Go for no:.
Riksmål can be compared to bokmål as american english and english.
Minor differences. As for Aftenposten it's in theory riksmål, but
generally the articles is written in moderate bokmål.
As for me i would welcome a formalization of no: to just bokmål (and
riksmål), but with bokmål as the dominant one, ie, all the categories
in bokmål. (example Sør-Afrika instead of Syd-Afrika).
mvh.
Lars Alvik
Byråkrat no:wiki.
På 2. mar. 2005 kl. 15:49 skrev Andre Engels:
I got the following message on my (Dutch) userpage:
===========================================================
I don't subscribe to the mailing list, so I respond here:
The Norwegian Wikipedia uses no: as its interwiki code. Until we have
decided to do otherwise, please respect our choice of domain and
interwiki name.
Also, note that no: is not the "bokmål Wikipedia", as bokmål is only
one spelling standard of Standard Norwegian, which also includes
riksmål (both bokmål and riksmål are major spelling standards, the
latter being used e.g. by the most significant Norwegian newspaper
(Aftenposten). Wolfram 2 mrt 2005 15:34 (CET)
============================================================
So now I have
(
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-February/
037750.html)
someone saying it would be best to always use nb: and (above) someone
saying it would be best to always use no:. Then I have people at nn:
who really don't want it to be called no: at THEIR wiki. Could someone
please tell me who I am to listen to? By whom and where is the
decision made in a case like this?
Andre Engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l