Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Unified Norwegian

  • Voting on: Treating Norwegian as a single language instead of treating Bokmål and Nynorsk as separate languages. As a consequence, deprecating and eventually eliminating the language codes "nb" and "nn". However, they can be retained in the names of some templates and modules if it is deemed useful. Which standard (if any) a particular form belongs to can be indicated through a variety of means, not determined by this vote, including context and qualifier tags, or a notice on the headword line.
  • Background: At present, all three of "Norwegian" (code no), "Norwegian Bokmål" (nb) and "Norwegian Nynorsk" (nn) are treated as languages on en.Wikt; each has several thousand entries. There are two Norwegian Wiktionaries and Wikipedias, with the codes no and nn (nb.wiki redirects to no.wiki while nb.wikt is not in use); no.Wikt puts its Norwegian entries under one header and uses tags on the headword line and in inflection tables to label forms as Bokmål/Riksmål/Nynorsk/non-standard, as in no:bar and no:alkohol.
  • Rationale: For the vote creator's rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support —CodeCat 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --WikiTiki89 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I strongly believe that technically it's possible and there are various ways to achieve it without any loss of information or great efforts. Considering that our main Norwegian editors oppose this change, I think this vote should not be binding but we should, at least allow Norwegian entries and translations to work without being assigned to one or the other variety (e.g. currently, you can't add a translation using "no" as the language code). Editors' opinion, those who actually know Norwegian and work with it, should definitely be taken into account. I support but not any cost. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    If it's not binding, then why even have a vote? We need an agreement, the current situation is not workable. —CodeCat 04:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    It's problematic but I don't think it's absolutely not workable, like it's possible to have up to eight versions of Serbo-Croatian (+Ekavian, Ijekavian) or catering just for one variety of Chinese or Arabic at a time, as we have been doing. What are we going to do if Donnanz and Njardarlogar refuse to work with ==Norwegian==, who seem to be quite emotional about it? Who will work with Norwegian? As for the word "binding", it's just my opinion. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support as proposed. bd2412 T 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. I support unification, by the way, if that wasn't clear. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you want to be counted in a vote, even if you are the vote creator, you have to place "support". Kindergarten? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    That was uncalled for. —CodeCat 13:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    It is entirely possible that an editor could be neutral on an issue, but could helpfully craft a proposal to summarizing discussion points on somethign that other editors think needs to be done. Therefore, it makes sense (and hurts nothing) for the vote creator to indicate their support for a proposal. bd2412 T 19:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dan Polansky (talk). This appears doable and worthwhile; I see no insurmountable obstacles. Google translate and Bing translate only have "Norwegian". There appears to be a large lemma overlap. The difference of afrikanar vs. afrikaner seems like color vs. colour. balalaika#Norwegian gives an example of a noun inflection table covering both varieties. absolvere#Norwegian gives an example of two verb inflection tables covering the varieties, although I think one would suffice, with a column per variety, given there are only 7 to 8 forms per variety listed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Donnanz (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose trusting my Norwegian colleagues here, though my own impression has also been that unification is infeasible in this case. -- Liliana • 14:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Even Thorbergsen (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Even though they constitute one language, Bokmål and Nynorsk are two different written standards of the same language. The cleanest way to deal with this is to treat them as two different languages, since the standards are different for each language. However, I'm indifferent as to whether this should be done with a third-level heading with subheadings (==Norwegian==, ===Bokmål=== and ===Nynorsk===) or with second-level headings (==Norwegian Bokmål== and ==Norwegian Nynorsk==). But they should definitely be separated. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Even though they constitute the same language, there is too much work and too great chance to make the difference unclear treating bokmål and nynorsk as the same language. As seperate languages, the main problem is rewriting almost the same information twice; as the same language, you have to make it clear for every bit of information what goes for which whenever there is a difference, and there is a great chance that there might be different ways of doing this causing misunderstandings and possibly mistakes. Mewasul (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    Oppose meco (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Indenting this because the vote closed months ago. - -sche (discuss) 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain: I'm not a speaker or reader of Norwegian of any variety. The Talk page makes this sound to me like a description of two distinct dialects, particularly as relating to inflection, and this stands in opposition to the description on ] that uses the phrase two official forms of written Norwegian, which sounds to me like a set of rules describing spelling conventions, word choice, and other stylistic issues that are more minor than full-on dialectal differences.
    That said, I have no lines in this play, as it were. Purely on technical grounds, I can see good arguments for going either way, and workable solutions to the various issues raised by taking either path. I therefore bow out of further discussion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Abstain Should be decided only by knowledgeable users. --Vahag (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Abstain My hunch is that the language codes should be unified, but my understanding is too superficial to seriously weigh in. —Pengo (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Abstain Probably a good idea, but I don't know enough about Norwegian to be 100% sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Abstain I am happy either way. --Teodor (d • c) 14:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Abstain I don't know enough about Norwegian to make a decision here. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Decision

  • Fails 6–6–6 (50%).​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    I believe that's what we call "no consensus". - -sche (discuss) 03:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's still status quo, right? What's the next step? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    Right. This vote would have regulated Norwegian in one of several possible ways, but it did not pass, so the status quo prevails — Norwegian is unregulated, editors can create entries with whatever L2 headers they like. One possible next move would be to try to regulate Norwegian in the other obvious way, i.e. have a vote to ban ==Norwegian== and allow only ==Bokmal== and ==Nynorsk== (or at least to formalize the split of ==Bokmal== and ==Nynorsk==). However, given that this vote tied and that support in the BP was overwhelmingly for unification, it seems likely that any vote like that would also reach no consensus (=tie, like this vote) or even fail outright (=have more opposition than support). It seems, in other words, that things will continue to be unregulated for the foreseeable future. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia