Talk:taake

RFV discussion: October 2017–May 2018
I suspect this is an old form of 🇨🇬, from before "aa" spellings were changed to "å". DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It pretty clearly exists:

though I can't say for certain that this is Bokmål. For Danish, I decided not to include aa-variants (and capitalized nouns), which noone seems to have a problem with.__Gamren (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) * 1922, Johannes Jantzen, Nordiske domme i sjøfartsanliggender
 * Det maa erindres at der var tyk taake og at man efter bestikket skulde ha befundet sig langt fra land.
 * 1) * 1920, Nils Russeltyvedt, Meteorologi og Instrumentlære for Flyvere
 * Stratusskyer som ligger lavere end 500 meter kaldes taake.
 * 1) * 1910, Norway. Kgl. Utenriksdepartement, Konsulatberetninger: Indberetninger fra de norske legationer og konsulater ...
 * Lawrencekanalen viste sig angivelig meget nyttig i høstsæsonen 1908, da røk og taake for flere uker ...
 * Yeah, Danish place names such as and, apparently Aarhus was changed to  for many years, but reverted to the old spelling. DonnanZ (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be a dated spelling of, obsolete spelling of, or superseded spelling of? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably superseded spelling of. I'm not sure of the exact date when it was decided to replace "aa" with "å", which is used in Swedish too, it must be approximately a century ago. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently changed in 1948, I was a bit wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Place names, and proper nouns in general, are an exception in WT:ADA because aa- and å-forms may be found alongside each other. For other words, one can immediately predict how a word is spelled post-reform (so including both forms adds nothing of value), whereas names do not follow the same rules as stringently. But I think editors of Norwegian should decide among themselves whether to include the aa-forms.__Gamren (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't want to include aa-forms apart from proper nouns. There are a few aa-form entries lurking in Category:Norwegian lemmas though. DonnanZ (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As for aa vs. å and the addition of something of value: Adding both forms adds something of value, especially for non-Danish-speaking people and Danish-learners. If someone finds on old Danish text or word and doesn't know anything about any Danish reform, the someone might try to look up a word spelled with aa instead of å. If forms with aa aren't included, the someone wouldn't find anything. Additionally, the exclusion would seem prescriptive and not descriptive. -84.161.40.68 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * RFV passed.__Gamren (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2020–February 2021
As far as I understand, an obsolete form that uses the digraph aa instead of å. indicated they might want to exclude these entirely, as we do for Danish.__Gamren (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dunno about that. Obsolete forms are recorded in other languages, including English. I'm inclined to keep it - you never know when someone is reading an old book and wants to look it up. DonnanZ (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the next question is, do obsolete words that aren't attested with å get normalized to their modern spelling, or only entered in their original spelling? A somewhat comparable case in English is the long s, ſ. I agree it's not clear. Maybe this should be taken to BP?__Gamren (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah well, I guess it wasn't really my place to make this anyway. RFD closed.__Gamren (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)