Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway: edit · history · watch · refresh

Most to-do tasks are mentioned in italics on the main page.

  • Rename from "center" to "village"
  • Rename from "landscape" to "district"
  • Create infobox for national parks, consistent with the one for Rondane
  • Add all major mountain ranges
  • Assign municipalities to identified landscapes
  • Add missing coats of arms for municipalities.
  • Add maps for all municipalities. Not required, someone is doing that already, and we only need to add the maps as they get available! See task below.
  • Ongoing: Unify coats-of-arms for counties.
  • Use county coats-of-arms from the commons, also in template.
  • Put old county arms on ifd. Remaining: akershus_banner.gif Aa-fylkesvaapen.png Finnmark_coa.png Hedmark_coa.gif Hordaland_coa.gif Møre_or_Romsdal_coa.png Nordland_coa.gif Nord-Trøndelag_coa.gif Ostfold_coat.jpg Sogn_og_Fjordane_coa.png Sør-Trøndelag coa.gif Telemark-fylkeskommune.gif Troms_coa.gif
  • Put old municipality arms on ifd.
  • Translate all Storting election results and delegates from no.wikipedia. For example, see Stortinget 2005-2009
  • Write articles on (and list of?) Norwegian architects

Tasks for Nobot:

  • Add UNESCO geocodes.
  • Hook up unified names for municipality coats-of-arms.
  • Add 70px tag in boxes for COA reference
  • Add official language form for all municipalities.
  • Add mayors and their party for all municipalities.
  • Add capitals for all municipalities.
  • Add information from SSB in municipality infoboxes.
  • Add information from SSB in county infoboxes.
  • Add infoboxes for all municipalities.
  • Add categories for towns and cities.
  • Add geographic coordinates for municipalities.
  • Make sure all the articles on Norwegian writers are good articles.

Contents

[edit] A bot

A bot could come in handy, so I've requested permission to use one at
Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_for_maintaining_Municipalities_and_Counties_of_Norway. -- Egil 14:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you plan to use this page? -- Samuelsen 09:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Haven't really made that detailed plans, but that seems like a good place to start! As long as the ID number is in place, there may be other info that can be found elsewhere that is also suitable for a 'bot. -- Egil 16:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] County article format

A couple of suggestions:

  1. That we enter a oneline blurb for each municipality listed; a nice enticement for the reader to learn more about the municipalities. See Møre og Romsdal for an example. (I leave it to the reader to figure out what "landscape" in M&R I hail from). :-)
  2. Correspondingly, I would like the county map to be placed so as to avoid horizontal crowding ("competing with the blurbs mentioned above), but I must admit I don't see quite how this might be done...
  3. If we're not able to resolve the problem with the horizontal crowding, or until then, perhaps the map could be made part of the county box? Might that be aestetically pleasing?

Finally, thanks to everyone involved, Egil first of all I guess, for putting in the work made so far "for King & Country" and The Quest to let People all over the World be Enlightened about the Kingdom of Norway. :-) --Wernher 07:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watching the Demographics section

Hi, sorry I haven't been very active after I put my name on the list of contributors... Anyway, I am concerned that the Demographics section of the Norway article is becoming a battleground. Since I've been editing the section myself and may be biased, I'll try to stay away from it, but I would like to ask your help to watch this section independently and intervene if necessary. Thank you, and I hope this wasn't totally the wrong place for this. --Eddi (Talk) 15:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


(Seems like I'm crossing my path here...) As the article on Demographics of Norway was tagged with {{cleanup-date}} I made an attempt to clean it up. The article history seems rather peaceful and it may not be many editor's watchlists, so it would be great if you pay it a visit. Thanks. --Eddi (Talk) 00:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tettsteder = "communities?"

User:Egil pointed out in an article that we need a better category for "tettsteder," i.e., residential and commercial clusters that fall short of being towns. These range from small rural areas, such as Moelv to centers in suburban areas such as Sandvika. There should ideally be a box for this, too, to indicate what municipality they're in.

If we can make it broad enough, perhaps we can also include places that both are "tettsteder" and names of municipalities (e.g., Ringsaker. --Leifern 15:55, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

SSB uses "urban settlements" for "tettsteder". [1] Samuelsen 09:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Funny, I was going to suggest "rural settlements" - the term is ambiguous, since it isn't clear whether "urban" refers to the settlement or the area around.--Leifern 22:36, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Sorry, but Category:Centers in Norway does not work for me at all. Labelling Sagesund as a Center is really totally out of whack, so a better term is needed. -- Egil 14:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that much about Sagesund :-), and I'm not crazy about the term either, but "urban settlement" is problematic as well. I'll try to do some research and get back to it. In the meantime, we'll avoid categorizing more places, OK? --Leifern 14:37, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

OK, here's what I'm found out:

From online dictionary:

Usage: In England, a hamlet denotes a collection of houses, too small to have a parish church. A village has a church, but no market. A town has both a market and a church or churches. A city is, in the legal sense, an incorporated borough town, which is, or has been, the place of a bishop's see. In the United States these distinctions do not hold.

Further:

2. Any number or collection of houses to which belongs a regular market, and which is not a city or the see of a bishop. [Eng.] --Johnson. [1913 Webster]
3. Any collection of houses larger than a village, and not incorporated as a city; also, loosely, any large, closely populated place, whether incorporated or not, in distinction from the country, or from rural communities. [1913 Webster]

It appears to me that town is in fact the right term, since most "tettsteder" probably have both a church and a market. This raises the issue about our current definition of "town" which is something more than a "tettsted" but not quite as much as a "city."

It also appears to me that a city requires a charter as such; whereas a town is simply a densely populated area that is self-contained through the existence of a market, church or equivalent, and some level of administration. I lived in the town of Ocean Falls that had all these things, though it wasn't incorporated in a regular sense.

So my vote is that we designate all those places calling themselves a "by" in Norwegian a city, and all tettsteder a "town." --Leifern 14:55, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

That is interesting, and could certainly work. In my mind it may strech the city a bit, because I've always learned that a city is a town with a cathedral. (Which, based on that definition, means that the city is already stretched...). So in my mind there are two choices:

A. City/town/village (like now, but rename centre).

B. City for anything by, town for tettsted.

When we make a decision, tell me, and I can make the bot do the changes. (So no need to stop categorizing, the bot can rename quickly enough). -- Egil 23:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Any suggestions on how to translate Olav Digre (Olav den hellige]]? Olaf the Fat is just not right. Fornadan 21:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"the Huge," "the Large," etc. If it works, maybe even "the Great." "The Fat" might actually work - these appelations aren't necessarily flattering (the Terrible, the Impaler).
I would suggest Olaf the Stout. Columbia Encyclopedia uses this, as well as Olaf the Fat. "the Great" certainly has a wholy different meaning in this context, and is not suitable. -- Egil 01:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Bergstad," e.g., Kongsberg and Røros

Should we set up a separate category for the distinct status of "bergstad?" This appears to be more of a historical (related to mining) than other distinction, but may be more meaningful and interesting than the distinction we've made between "city" and "town."

