This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Riksmål article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
Heavens, is this still in need of RfC? I can see from the page history that the only problem this page has is the continuous presence of an abusive POV-pusher and sockpuppeteer. Get rid of him, get rid of the copyvio text and unreliable sources, and start the article back from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Naa.. for what it is worth I disagree. I think the article as it stands now is okey. Remove a few tags and - voila.
One other thought here - I ask just out of curiousity: How many of of you here - besides myself - speak Riksmål as their mother tongue? I see a lot of glowing hot opinions here from a Swede, from a German, and from other Norwegians claiming _not_ to speak Riksmål. This strikes me as a little odd.
ALDRI MER 1814!
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If I see this discussion correctly, what the major disagreement here is all about, is whether Riksmål is either a written standard only, available to speakers from various dialects, or, if it is indeed a subset of Danish and thus constitutes pockets of sharply delimitable spoken dialects in Norway. This entire question may consequently be phrased as "is there such a thing as spoken Riksmål dialects?"
I propose that you ask an umpire, I propose that you ask professor Finn Erik Vinje. Let him settle this one major issue. I will accept whatever he says. If he sides with the rest of you on this one issue, I will not edit this article again. On the other hand, if he should side with my view, that there are spoken dialects in Norway that deserve to be labeled Riksmål dialects, then the subsection on dialects stands and I will continue to contribute to this article.
What do you guys say? I think this is a possible way to proceed. I honestly do not think we will get much further without asking an umpire, and I can accept Professor Vinje. The alternative seems to be a war. War is ugly.
So, what do you all say?
ALDRI MER 1814!
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The user Aldri mer 1814 has been banned from wikipedia. That applies to any edits made by the person behind that user name. Any contributions by banned users are to be reverted on sight, exept those to the user's talk page. The user has lost the right to contribute to this discussion, the article and the rest of wikipedia and should not be encouraged to continue. The contributions above made after the ban should be removed. The user has to realise he is not welcome any more. When that problem is solved we can move on to the article. Inge 13:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
66.98.131.* is blocked user ALDRI MER 1814! Please do not engage him in discussion. Actually, he can be immediately reverted as a banned user trying to get around his block. -- Woohookitty (meow) 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I stuck my neck out and reverted the article. I also reincluded the information on the pre 1938 reforms and some minor stuff. Remember the information in the "old" article is still accessible in the history. I feel the removed information was overall either highly controversial or better suited in other articles. Inge 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that some of the old historic material warranted retention. Please given my attempt to capture that which I thought relevant to the topic a careful review. I'm not interested in rekindling the fire we enjoyed for so long here; but I do believe the fire represents an interesting insight into the emotion that language represents even today. Skål - Williamborg ( Bill) 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd offer that Wikipedia:What is a featured article? sets the standards we might want to strive for; one of those standards is that it be comprehensive. Section 1 (b) of the above indicates "Comprehensive means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Again I'd propose that the historical context of the topic is relevant, as long as it is only a concise summary of the more detailed history elsewhere, links one to that history, and is relevant to understanding the article. Am comfortable with your rewrite, removing the characterization of Landsmål/Nynorsk for now—may want to revisit that discussion later—but for now I'd prefer we build a strong article while sticking with those topics we can reach an easy consensus on. Takk - Williamborg ( Bill) 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
In recent edits I noted some of the referenced material became orphaned. Please be careful to neither prune nor misapply references when editing. It's a fairly standard convention (which Wikipedia accepts—well this is Wikipedia, so it is more correct to say many accept) that a reference at the end of a paragraph serves the whole paragraph unless there are internal references. So you can safely leave the reference on a paragraph, even when you delete a sentence somewhere in the paragraph.
Other late night thoughts:
If you view anything from a better perspective, please educate me. I have enough Norwegian blood that I am occasionally hard headed, but am truly interested in the best Norwegian-topic article we can develop here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Takk - Williamborg ( Bill) 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, I have merged the text from the Riksmål and Dano-Norwegian articles into the Bokmål article and redirected the two former articles there. I figured it was easier to just show how it could be done than to ask for your opinions beforehand. Now that you can see the result, your opinions are greatly appreciated.
The main motivation was to avoid redundancy. The three articles told the same story with just somewhat different emphasis.
Plutix 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Fiet Nam, I strongly suggest that you give your reason for resisting the merge. As it stands now, the Riksmål article does not add anything to the Bokmål article. One should always try to resolve disagreements through discussion, not edit wars.
