger/Prefiks#Forkastede stemmer. I can only find one accepted vote from the community at nnwiki, a vote by the user "knut". Feel free to identify more votes from the nnwiki community.

I added a comment about this but it was promptly removed as "false". I will not try to readd the comment. — Jeblad 19:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Active users at nowiki had the right to vote fulfilling some criteria used for all kind of votes at that moment. This is just more noise with no foundation. nsaa (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vote set a number of requirements for voting. The votes that did not meet those requirements were turned down. As anyone that know Norwegian can see, many of the votes came from users also connected to the Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål. When Jeblad use this to try to give an impression that votes were turned down due to them coming from users from Wikipedia in Nynorsk, it is simply false. No way that he does not understand this and it connects with his raising this issue the same day as he is banned at Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. Ulflarsen (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it conceivable that the criteria for voting eligibility may have favored nowiki users over nnwiki users? - Soulkeeper (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this shows pretty good whats going on, and why there has been no solution to the issue. — Jeblad 20:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue at stake[edit]

There is no doubt that Jeblad is correct in that Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål should be at nb, not no. But. First, why does this come up now? As far as I can see from the vote in 2009 Jeblad did not even vote. I - for the record - voted to change from no to nb (and lost), but seems Jeblad did not care that much in 2009. And now - as he has been blocked on Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål, he all of a sudden start to care...

As one can see from the vote on Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål in 2009 it was a massive vote against change (so I and the others voting for nb lost). The number of voters were also unusual high for our project, its possible that its the vote that has engaged the most contributors. When this wound was opened by Jeblad I tried to do my bit in parking this issue by hinting that its up to the community at Wikipedia in Nynorsk to raise it again - that did not seem to work. So the issue at stake is that we can expect a massive quarrel that will involve contributors from both Wikipedia in Nynorsk and Bokmål/Riksmål and consume a lot of time that otherwise could be used to improve our projects.

And if Jeblad gets his way (WMF overturns Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål and change from no to nb)? If they can and so does, hostility towards both WMF and Wikipedia in Nynorsk due to broken links etc would most certainly be widespread among contributors to Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. I would say this is possibly the least interesting and useful discussion we could have at the moment. Again - Jeblad is right in that we at Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål should use nb not no - but there are a vast number of such cases in the world that is better left as they are. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the endgame?[edit]

Why is this such a big problem and issue? If the issue is a factual "no.wikipedia subdomain doesn't correctly represent all the written languages and it should be moved to nb.wikipedia", then let's move it with a permanent hard 301 redirect from "no" to "nb". This way all current links and "google pageranks" will remain and just migrate with time over to the new nbwiki. If this was to be implemented, it should be a permanent redirect for a substantially long time period and should not be used for other purposes.

