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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I have written initial drafts for two articles:

• Norway in 1814
• Norway in 1905

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:

• Haakon VII - shamefully short at this point - when I visit Norway in late May, I'll be visiting a couple of libraries to get more information
• Johan Caspar Herman Wedel-Jarlsberg

... 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)[reply]

I noticed that some articles about Norwegian kings and rival kings during the civil wars differ in how long the civil wars lasted, either 1130-1217 or 1130-1240. The first alternative ignores the Ribbung-uprising, that lasted from 1218 to 1227, and the last alternative includes the uprising of Skule earl (1239-1240), a rather minor uprising compared to earlier uprisings. Eyunn 14:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC) eyunn[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]