There are only two, and Kongsberg is also a city, so maybe not. Why not list Røros under the town category, and add a special note here and there about its special status.
Wrt. city/town, that was a mere suggestion for a division. City would certainly not work for Geiranger, and I'd say town isn't right for Oslo. I've seen a distinction being made at 100,000 inhabitants, but that would leave only 4 cities. -- Egil 13:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS: Talking of categories, is "Center" a suitable form?
I went through all of them and labelled the pre-1996 places "cities" and the other ones "towns." We may run into trouble as some of the "towns" get pretty big, but we'll have to deal with that later. From what I understand, these towns don't necessarily have borders, since everything is administered at the municipality level. It might be possible to do something by postal code, but that wouldn't be practical.--Leifern 14:42, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
See Tettsteder. Folkemengde og areal, etter kommune. 1. januar 2005 (SSB). Punkmorten 18:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Målvedtak

Forskrift om målvedtak i kommunar og fylkeskommunar. Is this information we can use? If so, what is a good English translation of "målvedtak"? Samuelsen 10:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It still lists Borre as a municipality. Oh well, the Nobot has begun working updating the infoboxes. Some suggestions: "Official language form" or "Language form" -- Egil 13:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coats of arms

I actually found a website with all the coats of arms.

[2]

They're in .gif format rather than .png. I can either convert all of them to png and name them in compliance with the naming convention that the bot put up, or we can upload them and change the entry in the table. In either case, I'll download all the images (which will take a while) and check back here for points of view. --Leifern 15:49, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

This seems to be the Dutch collection from http://www.ngw.nl/, which has a catalog copyright. I think that at least according to Norwegian copyright law, just downloading the entire collection may be questionable. It is better to find an official source. -- Egil 16:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS: See also http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia-diskusjon:Kommuneformat (in Norwegian)
PPS: It is definitely possible to ask for permission, then we are certain there is no problem. I can always automate any conversion (i.e. rescaling) and uploading of images - no need to do this manually.
As far as I understand, each municipality maintains copyright for the coat of arms. We're invoking fair use because coats of arms, flags, etc., represent the entity and is fair game. I don't think that a person who publishes the coats on the internet has copyright for the actual COAs, although he does for all the accompanying text. --Leifern 15:58, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
The person certainly does not have copyright for the arms. There are no copyright for these, other rules apply. But he may have copyright on the entire collection as a collection/catalogue. This may mean that systematically copying everything is questionable. -- Egil 16:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A further point: The arms need to be on a trasparent background, to work with non-white backgrounds. -- Egil 07:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I am in the process of retrieving the various coats of arms, converting them to png format with the required transparency, and giving the files names that are consistent with the standard. This will probably take most of the week. I am not resizing the original files to 70px; I would propose that Egil's handy-dandy, trusty-rusty bot change the reference instead (i.e., indicate 70px within the brackets). --Leifern 12:27, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
No problem. I have now asked Ralf Hartemink for permission (of http://www.ngw.nl/) for permission, and he said "Sure, no problem". Mention the source on the image page, saying "With permission".
Wrt to fetching the coats of arms, I can see if I can manage to do something automatically. Just give me a day or two! -- Egil 16:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geocodes / UN/LOCODE

Hi Egil, thanks for your note. I think redirects in the form of ISO 3166-2:NO-10 to the counties would be nice, but maybe are not allowed. One thing that maybe is less problematic is UN/LOCODE. In the US we made city redirects like UN/LOCODE:USLAX pointing to Los Angeles. How about doing this for NO-cities? Tobias Conradi 08:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why would ISO 3166 redirect not be allowed. We are using them all the time. I will have a look at the UN codes too, although they are not commonly used afaik. -- Egil 09:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

We now have the new blueish county and municipality navigation bars, which is more in style with rest of Wikipedia. Which really means we have to change the infoboxes, to make them more in style. Thin out the lines, add a background colour. I'll make an attempt.

There are also a number of new fields, and I'm not necessarily happy with all the texts. "Percentage", what does that say? "Official language form", should that be "Official language(s)". Etc. -- Egil 23:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have drafted a template for national parks - please review, modify, etc., before I run with it: Template:Infobox national park --Leifern 19:35, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
One caveat: If you want a click-through to the maps page for the coordinates (which I think is cool!), then you do infact need to specify degrees and lat/lon as seperate arguments, just like the way it is done for infobox_kommune. (The reason for that is that at least currently one cannot have templates as template arguments). I will change this - revert if you hate it. -- Egil 23:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, I like it! Thanks! --Leifern 01:23, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

[edit] Norway-bio-stub

I hope nobody minds, but I have classed a lot of articles as Norway-bio-stub, which means that that category is now quite large (there were previously only 23 stubs actually in it). I really wanted to see how many national bio-stubs a relatively small country like Norway would actually have, since there is currently discussion about the need for more {[country]-bio-stub} categories, and it also let me reclassify some of the stubs away from {stub} and {bio-stub} which are currently overpopulated. I really hope that I haven't trod on anybody's toes! --VivaEmilyDavies 19:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary! (That said, not all one-paragraph biographies are IMHO stubs. Stub-ness is always relative to the subject at hand). -- Egil 20:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree! Although if somebody makes an article and thinks that it is a "perfect stub" i.e. doesn't need stub-tagging, then it would be helpful if they indicated that in the talk page. Most of the articles that I tagged looked like bona fide stubs (I was certain that much more could be added to them) but a few may well have been "perfect stubs". Not being an expert on Norway I can't tell which are as long as they need to be, though! --VivaEmilyDavies 22:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palaces in Norway

Now that sounds grand Fornadan 18:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pivotal years in Norwegian history

I have written initial drafts for two articles:

Given the anniversary of Norway's independence, my goal is to make these, and other articles, as complete, accurate, and readable as possible. So please feel free to read, edit, correct, etc.

I'm also hoping to expand and clean up articles on:

... and others - suggestions? --Leifern 10:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the article about Wedel-Jarlsberg? Punkmorten 09:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Medieval Norway

Anyone know if there exist a map showing the medieval borders any where? I desperately need it one for Sverre I of Norway. There is probably dozens of other articles which could need such a map also, but my graphical ability is close to nil Fornadan 14:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could any of these be useful [3]? Frodet 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
One might want to be a little cautious in using the maps referenced above. They appear to claim control of territory that is at best unclaimed by anyone at that date, and at worst clearly the territory of others. As one example, the 1220 map shows Swedish territory up to the Glomma in Hedmark - I do not recall any source which supports such an assertion.
Actually that border seems to be about right, just a little rough. Of course drawing a sharp line is not possible since the border area was largely unpopulated. Fornadan (t) 18:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Sawyer's maps, probably as credible as any, only label general areas and leave out specific boundaries (Medieval Scandinavia, by Bridget and Peter Sawyer, University of Minnesota Press, 1993.) Similarly for Jones (A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones, Oxford, revised edition - 1984).
That approach makes a great deal of sense; Moberg points out that it was a 10 day trip through thick unsettled forest wilderness between Östergötland & Västergötland (Min Svenska Historia II, by Vilhelm Moberg, P.A. Nordstedt & Söners Förlag, 1971), that as an example King Sverker lost his way and was almost lost altogether. Hence the importance of the sea as a route of commerce and communication. One might conclude that claiming to know territorial boundaries in the early medieval period is probably specious at best.
Gjerset's maps don't even attempt boundaries in that early a period (History of the Norwegian People by Knut Gjerset, The MacMillan Company, 1915, Volumes I & II).
This approach is also supported by Bache, who only provides maps of local areas and makes no attempt to define larger territories (Nordens Historie, ved Hiels Bache, Forslagsbureauet i Kjøbenhavn, 1884).
Sorry – that’s not much help. But I suspect you’ve taken on a difficult task. Williamborg 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiportal?

