Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Norway (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Find sources?[edit]

Someone recently created the page Fredrik Skogsrud and it's nominated for deletion as a BLP without any sources. So far I can't find anything that really shows that he's notable enough for an entry. I found an article in a smallish newspaper, but so far nothing else. Anyone want to see if they can find anything? The article asserts that he's known for one show, but I don't speak/read Norwegian and I can't tell exactly how notable his role was within the show. I get the impression it's a minor character, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading the Norwegian Bokmål article about the TV series "Costa del Kongsvik": it's a comical 10-part series that started 4 March this year; it's a follow-up to two earlier series and again all the main characters are played by the same woman. The 30-minute short film "Leo" hasn't premiered yet; here's a 30-second teaser for it. Fredrik himself doesn't have an article in either of the Norwegian language Wikipedias. His resume is here.
Without good arguments, I can't see that he is notable! --Hordaland (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's kind of what I was assuming, but I wanted to double check just in case. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Denmark & Norway sections in Allies of World War II need expansion[edit]

More detailed information about Denmark and Norway as Allied nations is missing, at Allies of World War II#Denmark and Allies of World War II#Norway. All help in fleshing out these (and other sections in the article as well) much appreciated! walk victor falk talk 16:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR & EngvarB (US or British English?)[edit]

Has it ever been discussed here (and consensus found) on whether Norway articles ought to use US or British English? It might be advantageous to determine that at the Project level, or at least to involve more people in the discussion. It would be nice to avoid argument about this in future. The matter is being discussed/argued at the article Norway, not on the Talk page but in these edit summaries:

  • spelling per WP:ENGVAR by script
  • rv per WP:ENGVAR: no consensus obtained for change
  • rv anti-ENGVAR reversion; no consensus to NOT use British/global spelling re Norwegian articles; UK English is the model most Norwegians learn/use; imposing US spellings there is not called for, nor has there been any consensus to mandate THAT
  • rv: please read WP:ENGVAR - it is crystal clear that there is no legitimate reason to change the English variant in an article without strong national ties to the topic. Norway is not British, so this stays at the original variant
  • ...reply: WHAT "original variant". go back in teh history; -ised was there for a long time until -ized....and "aging" just looks weird (I'm Canadian btw); strong national ties can mean "type of English used"

I understand the argument for British English; that variant has been taught in Norwegian schools for a very long time and Britain is one of Norway's nearest neighbours. However, WP:ENGVAR says to decide this matter by consensus for each article, so deciding it for a whole Project may be considered to be against the rules. ENGVAR also specifies how to act if consensus is not reached. I'd rather see a 2014 consensus.

Regarding the article "Norway", I took a look at the last version in 2001. There I found both "organized" (USA) and "defences" (Brit.), so the matter was not settled then.

What do you think? --Hordaland (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the spelling used in Norwegian dictionaries? Sweden is another country where British English and received pronunciation has always been the version taught in schools, and the Swedish-English and English-Swedish dictionaries in my bookcase, from publishing company Esselte and quite possibly the most widely used dictionaries of their sort, use Oxford spelling, which combines -ize with forms such as "colour". It may well be the same for Norwegian dictionaries. --Hegvald (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This can be tricky, because Norwegian contributors, perhaps even all contributors with English as a non-native language, might not be very concious about British versus American English. We Norwegians are taught British English, but are thereafter exposed mostly to American English (although perhaps not so much in writing, as though television, movies and music). I write a mix myself, and would write exactly like the examples from 2001. What Norwegians are taught might have little in common with what Norwegians do. Those exposed to lots of American litterature, will most likely write closer to that, than the British English they were once taught. Futhermore, I don't quite buy it that articles about Norway must be written in British English because that's what Norwegians are taught in school. The article might just as well have been written by someone who's as American English as can be. But it's interesting as a Norwegian speaker to see that British versus American English can cause friction as well, although I don't think bokmål versus nynorsk ever went as far as to dictate that some articles about places in Norway must be in one or the other depending on what is used at that particular location, before the two were split into separate wikipedias. (Not that the spelling issues in Norwegian wikipedias ended with that.) I like the idea of just letting the one writing the main bulk of the article decide, but as is sometimes the case within Norwegian as well, that person might not be consistent with himself, like myself. One might then just have to "find some scales" and see which side the article leans to the most. Ters (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... It's been a few years now, but the learning material we used in school were all using British English, except on a few pages where it was bringing up U.S. politics and society and stuff and thus switching writing style and pointing out differences between the two. The paper English-Norwegian dictionaries are using British English, and for a few (common) words (like colour/color) the U.S. spelling variants redirects you to look up the word with the British spelling. For words with -ize/-ise the -ise version simply doesn't exist. The Norwegian-English dictionary has the British spelling variant first and may sometimes point out the U.S. spelling variant. The English-English dictionary we were allowed to use on the tests/exam have all the keywords in British English, but does point out when there are U.S. spelling variants. Online dictionaries is a completely different story...
But as user Ters said; with increasing amount of U.S. tv-series and films shown here, the influence of internet, the increasing accept for playing computer games and some popular English books also being available in almost every bookstore before the Norwegian translated versions (for example Harry Potter to mention one - which depending on the bookstore was selling either the U.K. version or the U.S. version) it becomes increasingly muddy how each person ends up writing - without thinking on it. But that said, on the tests/exams in school you would get red pen marks if you used anything but British spelling (at least by my teacher). Can't be bothered to look up the current official learning plans and regulations for English classes, but don't think too much have changed. If a bot ot someone really were to go through the articles and correct non-consistent spelling my personal opinion would be to go for British English because of how we learn it in school (but often forget and mix), the way dictionaries are listed, how the official English version of many public institutions/offices/agencies/titles are, and the much closer ties Norway has to the U.K. over the U.S. through history. --Hekseuret (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't make so big a deal of it, if not for the edits I see in articles (not just Norway-related) where the only change is honour to honor or neighborhood to neighbourhood. The edit summary sometimes even says "corrected spelling". Irritates me no end. --Hordaland (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
We learn British English in school and US English from television series and music. A people of many proletarians, Norwegians are, nevertheless, uncomfortable with received pronunciation, which they consider formal and a tad arrogant. Link Norwegians have a rather stereotypical understanding of the UK (more specifically England) and the US. The UK = Queen Elizabeth. The US = everyone wears t-shirts.
I am not sure whether it has ever been decreed somewhere, but Britain's English has been the officially preferred variant for over 1,000 years. Having studied English as an international language (a half year only), I am familiar with the several reasons for the expansion of US English in the late 20th century. The question is whether increasing popular use in Norway during the latest 20-30 years is sufficient for changing Norway's long-time established preference from British English to US English. Let me problematise it further: Norwegians (including myself) do not speak or write pure US English or pure British English, but usually a mix. One cannot claim that Norwegians have deliberately preferred US English, a variant they are not capable of identifying and mastering adequately.
The United States of America is an important friend and ally of Norway. However, Norway and Britain have unique cultural, historical, and political ties through over 1,000 years, and my opinion is that this should be reflected in the language of the Norway article. US English might be considered correct in 50 years from now, but in 2014, presenting Norway in US English would be too radical, the way I consider it. No More 18 (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Prostitution in Norway[edit]