So, what's the real endgame here? The community at nowiki has already debated this to death several times and a consensus has never been reached. A vote has resulted in staying at no.wikipedia. Everyone is tired of the constant debates and discussions over this particular theme, and now it's been thrown into the light again on a mere "technical" motive. Why is it so important to move no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia?? Stigmj (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I see it, the issue is a factual "no.wikipedia subdomain doesn't correctly represent all the written languages and it should be moved to nb.wikipedia". My own argument in favour of this, from a neutrality perspective, is detailed (in Norwegian) here. I agree with the "permanent 301 redirect" approach. The 301 redirect should stay in place until it can be shown that it is no longer useful, which may take decades. Perhaps it will be possible to add functionality on top of that, like a landing page, a 404 page with additional functionality like a search that covers both wikis, etc, but all that is secondary. - Soulkeeper (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nowiki and it's domain is managed by the nowiki community. They and they alone decide here. If someone will start the nbwiki, they are free to do so as the nnwiki did, but that will be a new project with another profile than the current nowiki Community that has a broader scope than nb. To take an example: nb there is no limitation to write «Kvinna blei oppfordra til sjøl å legge alle korta på bordet med omsyn til hva hun dreiv med heime i fritida si.». If you use the Riksmåls norm you can only write «Kvinnen ble oppfordret til selv å legge alle kortene på bordet med hensyn til hva hun drev med hjemme i sin fritid.». Many articles in the follow the Riksmål written norm standarize by the This is not part of bokmål (nb), but the Norwegian language (no) since it has it's own long and active history managed independent of Bokmål and in wide use by most Norwegians (in the form of moderate bokmål / Riksmål). It is correct that Bokmål allows most of Riksmål ast stated. The nowiki has build reputation for 15 years or more on the domain, and moving our project away from this domain will be devasting. As en:W3C states, "There are no reasons at all in theory for people to change URIs"! Moving may help destroy one of the biggest Wiki communitis on a flawed argument (more correct nb than no wich is not true because more than bokmål is allowed there) nsaa (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but the arguments about Riksmål is flawed. Riksmål is not an official form, it is a private version of an old written form of Norwegian that went out of common use a long time ago. There is some kind of organization behind Riksmål, but in practice it is more or less a project for only for a handfull of people. It does not even have a language code, and the site that is used to promote the language form use the nb language code. (<html lang="nb-NO" prefix="og:"> from [view-source:])
The comunity at nnwiki has identified the articles written at Høgnorsk, and even if I have asked several of the proponents for Riksmål to do the same they have not done so. I know that I would not be able to spot a purely Riksmål article, even if I try. I'm not sure anybody can.
Perhaps this could be an opportunity for nowiki to make a proof about how many articles are written in Riksmål? — Jeblad 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify; content written in Riksmål is not a valid argument for perpetuating the present situation, Riksmål is a subset of Bokmål. This is clearly shown on Riksmålsforbundets own pages. — Jeblad 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as there is an objective discussion here, one should not dismiss this request as "noise". Honestly, I find it difficult to see any problem regarding the unofficial language norm Riksmål, which can be viewed as a subset of Norwegian Bokmål. Riksmål could surely find its rightful home in a possible, with just a little goodwill. If someone writes an article in Riksmål, it is essentially (Moderate) Bokmål, an official Norwegian language with its own ISO 639-1 code, namely nb. The differences between Moderate Bokmål and Riksmål are infinitesimal, far smaller that the differences between the American and British versions of English (and covers both of them). Regarding possible damaging of the community at, I doubt the community at the Swedish Wikipedia were "destroyed" when the prefix was changed from se to sv a few years ago.
Moving to will solve an issue in the "In other languages coloumn" in the Wikipedias in other laguages, where, if an article is present in Bokmål, it is presented as the "Norwegian" version, but if there is a version of the same article in Nynorsk, it is presented as the version in "Norwegian Nynorsk". Nynorsk is also Norwegian, you know. Bokmål should at least be refered to as Norwegian Bokmål, not only Norwegian. This problem will be solved by moving the project to nb. I think the problem would be best solved for now by making the no prefix redirect to Wikipedia in Bokmål, after moving to Perhaps even permanently, if splitting traffic between nb and nn requires much work/programming, since Bokmål is the major Norwegian written form. --Bjarkan (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a very basic misunderstanding here. There is a project, nowiki located at that is managed by Tinget (Village Pump), not by nnwiki or anybody else, maybe except the Wikimedia Foundation Board. That one subset of the official language code choose to create their own project located nnwiki located at is fine. The same will be if someone starts a nbwiki project at The community at nowiki located at has rejected proposal to move the project to the sub-language code nb due to many different reasons and will stay like that.

Here is a list of arguments for why not move translated from this list from 2009 from here no:Bruker:Nsaa/Prefiks#Nei_til_flytting_fra_nowiki_til_nbwiki (not a very good translation, fast done in Google Translate)

No relocation from nowiki to nbwiki[edit]

(more details, timeline etc. in Norwegian here: )

  1. 'External links' – nowiki has established a great value of links that link to the page. At present it is up to 1.3 million such links. How will we get external stakeholders to update over 1,300,000 link to us [1] with Yahoo containing [2] [3]
  2. 'Brand' – NO domain coincides with the country code no, and that no has been in use since this wiki was created. Thus, it is advantageous to retain the familiar prefix no, that all Norwegian speakers have a relationship with, versus the totally unknown nb, who barely the most educated language people know.
  3. 'Visibility' – All links from articles on will no longer count as much for Google's PageRank algorithm (one can assume) if you do not 'permanent' add correctly redirectkoder the .com domain. [4]. The proposal allows for 'remove 301 redirect' after 5 years.
  4. 'Visibility and value' 'Britannica boss' Jorge Cauze say the following on Wikipedia If I were to be the CEO of Google or the Founders of Google I would ask very [displeased] That the best search engine in the world continues two provideh as a first link, Wikipedia, [5] [6]
  5. 'Index and traffic figures' . A switch will 'reduce the main page's importance' . At present, the traffic was 57 & nbsp; 694 hits, it amounts to 5.04 & nbsp;% of traffic on nowiki. Traffic on nnwikis index is pr. Day 1 & nbsp; 496 hits, it amounts to 1.37 & nbsp;% of traffic on nn. Sources: Source nn (archive nn 2009-01-26) source en (archive en 2009-01-26)
  6. 'Uncertainty' – Likewise, we have no control over what other search engines and others who follow links do with this kind of redirects and to what extent this has a negative effect.
  7. 'Brand' – no domain is built up throughout the Norwegian speaking population consciousness as the site of Wikipedia in bokmål and riksmål.
  8. 'Technical' – That it is technically a not insignificant job to implement (many bots must clean incredible amounts, one must set things up properly by developers on Wikipedia's servers – we'll use these scarce resources to such policy changes like this?). [7]
  9. 'Uncertainty' – there is no agreement on what one possibly to do with .no domain afterwards, ergo it is inherent in a great danger that external links will no longer pointing directly to our articles and main compartment.
  10. 'Bias of bokmål / riksmål' – indirectly proposal an attempt to impartiality in distributing languages ​​printed on no (bokmål and riksmål), a language used mainly by the vast majority (In a survey with a sample of over 4,000 people came forward with the following "7.5 % responded that they write only nynorsk, 5.5% that they write about the same amount in both language variants, and 86.3% that they write riksmål / bokmål "oNLY 7 , 5% nyNorsk ( archived 2009-01-09 ). Bottom line then it's over 90% of the population of writing that uses bokmål / riksmål to put that in perspective). It will be quite discriminatory to destroy all the value created on no.domenet already at a relocation simply because a driver with semantic argument that also no-ISO code comprises the entire riksmål. [8]
  11. 'For all eternity .no domain is unusable for other purposes' – With a permanent relocation by. En:301 Redirect avoids possibly some of the problems with external links, but it will make domain busy forever. [9]
  12. 'ISO code no is more correct than nb for this wiki' – Officially Bokmål is normed by no:Språkrådet, while riksmål normed of no:Det Norske Akademi for Sprog og Litteratur. In ISO description of nb says bokmål and riksmål is not defined in this. no covers the Norwegian language and are therefore both national target and on Bokmål under no-ISO code, but not directly under nb-ISO code, at least not name terms. Thus riksmål and moderate bokmål (since this is not used by the Official Languages ​​Council sticks to radical forms) will be an immeasurably [ (in meaning 1)] by moving from uk to nb.
  13. 'Wikimedia should not not make a change, which entails serious consequences just to satisfy a small minority' – The move does not apply to equate two equal languages. We're not Wikipedia for Norway, but Wikipedia in Norwegian (bokmål, nynorsk, riksmål others). Here we are not official bias of language. 90% of the population uses bokmål/riksmål and then mainly the moderate form. Thus the argument that no recording a domain which should also cover nynorsk correct, but weak. There are many varieties of German, but they just follow the new orthography (not Low German, Swiss German, Austrian German etc.). I think I see that dewiki being accused of discriminating against them.