Should we set up a Wikiportal for Norway? --Leifern 16:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a portal for Scandinavia or the Nordic countries or something like that? Samuelsen 17:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
It's allready existing - Portal:Norway. I've done a little but I'd really like some help from you. Ehjort 18:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Norwegian Prime Ministers

I know it's on the to-do-list, but the page itself needs extra attention right now, as it contains erroneous information. We intend to fix that, don't we? See its talk page or the actual article. Punkmorten 00:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to external sources

Had a talk with Lars Wenaas at ABM-UTVIKLING and he confirmed that Wikipedia could link to the map services of Kulturnett.no For an example check out Vågå and the link in the External links section. Agtfjott 13:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Got a request for speedy deletion of pages related to this by RasputinAXP. I have sendt a query asking why. Agtfjott 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of establishing contact with ABM-UTVIKLING about use of more of their info. One question which is open for the moment is if we could use photos from their image database.

If anyone needs contact info they can call ABM-UTVIKLING on 23117500 and ask for Lars Wenaas.

Agtfjott 14:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Naming Conventions (copied from User talk:Picapica to share the discussion)

Reverted you edit of Nidelva to River Nid, following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway guidance. This guidance has an excellent basis. Attempts to Anglicize Norwegian names result in multiple variants and confusion. One of my favorites is Vågå, which is rendered in various English language texts as Vaagaa, Vaaga, Vaga, Waga and Waage. Probably better just to stick with Vågå. Williamborg 22:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You say that you "reverted" my edit of Nidelva to River Nid, W.: by this, I take it you mean that you changed "River Nid" back to "Nidelva" (it was the text that reverted, underwent reversion). The guidance you mention may have the excellent basis you claim for it: one thing it does not have, however, is any mention of Norwegian river names (read it and see). Guidance is, in any case, just that: guidance, and not law.
I do not see how the translation into English of Norwegian common nouns and definite articles amounts to attempted Anglicization. The name of the river is Nid. "Nidelvan" means "the River Nid". This is no different from, say, "el río Ebro" = "the River Ebro"; the name of the river is "Ebro", and no-one would dream of saying "the River el río Ebro". This is the English-language Wikipedia and "River Nid" (or, American English: "Nid River") are the well established English-language forms.
As for your various renderings of Vågå, the convention of employing the most commonly used English-language form clearly indicates Vågå. Aa for å is usually historical and/or telegraphese (cf. Zuerich for Zürich). A for å is usually ignorance of the aa alternative where the typesetter does not have the å character available. The last two look like borrowings from Polish/German. -- Picapica 14:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree that the Norwegian naming conventions are light in that area. I've drafted a few thoughts. Suggest we continue this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway and have copied this discussion there. Looking forward to learning in discusion with you and developing a better Wikipedia. Williamborg 14:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that the translation into English of Norwegian common nouns and definite articles certainly appears to me to be attempted Anglicization. In the past it has resulted in problems; let me elaborate.

The problem with these types of translation is that translation/transliteration is done in a highly variable fashion. Books published in English illustrate this magnificently. Using the example of your change for Niderelva to river Nid, I pulled a set of current English language guidebooks and looked up the river which runs through Trondheim.

  • Baedeker's uses Nidelv,
  • Lonely Planet uses Nid River,
  • Nelles Guide uses Nidelva,
  • Frommer’s uses Niderelven, &
  • Adventure Roads uses Nidelva.

In published English language textbooks:

  • Gjerset's history uses Nidelva,
  • Larson's history uses River Nid,
  • Stagg's uses Nidelva, and
  • Gutkind's “Urban Development in The Alpine & Scandinavian Countries" uses Nidelven.
  • The geography texts by Somme and by Fullerton, ignore this river totally.

Although it will take time to do further research, this illustrates the ambiguity of materials published in English. Given lack of a commonly accepted authority, I am reluctant jump to one individual's position without reasoned discussion by the community of folks contributing to this area and evaluation.

Although I agree that guidelines are voluntary within Wikipedia, consensus guidelines serve and important role in maintaining a logical and linkable structure. Looking forward to further discussion so we can arrive at a reasonable solution.

