Talk:Riksmål

message: 66.98.131.* is blocked user ALDRI MER 1814! Please do not engage him in discussion. Actually, he can be immediately reverted as a banned user trying to get around his block. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  66.98.131.* 

message: OK, I stuck my neck out and reverted the article. I also reincluded the information on the pre 1938 reforms and some minor stuff. Remember the information in the "old" article is still accessible in the history. I feel the removed information was overall either highly controversial or better suited in other articles. Inge 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of removing the tags at the same time as they were there because of the now removed sections. Inge 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I had previously corrected some errors in this version and removed some irrelevant and partially erroneous discussion about Nynorsk, but instead of restoring my previous version, I did a new rewrite. Plutix 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clean slate 

message: In recent edits I noted some of the referenced material became orphaned. Please be careful to neither prune nor misapply references when editing. It's a fairly standard convention (which Wikipedia accepts—well this is Wikipedia, so it is more correct to say many accept) that a reference at the end of a paragraph serves the whole paragraph unless there are internal references. So you can safely leave the reference on a paragraph, even when you delete a sentence somewhere in the paragraph. 
Other late night thoughts:
* Given the history of this article, we probably want to strive even harder than usual for a factually accurate article. 
* Factually accurate means that assertions in the article are verifiable against reliable sources (peer reviewed or published by credible publishers) and accurately represent accepted knowledge. 
* So where possible (which for this topic should be everywhere) major discussions should be supported by external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources). 
* We should follow citing sources for guidance on when and how extensively references should be provided 
* For footnotes/endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. If you prefer other conventions, I'm flexible—let's discuss. 
If you view anything from a better perspective, please educate me. I have enough Norwegian blood that I am occasionally hard headed, but am truly interested in the best Norwegian-topic article we can develop here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Takk - Williamborg (Bill) 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide references where possible  

message: As you can see, I have merged the text from the Riksmål and Dano-Norwegian articles into the Bokmål article and redirected the two former articles there. I figured it was easier to just show how it could be done than to ask for your opinions beforehand. Now that you can see the result, your opinions are greatly appreciated.
The main motivation was to avoid redundancy. The three articles told the same story with just somewhat different emphasis.
Plutix 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged with Bokmål 

message: According to the article, The ISO_639-3 code for Riksmål is "nor", but according to
https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/nor "nor" is the code for the norwegian macrolanguage (not specifically Riksmål). 130.238.112.129 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO 639-3 mismatch