  14. 'Definition Power' – The impact of vertical search engines: The 'relative position' to nn will be improved (ergo choose people nn articles instead nb article to a greater extent). Thus acquires nn more of definition power (Is it called the no:Vedavågen or Veavågen mm) [10]
  15. (added after poll) 'External links on paper' . [11] There is no one who knows how many (permanent) links that are currently operating pressure and after the proposed five-year period will no longer pointing to that content.
  16. (added after poll) 'External links to papers. By a shift will no longer (permament) links be like. After five years they will probably not pointing to the correct content. This is unfortunate set in an academic perspective (hampers reference check).
  17. (added after poll, 2011-08-14) 'ownership' to gained by everyone who has helped in on the articles per currently exist. Each of the users has mixed his work into these articles and it will in practice mean that every one of all the user needs to be requested and accepting delivery of this landed right. Presumably, only a Board decision in Wikimedia Foundation that can move the project since it is they who own the domain formally.
  18. (added after poll, 2011-08-14) 'W3C' strongly recommend that you do 'NOT' modify URLs. [12]
  19. (added after poll, 2011-08-14) Adding riksmål under bokmål is very wrong when bokmål covers almost the entire Norwegian written language, even the many nynorsk forms. Riksmål has a unique hundred year history with many of the leading cultural porters of the Norwegian language. To illustrate how remote on Bokmål may be from riksmål we can take this example
    • «Kvinnen ble oppfordret til selv å legge alle kortene på bordet med hensyn til hva hun drev med hjemme i fritiden sin.» no:moderat bokmål og no:riksmål [13]
    • «Kvinna blei oppfordra til sjøl å legge alle korta på bordet med omsyn til hva hun dreiv med heime i fritida si.» no:radikalt bokmål[13]
    • «Kvinna blei oppfordra til sjøl å legge alle korta på bordet med omsyn til kva ho dreiv med heime i fritida si.» no:nynorsk
  20. (added 2018-12-29) It is argued that riksmål are entirely covered by the official bokmål (language code nb) as is standardized by the Language Council (Språkrådet). This does not imply correctness: Example "gyldne" (riksmål) versus "gylne" (bokmål and riksmål): w:no:Den gyldne middelvei, w:no:Det gyldne snitt covered only by the riksmal standardization (by w:en:Norwegian_Academy): [6][7], not the bokmål standardization (by w:en:Language_Council_of_Norway) [8][9] /[10][11]
  1. site explorer gives 1,334,091 hits (archive per 2009-01-23). nn has only 129,016 per archive 2009- 01-23
  2. oldid4940174, = Wikipedia% 3ATinget & diff = 4944074 & oldid = 4942276 oldid4942276
  3. Google says Ideally, you should contact the webmaster of each site that link to yours and ask themselve two update the links to point to the page on your new domain. [1] as Google itself suggests that a 301 Redirect is not enough to keep their pagerank.
  4. Use a 301 redirect two Permanently redirect all pages on your old site to your new site. [2]
  5. 2009/01/22 / 1232471469973.html Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0
  6. wikid% C3% B8dare-in-pa-pitch / Britannica 2.0 - once wikidødare into court
  7. See bugzilla 19986 and comments under this
  8. [http : // title = Wikipedia: Parliament & diff = prev & oldid = 4933676 en> nb: Robbery in broad daylight]
  9. [3]
  10. Wikipedia% 3ATinget & diff = 4952269 & oldid = 4952195 Visibility nn may be the preferred choice in search engines when no falling out or further down
  11. Continue to use "no" "[...] [[User: Haros | Haros] ] 8 February 2009 kl. 0:17 (CET) The timing is bad, do not like to break existing links, not even those who find themselves on paper. [...] "
  12. Argument from [ Cool URIs do not change] in 9206183 & oldid = 9206022 this post on Parliament

