Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway/Archive 2

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should there be a category for Districts of Norway then? Umptanum 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Cross-country skiing World Cup medalists
• Cross-country skiing World Championships

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I reckon using 'region' for landsdel and 'district' for landskap would be the most correct translations. --Tokle 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Eddi, as far as I know this has nothing to do with Norway. See [1] Punkmorten 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statistisk årbok 2005 has been published, with updated numbers for municipality populations. [2] --Samuelsen 22:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• You have to edit the template, Template:National Parks of Norway. Punkmorten 08:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

• Camilla Collett, which deserves editing for style and significant expansion
• Aasta Hansteen
• Berit Ås
• Katti Anker Møller
• Toril Moi
• Eva Kolstad

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

In what I think is an example of deletionism gone amuck, a recently created article on Solveig Fiske was nominated for speedy deletion, on the assumption that a bishop in the Church of Norway couldn't possibly be notable unless he/she did something notable, presumably aside from being elevated to this post. I'm not sure this is because people assume that Norway, being such a small country, couldn't possibly warrant an article; or because of deletionist zealotry. In either case, I think we need to a) be fairly systematic about promoting the notability of important Norwegians; and b) complete the list of articles about Norwegian bishops. --Leifern 23:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please, vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solveig Fiske. --Leifern 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed on WikiProject military history to set up an either Nordic or Scandinavian task force. If you are intrested in this topic, please comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Two_task_force_ideas. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]