Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Tromsdslen -> Tromsdalen in league table[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Tromsdslen -> Tromsdalen in league table

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Centralize It is clear that the naming of these titles depends solely on naming of the main article; this discussion has been split too much, and will be centralized at Talk:Norwegian First Division#Requested move 27 November 2018. I'll ping all the participants here there in a moment. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– See consensus at the 1. divisjon talk page. Norwegian First Division has never been and will never become the name of this league. Due to consistecy in naming of the world's football leagues this site should be named XXXX 1. divisjon (X'es represents the season year). Since 1991, 1. divisjon has been the only correct name for this second tier apart from the sponsor-affiliated names (Adeccoligaen 2005–2013, OBOS-ligaen 2015–) The reason for my view is that this anglification or Englishing of 1. divisjon does not look good and examples of better naming are many; In Germany, 2. Bundesliga is not called "German Second Division", 1. delid on the Faroe Islands is not named "First Division" and Ligue 2 in France is not named "League Two". The new naming also secure consistensy with the lower divisions in Norwegian football; 2. divisjon and 3. divisjon. Reitimwinkl (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per parent article discussion, 1. divisjon is the correct name for the division in all of these years. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. English sources do not use the name "1. divisjon" and the move of the leave article was premature and incorrect . It fails WP:CRITERIA. The present titles are far clearer and recognizable. — Amakuru (talk)™
Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. (However, I support the creation of the of those titles as redirect to the current titles per WP:FORRED, provided the proposed titles are not ambiguous with other existing subjects on Wikipedia.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: @Joseph2302: FYI there is Also an RM open for the parrnt article at Talk:Norwegian First Division. I agree that we should be using English here. The proposed names just aren't used and recognised by English speakers. — Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The main article has just been moved to 1. divisjon as a result of an RM, which presumably invalidates the oppose !votes above. Number 5 7 09:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:UE and let's reverse the insanity - the move of the main article to 1. divisjon needs to be reversed. Somehow that move (and perhaps other moves involving football divisions) was missed by most title experts and well-meaning but misinformed enthusiasts formed a local consensus favoring that move. We need to fix that. --В²C ☎ 01:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: An RM proposal to correct the move of the main article has been started at Talk:1. divisjon#Requested move 18_December 2018 --В²C ☎ 02:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct" is the wrong term for what you're doing. You're trying to override the consensus formed there by disregarding people's policy based opinions on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply favoring a proposed title and citing COMMONNAME is not a policy based opinion when there are virtually ‘’no’’ reliable English sources that use that name. —В²C ☎ 15:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the consensus on the parent article is that you shouldn't have created a new RM, these article moves should be uncontroversial as they're just maintaining consistency and supporting the consensus there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is exactly why the error there needs to be corrected sooner rather than later, which is why I opened a new RM. The closer of that RM refused to revert his close to allow that discussion to continue. The effects are spreading. Sooner or later it will be fixed. The sooner, the less work and pain; the sooner the better. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Norwegian First Division which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]