Williamborg 17:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

the translation into English of Norwegian common nouns and definite articles certainly appears to me to be attempted Anglicization.
The point is that the attempt is successful -- as succesful, and as justified, as Englishing "yr Afon Hafren" as "the River Severn". Most uses of the likes of "Nidelva" and "Nidelven" in English are the result of ignorance: of the fact that "elv" means "river", and of the phenomenon of suffixation of definite articles in Norwegian.
Curiously, no.wikipedia begins its article on the River Trent with just "Trent" (though "elven Trent" is to be found elsewhere, and "elva Trent" in nn:). -- Picapica 19:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I can but only essentially repeat my previous answer, be it spiffy or not:
English hybrid names for places in Norway have been tried before, and it ended up in total chaos. We have discussed this, and reached a conclusion. Which works pretty well IMHO. The "River Nams" is a paper construction, alien, and confusing. The river is certainly not called "Nams" in Norwegian nor any language I know - nobody would know what you meant. What map would you find this on? You need to be fluent in English and Norwegian to understand the connection, and make sense.
Namings need to be consistent, and even though the hybrid sometimes might look like they work. Let my give you some examples:
Gudbrandsdal, should that be Valley of Gudbrand?
Gudbrandsdalslågen, should that be River Gudbrandsdal or should it be River of the Valley of Gudbrand?
Nordfjord, should that be the Nord Fjord, or perhaps North Fjord?
Ålesund, should that be Sound of Åle or indeed Sound of Eels?
Glomma, should that be River Glomm (same concept as Namsen → River Nams)?
Nidelv, should that be River Nid?
I believe the current convention works pretty well. Copenhagen is obviously used (had to go to Denmark for that one), since that is a completely established name. For instance Oslo Fjord is also reasonably established in English, and could be used instead of Oslofjord, but it may be argued that it is a fringe case.
The same convention is used for most other countries too, although not 100% consistently in all cases (and IMHO that consistency should be improved). See for instance Category:Rivers_of_Iceland Category:Rivers_of_Sweden Category:Rivers_of_Denmark Category:German_rivers etc.
Wrt the "River Nid" and "River Gudbrandsdal", they are alien and artificial constructs that only persons reasonably fluent in English as well as Norwegian could perhaps make sense and use of (although with most of the examples given above, I doubt it). And that is only a very slight percentage of the Wikipedia readship. And finally, for consistency, the same policy should apply for all countries. -- Egil 23:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
"Sniffy", not "spiffy" (though I don't what the latter means!). In what way, precisely, is it a requirement for one to be "reasonably fluent in English as well as Norwegian" in order to understand what is being referred to at the following sites (to cite but a few)? -
[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
Picapica 10:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The phenomenon of suffixation of definite articles in Norwegian isn't really interesting in this respect when the word i question forms a name, and steaming of this into some new artificial name isn't recognized by anyone. Nordfjord is a single name, Namsen is a name, Nidelva is a name. And it isn't Gudbrandsdalselva, it is Gudbrandsdalslågen which says something about the river to, aka it is a large river. It is the same with Nummedalslågen. You might add an attempted translation in the article if you belive that would make the article better, but don't claim The River Nams or The River Nid to be something in common use.
Avery good site to use for such questions are http://www.visitnorway.com/ which is an official tourist site for Norway. They are fairly consistent on how to use the names. Avery good example is problem of Nidelven, which they name The Nidelven River [9]. This clearly depict the problem for a foreigner, Nidelven is a name of a river in Norway.
Agtfjott 11:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, so its English is better than my Norwegian, but http://www.visitnorway.com/ should hardly, in my view, be taken as a model of good English-language usage. Even leaving aside the fact that it cannot decide what variety of English to use (it talks, for instance, about the price of petrol at gas stations), it has English-language usage mistakes on almost every page. And – I repeat – this is the English-language Wikipedia.
What I am against is precisely what that site, whether through ignorance or design, does: namely, produce such tautologies as the Nidelven River. English-speakers do not say "the River der Fluss Elbe" or "the River il fiume Po". As Egil says, above, "the same policy should apply for all countries".
By all means include "Nidelven", as the Norwegian name, in the article. That is an important piece of information. But in English, let us refer to EITHER "Nidelven", OR "the Nidelv", OR "the River Nid" – but NOT to the River Nidelven / the Nidelven River. I am equally opposed to the likes of "Mont Blanc mountain" and "the Meseta tableland". "The Nidelva (Norwegian: Nidelven) is a river", "Mont Blanc is a mountain" – fair enough – but not "Lake Bodensee", please.
>>The phenomenon of suffixation of definite articles in Norwegian isn't really interesting in this respect when the word i question forms a name, and steaming of this into some new artificial name isn't recognized by anyone.<<
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "steaming" (a type of cooking?). But, again, I feel that you are talking about Norwegian here, not English. The fact is that river names in English are accompanied by the definite article. It makes no more sense to repeat it in a foreign language in the case of river names than it would to call the Norwegian Parliament "the Stortinget", the Spanish Parliament "the las Cortes" or the Romanian Parliament "the Parlamentul". And how are the many hundreds of Google hits for River+Nid+Trondheim to be explained in the light of your claim that "River Nid" is an artificial name not recognized by anyone? -- Picapica 17:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
PS: It is taking FOR EVER to do anything on the en:Wikipedia at present. Is it just me being hyper-cynical, or has anyone else noticed that this kind of major slow-down immediately following the successful conclusion of one of Wp's great money-raising appeals seems to be becoming a pattern? :-( Picapica 17:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO we should use either "the River Nid" or "the Nidelv". I'd prefer the latter mainly because it's the easiest solution. Fornadan (t) 18:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I used technical lingo witout explanation. Steaming is how to rewrite a word into its components in technical systems.
My point is that some of the composite words, err, definite articles with the suffix, *is* the name now. The river Nid is a constructed name in english to try to translate the name, although it has no counterpart in Norwegian. Here we do say "the river Nidelva". The merging of several such names happen a long time ago (medieval times) and isn't just for rivers. Other examples are -hus (house), -by (city), -land (township), -fjord, Øy- (desoluted), -heim (home, but also mountains), -gard (farm, but also used for coastline), -lågen (large river, slow river), -dal (valley), -os (start or endpoint of a river or stream), -sund (?) ... Not quite sure if all of the translations are accurate! :)
If you should be consistent in rewriting the names you would have to invent new names for such places as Trondheim, Namsos, Ålesund, Mandal, the list goes on and on, even Oslo which would translate as the plain within the hills.
I think this isn't special for norwegian names but holds for a lot of names in other languages.
The closest approximation I guess is usable is to use the Norwegian name as is and make redirects on the most likely alternate names, then in the article head try to translate the name but show clearly that this is infact a translation. Something like
Oslo (Áslo – the plain within the hills)
This shows the present form (Oslo), the old spoken form (Áslo) and a translated form.
Agtfjott 19:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
One additional example, the reiver Begna flows from Strandefjorden to Sperillen. Begna can be translated as the twisting one, or as the bending one. Now, from Sperillen and onwards the names changes a couple of times, Storelva or The big river, and the most amusing one, Ådalselva or the river within the valley with a river. Ådalen translates as The valley with a river.
Agtfjott 19:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
As a courtesy towards readers that are fluent in English and Norwegian, I would very much agree in the request that forms like Nidelv is a river that flows... should be preferred instead of The Nidelv river flows... or The river Nidelv flows.... I've added a short paragraph to that effect on the project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norway#Avoid_clumsy_wording. Improvements are very welcome, and if anyone minds, I'm sure they'll let us know! ;-) -- Egil 08:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Fornadan, above ("the River Nid" or "the Nidelv"), and am also persuaded now (even though I originally wrote the River Nid) that the second is better. What I am against is the double definte article of "the Nidelven" and the double river of "River Nidelv". I take Agtfjott's point about the fossilization of place-name elements entirely, but I am talking about river names only – which take the definite article in English, and where elven/elva, though written as a compound noun element in the case of most Norwegian rivers remains very much unfossilized and used freely in such names as Elbe-elven* (or Elben), Seine-elven (or Seinen), Douro-elven, Tejo-elven, Ganges-elven, etc. etc.
(* Yes, I do know that this, like River Avon means "river river", but unlike "elv" in Norwegian, Elbe and Avon are not today common nouns in the German- and English-language speech areas.
> Here we do say "the river Nidelva" < That doesn't make you right, though! We are writing about Norway here but in English, not in English-as-spoken-as-a-second-language. I would be very surprised to learn that you say "Nidelva-elva" or "elva Nidelva".
Rest assured, I have no wish at all to "translate", or "invent new names" for, the the likes of Trondheim, Ålesund, or Oslo. I don't think that Naples ought to be "Newtown", Stuttgart "Studyard", or Copenhagen "Chipping Haven"! Interesting stuff about "the River Riverdale" (Ådalselva), though, Agtfjott. Compare "Hill hill hill hill" (Torpenhow Hill) in England and "Waterfall waterfall waterfall" (Eas Fors Waterfall) in Scotland...
In short, I'm not saying convert Lakselven into "the River Salmon" – even though the Lakselv IS a lakseelv! –; I'm just requesting that we don't write the doubly pleonastic "the River Lakselven". (More detailed proposals to follow.) -- Picapica 09:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know enough to give tou a definite answare, I can only say what we do over here. Interesting althoug, never thought this to be so difficult. Norwegian names mus be a real mess for american tourists! :D
We do not say "Nidelva-elva" but we could say "elva Nidelva". I also don't know if anyone usually use the form Seine-elven, I belive the form "elva Seinen" is the prefered form. The same with "elva Ganges". When the river is unknown, then things gets a bit fuzzy.
Names of places and locations in Norway have changed over time. Under the Danish rules it became common to rewrite the names into Danish forms. An example in WP is Høre stave church which is found as Hurum stave church in some publications. Then the names changes again during the Norwegian romantic nationalism period and this time the old norse form should be used, often initiating new forms or even names which sounds ancient or has some connections to old happenings. One example (not a very good one as it happens late in the period) is Trondhjem (danish form) which changed into Nidaros and later into Trondheim. Then again a lot of names were changed into nynorsk form. That was really unpopular. A lot of names like bygda became bygdi, and a real tragedy (comedy) when "Statens Vegvesen", state owned subsiduary for maintanence of the roads or whatever, started to use those names on the signposts along the roads, changed names like Liabygda and Liagrenda into Liabygdi and Liagrendi. Now the signposts are changed again but this time they are changed into the common names in use.
The original norse form of the norwegian names are interesting but could perhaps be described in a separate article? Anyhow, if the names in use in english differ from the Norwegian ones the difference has to be explained somehow. Especially because of the large number of english speaking tourists to Norway.
Agtfjott 20:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gudbrandsdal or Gudbrandsdalen

