[Wikipedia-l] no: or nb: (again)

[Lars Alvik]

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 at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>