Plutix 10:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the article, The ISO_639-3 code for Riksmål is "nor", but according to https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/nor "nor" is the code for the norwegian macrolanguage (not specifically Riksmål). 130.238.112.129 ( talk) 23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Riksmål article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
Heavens, is this still in need of RfC? I can see from the page history that the only problem this page has is the continuous presence of an abusive POV-pusher and sockpuppeteer. Get rid of him, get rid of the copyvio text and unreliable sources, and start the article back from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Naa.. for what it is worth I disagree. I think the article as it stands now is okey. Remove a few tags and - voila.
One other thought here - I ask just out of curiousity: How many of of you here - besides myself - speak Riksmål as their mother tongue? I see a lot of glowing hot opinions here from a Swede, from a German, and from other Norwegians claiming _not_ to speak Riksmål. This strikes me as a little odd.
ALDRI MER 1814!
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If I see this discussion correctly, what the major disagreement here is all about, is whether Riksmål is either a written standard only, available to speakers from various dialects, or, if it is indeed a subset of Danish and thus constitutes pockets of sharply delimitable spoken dialects in Norway. This entire question may consequently be phrased as "is there such a thing as spoken Riksmål dialects?"
I propose that you ask an umpire, I propose that you ask professor Finn Erik Vinje. Let him settle this one major issue. I will accept whatever he says. If he sides with the rest of you on this one issue, I will not edit this article again. On the other hand, if he should side with my view, that there are spoken dialects in Norway that deserve to be labeled Riksmål dialects, then the subsection on dialects stands and I will continue to contribute to this article.
What do you guys say? I think this is a possible way to proceed. I honestly do not think we will get much further without asking an umpire, and I can accept Professor Vinje. The alternative seems to be a war. War is ugly.
So, what do you all say?
ALDRI MER 1814!
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The user Aldri mer 1814 has been banned from wikipedia. That applies to any edits made by the person behind that user name. Any contributions by banned users are to be reverted on sight, exept those to the user's talk page. The user has lost the right to contribute to this discussion, the article and the rest of wikipedia and should not be encouraged to continue. The contributions above made after the ban should be removed. The user has to realise he is not welcome any more. When that problem is solved we can move on to the article. Inge 13:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
66.98.131.* is blocked user ALDRI MER 1814! Please do not engage him in discussion. Actually, he can be immediately reverted as a banned user trying to get around his block. -- Woohookitty (meow) 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I stuck my neck out and reverted the article. I also reincluded the information on the pre 1938 reforms and some minor stuff. Remember the information in the "old" article is still accessible in the history. I feel the removed information was overall either highly controversial or better suited in other articles. Inge 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that some of the old historic material warranted retention. Please given my attempt to capture that which I thought relevant to the topic a careful review. I'm not interested in rekindling the fire we enjoyed for so long here; but I do believe the fire represents an interesting insight into the emotion that language represents even today. Skål - Williamborg ( Bill) 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd offer that Wikipedia:What is a featured article? sets the standards we might want to strive for; one of those standards is that it be comprehensive. Section 1 (b) of the above indicates "Comprehensive means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Again I'd propose that the historical context of the topic is relevant, as long as it is only a concise summary of the more detailed history elsewhere, links one to that history, and is relevant to understanding the article. Am comfortable with your rewrite, removing the characterization of Landsmål/Nynorsk for now—may want to revisit that discussion later—but for now I'd prefer we build a strong article while sticking with those topics we can reach an easy consensus on. Takk - Williamborg ( Bill) 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
In recent edits I noted some of the referenced material became orphaned. Please be careful to neither prune nor misapply references when editing. It's a fairly standard convention (which Wikipedia accepts—well this is Wikipedia, so it is more correct to say many accept) that a reference at the end of a paragraph serves the whole paragraph unless there are internal references. So you can safely leave the reference on a paragraph, even when you delete a sentence somewhere in the paragraph.
Other late night thoughts:
If you view anything from a better perspective, please educate me. I have enough Norwegian blood that I am occasionally hard headed, but am truly interested in the best Norwegian-topic article we can develop here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Takk - Williamborg ( Bill) 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, I have merged the text from the Riksmål and Dano-Norwegian articles into the Bokmål article and redirected the two former articles there. I figured it was easier to just show how it could be done than to ask for your opinions beforehand. Now that you can see the result, your opinions are greatly appreciated.
The main motivation was to avoid redundancy. The three articles told the same story with just somewhat different emphasis.
Plutix 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Fiet Nam, I strongly suggest that you give your reason for resisting the merge. As it stands now, the Riksmål article does not add anything to the Bokmål article. One should always try to resolve disagreements through discussion, not edit wars.
Plutix 10:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the article, The ISO_639-3 code for Riksmål is "nor", but according to https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/nor "nor" is the code for the norwegian macrolanguage (not specifically Riksmål). 130.238.112.129 ( talk) 23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)