  • Started out too fast; didn’t do my homework first. Thought when we moved from landscapes to districts we moved to a consistent name for each district too – so I started converting to the form shown in the Districts of Norway. I see we don’t actually have a consensus on a consistent name yet.
  • The comments by Picapica, which I originally resisted mightily, pointed out some inconsistencies in our Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway naming conventions. I’ve added this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway to keep the rather lengthy debate together.
  • One of Picapica recommendations was converting “landscapes” to historic Districts of Norway; I believe the group acceded to that advice while I was off sulking (well actually out of the country working – but sulking is apt).
  • Another discussion, which Picapica appears to have acceded on, is the drive to convert Nidelva to the River Nid. I think we are going to retain the Nidelva, & that makes sense to me
  • Yet another Picapica recommendation was that we resolve our apparently random use of the definite article (e.g., sometimes we use “Gudbrandsdal” & other times “Gudbrandsdalen” in the same article in very similar ways). One could try to make a case for using either one:
  • The case for indefinite form “Gudbrandsdal” - “Gudbrandsdal” is the root. “en” is the suffix which is dropped when one uses an indefinite article. Use of the root is simple and easy.
  • The case for the definite from “Gudbrandsdalen” - Since “Gudbrandsdalen” translates as ‘The valley of Gudbrand” which is definite (i.e., there is only one such valley) this form carries a special meaning: uniqueness – there is indeed only one such valley.
  • I see no overwhelmingly compelling argument for either approach. I do see contradictions with either choice, but leaving off the definite article suffix seems most problematic, because:
  • Terms like “Sørlandet”, have rarely been translated in English texts as “Sørland,” the definite form is apparently invariably used. Just leafed through 14 books & didn’t find anything but “Sørlandet.” Even Haugen’s dictionary uses “Sørlandet”, even though he uses “Gudbrandsdal.” Unfortunately he does not explain why. “Østlandet” & “Vestlandet” receive similar treatment from Haugen – but “Oppland” does not. So the underlying principle is not, any word which calls for a neuter ending should include the suffix.
  • Terms like the “Østerdalene” have a real meaning that is worth capturing – signifying the collection of valleys in the region, including the Trysil valley, Engerdal, Rendal and Glomdal.
  • Lacking any obvious rule, I’d suggest we simply use the form on the Districts of Norway page to document our consensus usage.
  • And I’d suggest a possible rule might be, “use the definite form for landscapes since it emphasizes the uniqueness.”
  • Of course, I’m always open to better thinking. Thoughts, comments & recommendations?
  • And a final comment. My mother always starting any family gathering by prohibiting the discussion of water fluoridation, politics, and which form of Norwegian was the correct form. I’m beginning to understand why.
  • Tusen takk for your patience - Williamborg 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name in English

TRANSFERED FROM Talk:Gudbrandsdal SINCE IT IS RIGHT ON TARGET FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

Before we go too far in changing every link throughout Wikipedia to Gudbrandsdal, rather than Gudbrandsdalen, let's see which makes sense. I did a google advanced search and found the following:

  • Gudbrandsdal
    • English - 15,100 hits
    • Norwegian - 112,100
  • Gudbrandsdalen
    • English - 27,600
    • Norwegian - 277,000

It should also be noted that the use of "Gudbrandsdal" in Norwegian appears to be strictly associated with proper names, e.g, "Nord-Gudbrandsdal Videregående Skole," etc.

There are also grammatical considerations. Since Norwegians consistently refer to the area as "Gudbrandsdalen", in English it must either be referred to as "the Gudbrandsdal" (in the same way as "the Congo," "the Bronx," and "the Sudan," and I suppose "the Hague") or simply "Gudbrandsdalen." My guess is that it would be easier to train people to say "Gudbrandsdalen" than to insist that they include the definitive article first.

Curiously, other valleys are less definitive - it is unproblematic to refer to Setesdal, Odal, Hallingdal, as I just did, and nobody would ever say Oppdalen. You could say "min slekt er fra Setesdal," but never "min slekt er fra Gudbrandsdal." I have no idea why that is... --Leifern 22:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the rule is use the concensus practice as documented on the Districts of Norway. Or does Norway need a page on concensus accepted names? Williamborg 02:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

TRANSFERED FROM User:Williamborg SINCE IT IS RIGHT ON TARGET FOR THIS DISCUSSION TOO:

[edit] More on Gudbrandsdal or Gudbrandsdalen

Some points makes me wonder why I'm speaking like I do...

  • Historic districts are very troublesome. They tend to move over time. Be very carefull to use whats seems to be called landscapes now and don't use the old amt! They will bite back.
  • Picapica and a note about "avoid clumsy wording" seems to make sence to me. His first idea to rewrite the names seems allthough a bit radical to me.
  • Definite article.. Forms involving -a can most of the time be rewritten into -en. I also have a vague recall of someone who said -en could be dropped when used in english. It is not always so with -et. Sørlandet for example. I suspects I only partly remembers why this is like this. Please check this out as I don't remember much of it.
  • Be carefull when you rewrite names, they could move! Oppland and Opplandene isn't the same. The last one is the old amt consisting of Telemark, Buskerud and half of Oppland if I remember correct. It also depends in which historic era your maps are printed.
  • Usually Østerdalen as an area isn't named as Østerdalene. I can't give a good reason why. Langfjella can be called Langfjellene if your address is Majorstuen in Oslo. :)
  • There are a number of troublesome names on the list Districts of Norway. Lofoten, Ofoten, Salten, Vesterålen (?), Toten, Viken, Fosen, Haugalandet, Jæren, (Nord-/Sunnhord(a)land que?)

— John Erling Blad (no) 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points. Language evolves through usage. It’s continuously in flux; today’s usages will amuse our grandchildren and puzzle our great-grandchildren. And Norway’s various historic dialects probably cause some variability in usage as well. Just as there are irregular verbs, there are irregular name usages. It appears that we need a new page to simply agree on & record the various ‘standard’ Norwegian names for Wiki. Williamborg 05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Naming Norwegian traditional Districts, Lakes, Rivers & . . .

I’d suggest we use the following categories or topics to serve as the repository for the “accepted name” for various geographic features.

  • Districts of Norway
  • Regions of Norway
  • [Category:Mountains of Norway]
  • [Category:Mountain ranges of Norway]
  • [Category:Lakes of Norway]
  • [Category:Rivers of Norway]
  • [Category:Fjords of Norway]
  • [Category:Glaciers of Norway]
  • [Category:Headlands of Norway]
  • [Category:Islands of Norway]
  • [Category:National parks of Norway]
  • [Category:Valleys of Norway]
  • [Category:Waterfalls of Norway]
  • [Category:Regions of Norway]

The name as recorded there would be the standard form to be used in articles. And if there were a discussion of, for example, the name for a river of Norway, it should be captured on the Category talk:Rivers of Norway discussion page.