More eyes are needed on Prostitution in Norway. I mentioned a few concerns here: Talk:Prostitution in Norway#Biased article, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Norway articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ministry of the Environment / Ministry of Climate and Environment[edit]

The Ministry of the Environment (Norway) (Miljøverndepartementet) is now the Ministry of Climate and Environment (Klima- og miljødepartementet) as of Jan. 1, 2014. This may warrant some attention. Prburley (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but it seems that also other aspects of the restructuring of ministries after the change of government in 2013 are not yet reflected in the articles, or just barely mentioned. Unfortunately, I don't know how to write about politics in English. Ters (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Find sources?[edit]

Someone created the page Bjelleklang and it's nominated for deletion as a BLP without any sources. So far I can't find anything that really shows that he's notable enough for an entry. therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines .Samat lib (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"BLP"? "he"? It's not a living person, it's a group. And a well-known one in Norway, at least in the 30+ demographics, although their peak popularity might have been before the web really took off. Ters (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Landsmål[edit]

Anyone remember what was in the article 'Landsmål'? There was one, but it's been changed into a redirect to Nynorsk. --Hordaland (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember, having never seen the article before, but Wikipedia itself remembers: Ters (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I had heard that Wikipedia remembers everything. Apparently that means everything.
  • Landsmål, meaning "language of the land/country", was the name Ivar Aasen gave the Norwegian orthography he created in the 19th century. In 1885 it was adopted as an official language in Norway alongside Danish. In 1929, Landsmål was renamed Nynorsk. The name Landsmål is sometimes erroneously interpreted as meaning rural language or country language, due to the Norwegian use of the word "land" in the meaning "countryside, rural area".
  • Before the advent of Landsmål, there was no written standard for Norwegian language, though written Danish, which was the commonly written language in Norway and generally intelligible by Norwegians, was sometimes referred to as Norwegian. Currently, the most widely written language in Norway is Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian), a Norwegianised descendant of the Danish language.
--Hordaland (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are normal pages that simply redirect. To get to the page without being redirected, the easiest way is probably to go to the page and get redirected, then click on the small link saying "redirected from". You can then view the history, and even the talk page, as normal. This only works when a page was simply made into a redirect. It doesn't work if a page was deleted, and then a redirect was made in its place later. (Even then, Wikipedia remembers, but only superusers can see the deleted page history, if I remember correctly.) Ters (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your good help! --Hordaland (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A current police investigation: the Monica Case[edit]

One of the other wikipedias is having problems with the following topic: the powers that be, are not allowing text about the number of whistleblowers in the case and the number of police officers under investigation by the national police internal affairs investigators, in the Monica police investigation. (4 people of each category so far.) Other details about the case: an 8 year old allegedly committed suicide, the police investigation was laid to rest, a whistleblower on the police force results in renewed investigation, one suspect arrested (for the original crime) and a police chief stepping aside after the National Prosecutor chewed his hide. Involved in the case on the other wikipedia, and blocking contributors of the article, is an administrator who previously removed text and citation about local nationals being involved in a local massacre during World War Two. Is the topic of the Monica Case notable? --My banana-(and oil) republic inxs (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)