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nsaa (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nsaa: My complex list of comments to your list is provided at Phabricator T172035. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where, exactly, is any positive feedback from any Norwegian WP-project in regard to this?[edit]

Without any support for this RfC in any Norwegian Wikimedia-project, this RfC is worth nothing and should be dismissed asap. It's up to the local projects to decide this, it's no stuff for meta without massive local support. This is obviously just one lonely man on a mission against those, who did him some wrong, at least in his own mindset. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a link to the current discussion. To me it hardly shows support, rather it seems that quite a few are finished with the subject and actually seems in plain language to be quite fed up. I did my first edit in September 2012 and have not previously been aware of this subject for discussion. All the links I have seen provided so far in the ongoing threads I am aware of refers to discussions in 2011 and 2009. --Dyveldi (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also some discussion at nn:Wikipedia:Samfunnshuset#no.2Fnb. - Soulkeeper (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Reden: I agree that the Rfc should be closed asap. Even in Wikipedia in Norwegian Nynorsk (who would "benefit") there is not much interest and in Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål its also little interest. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, Wikipedia as a whole would benefit, including Bokmål(/Riksmål), because the technical mess that is caused by the language code/subdomain confusion would be solved, and because the subdomain list would better reflect reality. From a technical viewpoint, the Nynorsk project would not be affected any more than the Vietnamese project, and both would benefit equally. Of course, the language-political aspect of it would uniquely benefit the Norwegian user base, and maybe especially the Nynorsk project, because it would show that Wikipedia regards Nynorsk as an equally valid language form of Norwegian as Bokmål is. Something which would bring the Wikipedia representation of the two supported Norwagian language forms in line with the official language policy of Norway, as well as with ISO standards. - Soulkeeper (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are links on the subject page, run them through Google Translate. There are also several other discussions, but whats quite common is nnwiki wants a change, users at nowiki refuses.
To refuse any cooperation with nnwiki, but at the same time to claim the opposite is quite common for some of the users from nowiki. Right now it is a thread at Et bidrag til å gjøre nynorsk mindre synlig ("A contribution to make Nynorsk less visible") it is about missing linking in the CompactLanguageLinks, and at the same time there is a thread at Prosjektspesifikke nabospråk i språkboksen ("Project specific neighboring languages in the language box") where those arguing for more linking to Nynorsk in the first thread simply does not respond at all in the second. The thread on Tinget would solve the problem. That thread would although remove the premise for the claim.
The same people has argued on this thread that they are pro Nynorsk, while they in fact argue against resolving the factual incorrect situation.
The simple fact is that a group at nowiki wish to perpetuate the abuse of the prefix just because they are afraid they would loose ranking, and they claim that a small and unsubstantiated amount of Riksmål is the sole reason why they should be allowed to use the no-prefix. Riksmål does not even have a language code, simply because it is not an official written form of Norwegian. (Skriftspråk (Ikke-offisiell skriftform)[12])
I have asked several times if anyone from the claimed Riksmål-lobby at nowiki can identify the articles they claim is written in Riksmål, but it has never been provided any such list. I seriously doubt they are able to do so.
It is two project of Wikipedia in Norwegian, one in Nynorsk and one in Bokmål. The language code they should use is "nn" and "nb". There is no Wikipedia-project for "Norwegian".
I'll post a note on Nynorsk Wikipedia, I doubt a note on Bokmål Wikipedia will be kept due to the previously mentioned group. — Jeblad 16:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you even read this list Talk:Requests_for_comment/Rename_no.wikipedia_to_nb.wikipedia#No_relocation_from_nowiki_to_nbwiki? You are arguing against a minor nearly irrelevant issue. nsaa (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nsaa: And have you ever read my comments to your so-called aganist reasons at phab:T172035#3667539? Most of your aganist reasons, to the best of my knowledge, are really bugs crossing MediaWiki ecosystems. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål[edit]

I have corrected the Rfc as it describes Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål and thus should use that - not only mentioning Bokmål. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found that Jeblad has reverted my corrections regarding Bokmål/Riksmål back to Bokmål. As a source he has added this list.

However, here is the front page for Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. As one can easily see it states clearly that this is Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål. Ulflarsen (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note Special:SiteMatrix, it is "norsk bokmål". — Jeblad 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status at nnwiki[edit]

It seems like users at nnwiki does not have the motivation to be involved in this RfC, they are afraid of the form the debate has taken at nowiki. [13] [14]Jeblad 00:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Jeblad: It looks like there is a reasonably clear support for this change from this page. I suggest someone more familiar with the matter summarizes the situation, perhaps gets input from the language committee and moves forward by creating a phabricator ticket. Effeietsanders (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I believe there is sufficient consensus for the change, but there are still a quite vocal group that does not like it at nowiki. The RfC can probably be closed as consensus for a move, and it is also safe to expect a majority if it is voted over the issue at nowiki, but it will probably be noisy. Not sure who should summarize, perhaps User:Soulkeeper could do it. He has already summarized the issue at nowiki.
There is a phab task Site identifier and domain prefix for nowiki should be changed, but that is blocked by Blockers for Wikimedia wiki domain renaming. — Jeblad 08:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no consensus for leaving and move the project to There where a lot of different issues discussed with many different options on the cases. nsaa (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result of Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia is pretty clear. — Jeblad 16:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I just mark this as resolved? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the vote above at Meta there are like 3-4 votes from the community. When we last had a big vote on this matter in 2009 the results was 85 versus 39 [15]. So no, this should never have been brought up in the first place. Mark it as resolved AND rejected. nsaa (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: I'm not sure. There are a very vocal minority that tries to question both this RfC and a similar thread on nowiki. The latest voting at nowiki is Vote on language code and domain prefix, which gave 23 in favor and 9 against. Some question what the voting was about, but I belive it is pretty clear (translation provided by Google Translate but slightly edited for clarity)

Links to articles in this language version of Wikipedia are displayed in other language versions as Norwegian. This suggests that this language version is the Norwegian version of Wikipedia, which for several reasons is very unfortunate. Do you support a change of language code from no to nb and a change in domain prefix from to to ensure that Bokmål Wikipedia appears as Norwegian Bokmål in other language versions?

What the voting was about should be clear enough. There was fewer that casted votes the last time, but even so I believe the later votes overrules the previous one from 2009. I myself wasn't to happy over the voting on nowiki, as I belive the correct place to do it would be meta, and I would like to know more how users from nnwiki experience the situation. Use of the macro code does also involve people form the Nynorsk community, not just Bokmål, thus should be resolved at meta.
Resolving this RfC has consequences for phab:T147164, and the voting at nowiki has consequences for phab:T174160. They can both move forward, albeit slowly as before. There are implementation issues with renaming projects, but I guess you are aware of that.
To me it seems like consensus for a prefix change, both for this RfC and from nowiki, but the minority should somehow be reassured before an actual move takes place. I don't dare making a decisions on this, I got to many late night emails already. ;) — Jeblad 13:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nsaa: I would not easily rejected this, because as a Phabricator man, "bugs about nowiki" can really be confused with bugs regarding "<nowiki>" and do you have other ways than renaming wiki to avoid such confusion??? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It´s not a bug, it´s politics where we agreed to put it under Norsk (bokmål/riksmål), and in short Norsk (bokmål) to give the Norsk (nynorsk) more equality. See also my comment below. nsaa (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nsaa and Liuxinyu970226: Please, stop your unfair confusion, the <nowiki> (with angle brackets) is about parser function, Not about Norwegian. -- 00:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Liuxinyu970226 that using no for Bokmal is really confusing because that's an ISO 3166 code rather than ISO 639 code to me. 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remeber, the (nowiki) project is a project that covers the norwegian language (no), but back in 2004 the language nn (nynorsk) moved to their own project (nnwiki). The nowiki covers TWO different languages bokmål (with the code nb) set by and riksmål (never got a code) set by So moving the project will effectively remove the latter one from the project (it's a minority). Lately bokmål has open up for using most of the written forms allowed by riksmål, so with a few exceptions you can not see the difference from moderate bokmål and riksmål. The main point is that nowiki allows two different bodies to be used as normative when it comes to how we write. One is norming nb (bokmål) and the other riksmål. So we can't move without removing riksmål, even if someone says that its a subpart of bokmål (no, it's per definition not since normed by two different bodies). nsaa (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The usual language code for Riksmål is "nb", that is Bokmål. The language code "no" is the macro code for Norwegian in both the IANA registry [16] and ISO 639-1 (correct use is although "nor" according to ISO 639-3), that is both Bokmål and Nynorsk. The nowiki-project does not cover two languages, it has two different variations of the written form of Norwegian, both using the "nb" language code. I can't see how fixing this should be troublesome for anyone, and there are several webpages pointing out what is correct use of language codes.[17]Jeblad 20:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StevenJ81: How do you think about this confusion? -- 00:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]