Talk:fjord

HELP!!
I hate to sound like such a newbie, but I don't know what I just did! The page had "Property of ultimate" written on it over and over again, along with a message saying that "fjord" wasn't a word -_- but when I went to the old version to copy that text and repaste it (I don't know how to actually do a revert), that edit seems to have been deleted permanently. It's no big loss, since it was just vandalism, but it does look like my idea of a "revert from vandalism" was changing some Japanese characters into question marks, which really makes me look like a jerk, if not a vandal myself. Why was the old edit completely wiped out? I'm not really good with Japanese characters, so if someone could restore the version right before mine (was originally two before), it would be cool. Please tell me how to actually revert too; the only technique I know is copying and pasting.

Sorry to cause so much trouble. I hope my ramblings at least made some sense. --BDD 23:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's ok, we were all beginners once :) As a non-admin, the best we can do when it comes to reverts is to edit the version right before the vandalised one. And yes, some browsers doesn't like Japanese characters and the such - of course you could try to download the "right" font, otherwise someone will clear it up later.
 * Happy editing, \Mike 08:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Edit the version before it? Uh... I don't quite understand. Is what I did right? I thought a vandalized page should be kept in the history as "evidence," so to speak. --BDD 15:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, if you look in the history of a page - e.g. this one, which I reverted yesterday (by editing the version before the vandalized one) you'll see that the vandalized version remains in the history, and is possible to access. This behaviour is a must, since we otherwise would see vandals destroying a lot by editing old versions... So, to revert: go to the history, select the version before the vandalized, click edit and then save (with a suitable summary, of course:). No need to copy & paste. \Mike 17:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, the warning one get when editing an old version may be somewhat ambigous - "If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be lost" doesn't refer to the version history, (i.e. no versions will be lost) but rather to the text in the article...

Norwegian
Why does this page have two nearly identical sections for two Norwegian standards? I think they should be merged. This seems to me like creating another entry for fjord in British English with the exact same etymology, definition, etc, but a slightly different pronunciation. Couldn't the minor differences be combined into one entry?

Phonesyfreakies (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This was discussed, and the decision was to keep Nynorsk and Bokmål as separate languages. This is one of those issues with strong opinions on both sides, that could have gone either way- but this is the current consensus. Changing this entry would mean changing pretty much all the Norwegian entries in order to be consistent, and the disruption probably wouldn't be worth it- not to mention the monumental drudge-work of consolidating all those entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)