If you think this has merit, I’ll craft an addition to the naming convention section. Williamborg 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a possible solution. I especially like the use of cathegories to get rid of the manually edited lists. — John Erling Blad (no) 11:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a category for Districts of Norway then? Umptanum 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-country skiing

If someone here wants something to do, your search is over. These are articles with tons of redlinks to Norwegian skiers:

I guess many of the articles can be transwikied from the Norwegian Wikipedia. Punkmorten 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Area Ranking

Hi, I'm very new to wikipedia, but decided to spruce up my place of birth Aurland. I will try to adhere to the guidelines withing this project, of course. I noticed that previously under this municipality the Area Rank was correctly populated, but not it just displays a variable value. Can somebody please help me understand what needs to be fixed? Thanks. Delta Omega 09:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can, could you check the images from your nearby fjords? I'm not quite sure I got all of the images right on commons. It was a mess. And if you can and have a digital camera, we could use o couple of images from the outside and inside of Underdal stave church and Borgund stave church. The nearby fjords is interesting, as is the hydro power plant as it is a bit unusual by pumping water from the fjord up into the basin. Perhaps someone fishing cod up in the mountain? :)
Agtfjott 12:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Really wish I could, but I haven't lived in Aurland for a long time. I'm currently living in Singapore :-) I will be looking at my collection of photos and see on commons what the fjords are as time allows as well. Delta Omega 04:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Wrt to the area rank problem, it was due to an editor who on 24 August 2005 by accident had put an URL into the infobox. I've fixed it now. It is usually easy to find out what happened by visiting the history tab (on the top of the page) and do a before/after binary search. -- Egil 08:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About old photos in Wikipedia

If old photos should have any interest in Wikipedia I would gess it is to illustrate a fact, a person or a place which no longer exist, or something which has changed over the years, or lack of change.

I added an image from Library of Congress in the article about Stavanger. In the same article there is an other image from recent date, while the old image dates from 1890-1900. This I guess is interesting, although I don't know if there are enough old images to do this in general except for a few locations.

Agtfjott 23:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Marvelous IMHO -- in this case it illustrates splendidly how Stavanger has managed to keep a part of the city intact. I would also think that old images are good even without the "now" image for comparison, but perhaps with a caption explaining what has changed, if anything. If you know about general Norway-related image resources that are free enough for Wikipedia use, could you please list them on the project page? -- Egil 08:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Nasjonalbibliotekets fotoarkiv
This is very good, but it is a couple of problems. First of all, they are in Norway and in Norway the first publisher gets the right for 20 years after publishing the images (making the images available to the public) the first time. I don't know if this has some sort of limit if the images have passed into public doman before they are published.
Then comes the second problem, it seems like they actually tries to enforce some limits on the use of the images.
Ved Nasjonalbiblioteket ønsker vi at alle og enhver skal ha tilgang til
så mye av bildeinformasjonen i galleri NOR som mulig. Samtidig er det viktig
å være klar over at fotografiene i galleri NOR er underlagt de samme regler
for opphavsrett som alle andre fotografi. I tillegg til opphavsrettslige
hensyn, berører offentlig fremvisning av fotografi også lov om personvern
og den avbildedes rettigheter. Av hensyn til dette vil det bli lagt
restriksjoner på den allmenne tilgangen til deler av informasjonen.

Juridiske problemstillinger knyttet til publisering av bilder på internett
er et spennende område der flere interessante spørsmål er aktuelle.
Nasjonalbiblioteket sørger for at galleri NOR drives i tråd med lovverket,
og samarbeider dessuten med berørte organisasjoner når det gjelder spørsmål
om opphavsrett og personvern.
From Lov og rett at the site Nasjonalbibliotekets fotoarkiv
I won't try to translate the above quote, but it basically says "the images are copyrighted and we will enforce it", as I read it.
If someone abroad uploads images from that site to Wikipedia it should be pretty safe but I don't think it is wise for a norwegian to upload from that site until a written statement from them clearify the previous quote, or someone with enough knowledge about it can state clearly what to do.
I should know but I don't.
Agtfjott 19:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing of the above surprises me a bit. You mentioned the Library of Congress - so I wondered if you knew about any sources in countries where taxpayers moneys are used for the benefit of the people, instead of institusions. -- Egil 19:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
That said, I think the Nasjonalbiblioteket images are public domain as long as they are over 50 years old, AND that it is more than 15 years since their author dies. I'm asking people who know more to make sure. -- Egil 19:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Photos with artistic value (presumably anything above snapshots) are public domain 70 years after the year the author died. -- Egil 05:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regional notice board created

There is now a regional notice board for Norway-related matters. I'm not 100% sure how that page should be coordinated with this WikiProject---there might be some redundancy. The notice board format seems appealing, however. --Wernher 15:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Centre" vz. "Village"

A "Villages in Norway" category has popped up by itself. Which accentuates the question about the right term for the Norwegian tettsted. My vote is pretty clearly for village. Webster has for village: "a settlement usually larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town". Which is what we are looking for, exactly. Note that village in English is not an exact synonym for landsby in Norwegian. -- Egil 10:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, Category:Villages in Norway belongs to the subcategory Category:Villages, whereas Category:Centers in Norway does not really belong to any category. Can we just be bold and move all articles in Category:Centers to Category:Villages? In addition, of course, to other, misplaced articles in Category:Cities in Norway and Category:Towns in Norway. By the way, I think we should keep the distinction between city and town. Punkmorten 19:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Landscape"

The term landscape in English does not have the exact same meaning as landskap in Norwegian (nor the similar Swedish and German words). Which means that I do not think it can be used in its current form in English, denoting a district or region. What is the best replacement? "District", "region" or something else. My vote is currently for "district", but I'm a but uncertain. -- Egil 10:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made a note on the main page that 'landscape' needs to change. What is the best alternative? "District"? "Historical region"? -- Egil 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: And btw, 'region' for landsdel is not precise, either.

It will be inconcistent anyway you change it. Try to go for a close appoximation. — John Erling Blad (no) 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've seen districts used from time to time for the areas now described as landscapes. Also some old maps calls the areas landscapes but this could come from direct translation from danish. — John Erling Blad (no) 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I reckon using 'region' for landsdel and 'district' for landskap would be the most correct translations. --Tokle 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, any way you look at it, landscape in English for norw. landskap is totally wrong, and was mea culpa. I just discovered Provinces of Sweden, which makes me change my preferred suggestion to Provinces of Norway or perhaps Historical provinces of Norway. Sounds OK? -- Egil 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should review the entire nomenclature of geographical divisions in Norway. I suppose "counties" are OK, since they're officially used labels by Norwegian authorities, and so are municipalities. But these are also political boundaries. The geographical divisions are more messy - the way I see it, we have to distinguish among:

  • Broadly defined areas, such as Østlandet, Sørlandet, Vestlandet, Trøndelag, Nord-Norge that are supersets of counties - I thought "regions" was pretty good and consistent with what we see elsewhere
  • Areas that are bounded by some geographical features, e.g., Sunnmøre, Lofoten, Hedemarken and have linguistic, architectural, or other cultural cohesion. I believe these are called "landscapes" right now. I'm cool with "district"
  • Densely populated centers, known in Norway variously as "tettsted" or even "by." Examples of the former are Sandvika, Moelv, Svolvær, etc., that are parts of municipalities. The term "by" is quite a bit more involved, because it may coincide with a municipality, but might not. For example, Hamar includes both the city of Hamar and the municipality that includes Vang, a decidedly rural community. My choice would be that centers that are part of a municipality are called towns and centers that form the municipality are called cities, but it's not a great solution, either. --Leifern 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your point about by: In my opinion we should definitely not mix places like Sandvika and Moelv, because they are a by and a tettsted, respectively. Svolvær is a by too. The fact that they are "one of several population centres in a given municipality" does not really make them linked or associated. If size is the question here; does it matter to Wikipedia readers that Kolvereid is labelled a town and Drøbak is labelled a village? Well, that's just how things are in little old Norway. Your suggestion seems a tad far-fetched, would it make Tingvoll, being the centre of Tingvoll, a city? Punkmorten 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • We should of course have a list of villages in Norway (liste over tettsteder) as well, possibly broken down by county if it gets too large. I would make it if I had a source. Punkmorten 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're disagreeing here. Some places in Norway are officially classified as "byer," with a small subcategory around "bergstad" for Kongsberg and Røros. A "by" includes Oslo, but also Svolvær. In other countries, one might distinguish between "city" and "town," but that distinction is not made in Norway. Since it seems absurd to refer to Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and a couple of others as "towns," we may have to refer to Svolvær as a "city," which feels only slightly less absurd. "Tettsted" we then refer to as a "village," which seems okay with me. So now we have cities (corresponding to offical "byer" in Norway) and villages (corresponding to tettsteder). --Leifern 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
OK! My choice here would be to eliminate the category towns. But maintain the distiction in list of cities in Norway, only rewording the section heading etc. slightly! Agree? Punkmorten 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as we stick to the US usage of "city", there should be no problem with using that as a synonym for by. But I must admit I get really bad vibes from "the city of Leirvik" or, worse "the city of Stord". That is why I wanted to keep the present city/town distinction.
Anyway, there seems to be a consensus for district instead of todays landscape, so I will try to make that happen. -- Egil 18:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Too bad this wasn't agreed upon some time ago when someone changed "my" use of districts into landscapes... (e.g. Nordmøre). --Wernher 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, a city is a town with one or more cathedrals ("domkirker"). So all Norwegian "byer" with cathedrals should be called cities. All other Norwegian "byer", however big or small, should be called towns. The population will be given in the articles, so readers can evaluate if the towns are big or not. With respect to "tettsteder" and "bygder" I think we should call them urban areas and villages, although Norwegian "bygder" may not look like typical villages elsewhere.
I'll get back to regions, districts, etc. --Eddi (Talk) 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
In that case, the cities of Norway would be Oslo, Fredrikstad, Hamar, Tønsberg, Kristiansand, Stavanger, Bergen, Molde, Trondheim, Bodø, and Tromsø, if we go by the Church of Norway bishop dioceses. As far as I can tell, the Catholic church has a full diocese in Oslo and a "stift" in Trondheim and Tromsø - no contradiction there. I think the Porvoo agreement handles most other Protestant denominations. --Leifern 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Eddi, as far as I know this has nothing to do with Norway. See [10] Punkmorten 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Read all about it in City. The city/cathedral is strictly a UK thing, if that. In many US states, a city is just about anything. It makes no sense to apply an archaic UK convention to Norway. I'm happy with the current division. Other countries, like Germany, which in German uses the same term Stadt for town/city, uses a population of 100.000 as the division for the English Wikipedia (see Category:Cities_in_Germany and Category:Towns_in_Germany. If one really want to use one term, I think that town sounds far better than city.-- Egil 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems I am a little late. I am not sure about use of district. This sounds very administrative. But they are not at all nor have ever been? From the intro of districts of Norway it can be seen they are in fact related very much to the scenery - the landscape. .... are defined by geographical entities, often valleys, mountain ranges, fjords, plains, or coastlines, or combinations of the above. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistisk årbok 2005

Statistisk årbok 2005 has been published, with updated numbers for municipality populations. [11] --Samuelsen 22:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Election results

I started copying and translating the list of elected representatives from no.wikipedia (see Stortinget 2005-2009 as an example) and noticed that there actually are articles that show the returns for each party on a national level already in en.wikipedia. We should probably combine these in a common framework. I will continue to translate the existing articles and will then figure out how to combine them in a readable way. I also wrote on an article on leveling seats, which may not even a good English term. Right now, it only explains the existing law; I don't know if we want to explain the history of this arrangement. It may also be worthwhile including an analysis of the effects of this arrangement from election to election. --Leifern 12:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian roads

Hi. I'm here to make an article suggestion - on Roads in Norway, to be more precise (the title is of course changeable - I used it because there happens to be a perfectly decent article on Roads in Ireland. Currently, the only thing I can find about roads in Norway is this:

Highways:
total: 90,741 km
paved: 67,602 km (including 128 km of expressways)
unpaved: 23,139 km (1998 est.)

Or, basically, a CIA data dump. Toss in something on the International E-road network, which was terribly hard to find. I appreciate this is a massive topic, but as Rail transport in Norway is coming along rather nicely (at least it has more information for people seeking it), an overview discussing the various types of roads (Europavei, riksvei, fylkesvei, kommunal vei, maybe even privat vei), toll roads and how this compares to other countries' toll roads, the major roads (innfartsveier) to the big cities, and so forth, would be much appreciated. Sam Vimes 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal for Norway

It seems to me that we enough material in Norway now that we can justify setting up a Wikiportal for Norway, such as Portal:Ireland (see the entire list of portals here: Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. What do others think? I may get it started today (before work starts tomorrow). --Leifern 14:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I started something at Portal:Norway. --Samuelsen 16:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little zoology

Moose
Enlarge
Moose
  • no:Elg (Alces alces alces) is a small moose, it is not an american elk! (I'm not sure what people outside america calls this)
  • no:Hjort (Norwegian Red Deer Cervus elaphus atlanticus) is a small elk, allthough sometimes described as a whitetail (avoid this!)
  • no:Brunbjørn (Ursus arctos arctos) is a grizzly bear (nearly always brown, not as much grey) and is often named somewhat sloppy as norwegian grizzly
  • no:Ulv (Canis lupus lupus) is a timber wolf
  • no:Villrein (reindeer Rangifer tarandus tarandus) is a caribou (a tamrein is a partly domesticated villrein)

Not that those specimens are not similar but they roughly relates at the same level. For a more exact descriptions the articles should be consulted or other litterature.

— John Erling Blad (no) 00:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper name thoughts

Herb Caen, the late famous San Francisco columnist, once complained that El Cerrito Hills was completely redundant, and I suspect it isn't the only place such redundancy happens when languages are mixed. Let me see if I understand the general problems:

  • Where the Norwegian name includes a descriptor of the geographical feature, such as Nidelva, Lysakerelven, Galdhøpiggen, Glittertind, Besshø, etc. Should we leave the name as is, with the Norwegian descriptor term, or just translate the non-descriptor term.
  • Where the definitive and indefinite form vary, such as Gudbrandsdal and Gudbrandsdalen.
  • Use of -en vs. -a endings for the definitive, e.g., should it be "Nidelven" or "Nidelva."

