Talk:Nationalencyklopedin

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Untitled[edit]

Off! moved this article to Swedish National Encyclopedia without discussion. I'm fairly skeptical of keeping it at a title which seems to be very rare, though I'm not categorically against the idea. I would like to see some arguments for and against a move first.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly wrong[edit]

It says in the introduction that the online version is slightly larger than the printed one. Unless 50% larger is slight, I propose we rephrase.

/Jonte93 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One krona, many kronor[edit]

The plural form of 'krona' is 'kronor', in both English and Swedish.

/Jonte93 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Wikipedia[edit]

On the page "List of languages by number of native speakers", they say that this encyclopaedia is the best source for the number of speakers, but there's nothing in this article saying that and they mention it as a source Why not? I don't understand, if this is really such a good source, to build an article on it, why it's not even mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:C90B:FA17:C9B9:3795 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying Nationalencyclopedin (NE) is best. Its just good. The NE article is written by Mikael Parkvall, a respected linguist. Lappspira (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]