I honestly think it'll be hard to come up with a general rule for this, as some of these examples will illustrate. Perhaps we can get away with the Lysaker River, but nobody would allow us to write Gald Summit Pinnacle for Galdhøpiggen. But here are my suggestions:

  • If Norwegian usage generally separates the name from the descriptor, e.g., "elven Glomma," or "elven Driva," we should do the same, but when it is a compounded word and never described another way, e.g., "Nidelva," we should use it that way. This isn't perfect - to write "the river Nidelva" doesn't feel right, but the "River Nid" just seems weird - if you asked someone in Trondheim to direct you the River Nid or the Nid, it would take them a while to sort out what you wanted.
  • As for using the definitive or indefinite, I think we should try to find out what common usage is, especially in the area discussed. An easy way to do this is to simply do an advanced Google search and see what occurs most often, and see what the most common use is. The differentiating factor in my mind is whether it sounds strange to use the name without a definitive article in English.
  • Whether we use -a or -en endings is a political issue. My general view is that we should go with the usage in the place itself. Hence, we would never write Odden for Odda, but we should also stick with Fornebo rather than Fornebu, and probably Lysakerelven rather than Lysakerelva. It isn't simple, though - what about Akerselven? Perhaps we should simply grant privilege to the first drafter - I see there is an article about Akerselva and not Akerselven, though there really should be a redirect for Akerselven. --Leifern 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor point: I live right next to Fornebu (yes, I have to admit that...), and although it's always pronounced Fornebo, I've never seen it spelled Fornebo - so it's a bit like Akerselven, I suppose. Sam Vimes 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not so minor - the airport was named in accordance with national spelling conventions at the time, which favored a more "radical" standard. So you're right - the official name is Fornebu, though I think most people who live on Snarøya call it Fornebo, and some of these would rather that their island be called Snarøen as well, though that's probably taking it too far. --Leifern 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Norway and the EU

I have completed a draft - really still a stub - on Norway and the European Union. I think this is an important subject, and I would certainly appreciate more editors getting in on it. My search skills may be off, but there is surprisingly little research done on how this political issue affected/affects Norwegian political life and discourse. Considering that it probably is the single most divisive issue in Norway since World War II, possibly since 1905 or even 1814. --Leifern 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountains

I added an article called List of Norwegian peaks over 2000 meters. Is pretty useful for peakbaggers that want to visit Norway and do some hiking and climbing. Feel free to edit away. --Leifern 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean and beef up Kåre Willoch

For reaons I'm not going to get into, the article on Kåre Willoch is taking a rather strange turn. Since any edits I make are likely to be reverted for the same reasons, I was hoping someone here could make an effort to clarify and add to the article. And just for the record, I am fine omitting any mention to Mordechai Vanunu, since the reference is based entirely on one comment Willoch made to Klassekampen. Whatever one thinks of Willoch's legacy, the Vanunu thing is miniscule. --Leifern 02:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Had noticed the "edit war." Political figures tend to get polarized treatment. Not qualfied to enter this fray, but I'd be interested in a short discussion of the core areas of difference. Takk - Williamborg 02:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Midgley and I have disagreements elsewhere, and although he hasn't shown much other interest in Norwegian politics, he decided to argue with some of my edits here. The damage that I see is that the controversy over Vanunu is spilling over into the article on Willoch, which I don't think is helping any cause. If we can create good articles on all other Norwegian prime ministers and politicians, we should be able to write one on Willoch. I'm asking for help because I fear that anything I do will be contested by Midgley without regard for the actual content of the edits; and I suspect there are many editors who can fill in and clarify just as well as - or better than - me on this topic. Willoch has held controversial views throughout his political life, but you have to give him credit for making his views absolutely clear. This makes writing an NPOV article much easier. --Leifern 03:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The blessing of the Wikipedia - open intellectual discussion to reach a consensus superior to any individual contribution - is also sometimes a curse. Wish you both well - Williamborg 02:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian National Park template problem

The Norwegian National Park template still includes Gressåmoen National Park, which has since been incorporated into Blåfjella-Skjækerfjella (in 2004). Anyone out there know how to correct the template? Williamborg 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Now I see. Fixed. Thanks - Williamborg 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kjetil r as admin on commons

Hi! The norwegians have put foreward an admin request on commons, commons:Template:Administrators/Requests and votes/Kjetil r. It would be nice to have your votes! — John Erling Blad (no) 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with Kven

There's a pretty nasty and intractable controversy on the Kven article. The controversy does not relate to the Kven minority in Norway; it's about the historical Kvens. I have tried to split it into two articles - Kven and Kven (historical). I think that the Kven minority deserves its own article, unencumbered by a dispute that doesn't relate to them at all. Please help. --Leifern 20:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up Municipalities of Finnmark and Tromsø

Many of the municipalities pages for Finnmark and Tromsø are spammed with similar incorrect history sections about Kvenland. Also, the Sami people are often referred to as the Finno-Ugric Samis, even when not talking about the language. I believe it is necessary to go through all municipalities and rewrite or remove the history sections. --Labongo 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I managed to clean up all articles.--Labongo 04:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture of Norway nominated for featured status

I have self-nominated Architecture of Norway as a featured article, although User:Roede deserves much of the credit for it. I'd like to request help on three fronts:

  • Editing it for clarity, flow, style, etc.
  • Providing sources, references, etc.
  • Supporting the nomination once you feel it's good enough. --Leifern 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Working a little on it. Please review to assure I don't destroy meaning as architecture is an area about which I know little. Williamborg (Bill) 03:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD - Norwegian "Golden Age"

Can others please weigh in on this AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Golden Age. Thanks in advance. --Leifern 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention for Norwegian monarchs

It has been proposed in this talk page that the article Harald I of Norway be moved to Harald Fairhair (Harald I Fairhair, and Harald I Fairhair of Norway has also been suggested). This is against the policy suggested here and will create inconsistency among the Norwegian monarch articles. The votes are currently in favour of a move and any weigh in would be appreciated. Inge 09:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alta controversy

Getting into another controversial topic here. Feel free to add and edit to Alta controversy. --Leifern 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian feminists

I have started writing or filling in articles on Norwegian feminists and have even asked for nominations from current feminists. See Category:Norwegian feminists for progress. Current articles under work include:

Articles that should be written include:

  • The Norwegian Association for Women's Rights (Norsk kvinnesaksforening)
  • Feminism in Norway, incorporating the history of feminism in Norway
  • The Womens University in Norway
  • numerous biographical articles of Norwegian feminists - please nominate
    • Fredrikke Marie Qvam
    • Anna Rogstad
    • Ragna Nielsen
    • Nini Roll Anker
    • Betzy Kjelsberg
    • Margarete Bonnevie
    • Åse Gruda Skard
    • ... others?

--Leifern 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLC

Former municipalities of Norway is now a featured list candidate, please voice your opinion (i.e. support it :) ) at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Former municipalities of Norway. Punkmorten 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Norway

We might want to use WikiProject Germany as an example for what this project should be. Kingjeff 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegians a Germanic people

There is a dispute going on at Norwegian people where a user wanted to recruit people to get the entire category Germanic peoples deleted. He met some differing opinions at Talk:Norwegian people and subsequently moved on to slap the article itself with a disputed tag. I believe it is quite uncontroversial that if we want to discuss ethnic affiliation (ethnic) Norwegians belong to the Germanic group of peoples along with Swedes, Danes, Icelanders, Germans, Dutch, English, Scots and others. Please bring whatever views you might have on the topic to Talk:Norwegian people.Inge 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Norway_eaf4.html"