Talk:Gudbrandsdalen

Name in English

Before we go too far in changing every link throughout Wikipedia to Gudbrandsdal, rather than Gudbrandsdalen, let's see which makes sense. I did a google advanced search and found the following:

• Gudbrandsdal
  • English - 15,100 hits
  • Norwegian - 112,100
• Gudbrandsdalen
  • English - 27,600
  • Norwegian - 277,000

It should also be noted that the use of "Gudbrandsdal" in Norwegian appears to be strictly associated with proper names, e.g, "Nord-Gudbrandsdal Videregående Skole," etc.

There are also grammatical considerations. Since Norwegians consistently refer to the area as "Gudbrandsdalen", in English it must either be referred to as "the Gudbrandsdal" (in the same way as "the Congo," "the Bronx," and "the Sudan," and I suppose "the Hague") or simply "Gudbrandsdalen." My guess is that it would be easier to train people to say "Gudbrandsdalen" than to insist that they include the definitive article first.

Curiously, other valleys are less definitive - it is unproblematic to refer to Setesdal, Odal, Hallingdal, as I just did, and nobody would ever say Oppdalen. You could say "min slekt er fra Setesdal," but never "min slekt er fra Gudbrandsdal." I have no idea why that is... --Leifern 22:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer renaming this article to Gudbrandsdalen. --Berland 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair

Please see Battle of Kringen, which contains two external websites. I also have this information from Aschehougs Norgeshistorie and have confirmed separately with the Clan Sinclair people. If you really want to challenge this, I can dig up the exact references. --Leifern 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

distance

230km from lillehammer would put you well down into Romsdal. Unless other good points to the contrary, I would change that to 160 or so.. Otta is 110km up, with another 34 to reach Dombås, wich is pretty near the summit. Raymond Holmoey (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The usually definition is the valley of river Lågen from Lillehammer to Lesjaskogsvatnet or to Bjorli at the west end of the lake, some 200-230 km depending on measurement. Dombås is not the summit, merely a junction. The valleys of tributary rivers are usually included. https://snl.no/Gudbrandsdalen --— Erik Jr. 20:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Style

The article is improving, but with a hint of touristinfo style. That style fits better for Wikivoyage.--Erik den yngre (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Move from Gudbrandsdalen to Gudbrand valley

I searched through some 1/2 million books at the National library and found "Gudbrand valley" in a single book (1 hit), whereas "Gudbrandsdalen" is mentioned in about 500 English language books in the library. I doubt that the move is warranted. --— Erik Jr. 10:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please check Google Books and other English online sources. The variant "Gudbrands Valley" is also very common in English newspapers (486 matches at newspapers.com). Doremo (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper.com has 312 matches for Gudbrand Valley and 350 matches for Gudbrandsdalen. Google News does not give any hits for Gudbrand Valley. I find about 100 hits in Google Books for Gudbrand Valley, but 80,000 hits for Gudbrandsdalen (most Norwegian books of course), about 400 hits in Google books for "Gudbrandsdalen" in English language sources. --— Erik Jr. 13:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like divided usage in English-language sources. Transparency is also a good criterion to consider. Many WP articles about valleys do not use the endonym even if the landform is obscure (e.g., Qinngua Valley, Greenland; Ingala Valley, Russia; Tarfala Valley, Sweden), so non-use of the endonym is not exceptional in WP practice. Ultimately, Gudbrandsdalen is a Norwegian endonym and Gudbrand(s) Valley an English exonym. Doremo (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Transparency is also a criterion. The word "Gudbrand(s)" does not carry any information as in the case of Tarfala in Sweden or Rhine on the continent. Ottadalen is the valley of river Otta ("Otta" carries information), whereas Gudbrandsdalen is the valley of river Gudbrandsdalslågen. So I dont think "Gudbrand Valley" adds transparency and precision. Perhaps "Gudbrandsdalen (valley)" is better. --— Erik Jr. 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding transparency, Gudbrand Valley indicates to English speakers without knowledge of Norwegian that the place is a valley named after someone or something called "Gudbrand" (akin to the Nile Valley being a valley named after someone or something called "Nile"). Gudbrandsdalen (valley) would be awkward, akin to Berliner Mauer (wall) or to Wienerwald (woods). Doremo (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the name "Gudbrand" does not make any sense (unless you know some specific saga). So the two the parts have been fused into one name. This is true for many compound geographical names in Norway for instance Østerdalen (Eastern valley), Romerike (realm of the Romes/Raums), Finnmark (frontier land of the Sami people). In some cases it make sense to break up the name to make English names such as Jostedal Glacier, Gauldalen or Jølstravatn. --— Erik Jr. 15:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Most specific elements of most geographical names (Gudbrand Valley, Skoki Valley, Heizhu Valley, etc.) don't mean anything to people. That's OK; a good article explains the meaning of the specific element. This article explains the meaning of Gudbrand in the etymology section. However, English speakers immediately understand the generic element (valley). Doremo (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year! Given that "Gudbrandsdalen" is widely used in Enlish language publications, more than "Gudbrand Valley" (see statistics above), and the arguments that it does not make sense (even in Norwegian) to break up a given name, I still think the move is unfortunate. In addition, I think English WP will run into problems if this principle is used throughout. For instance Buerbreen is a glacier and article title could also be "Buer glacier" as the name relates to valley, settlement and river (Buer river, Buer valley). Folgefonna is also a glacier and "fonn" is another Norwegian word for glacier/snowcap, so in principle the article could be called "Folge glacier" in English. But again the word "Folge" does not have any meaning in modern Norwegian, it is an old Norse word that is not used anymore. So the originally compound name "Folgefonna" has been fused into one. Like German, Norwegian is language that creates new words and names by compounding nouns, in some cases the compound is "loose" (created for the occasion such as "askefast"="unable to travel because of volcanic ash in air"), in other cases the compound becomes fixed (often because the original meaning is irrelevant or forgotten for instance "Oslo" or "Trondheim"). Lots of geography articles for Norway does not have a generic English term in the title, Folgefonna is one expample, Glomma another etc. --— Erik Jr. 18:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Godt nytt år to you as well. :-) There is a range of decomposability in geographic names. As you point out, noncompound proper names like Glomma (or Gudbrand, for that matter) cannot be decomposed, whereas compounded names (like Groruddalen, Margaretakirken, Bergenshalvøyen, etc.) can easily be decomposed. The results (Grorud Valley, St. Margaret's Church, Bergen Peninsula, etc.) are generally more natural and easier to understand for a non-Norwegian-speaker. Moving Buerbreen to Buer Glacier, for example, would make very good sense based on English sources. Doremo (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but this is original research per synthesis. You claim that because Groruddalen and Bergenshalvøen can be decomposed, so can Gudbrandsdalen. But Grorud is place in the valley and Bergen is the city on the penninsula, while "Gudbrand" does carry any information. There are loads of composite names in Norway, but can not be decomposed anymore, for instance Oslo (Meadow beneath the hill), Ålesund (sund refers to a sound or small canal) or Geiranger ("-anger" means "fjord") - such names can not be decomposed because it does not make sense. WP editors should not invent things, including article titles, we should stick to the most commonly used name. --— Erik Jr. 10:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a few more searches. NY Times mentions "Gudbrand valley" 1 time according to google, but Gudbrandsdal(en) 11 times. The Guardian 0 (zero) and 10 respectively, The Telegraph 0 (zero) and 5 respectively. NYTimes also use "Gudbrandsdalen valley". Visit Norway uses Gudbrandsdalen. There is little evidence that "Gudbrand valley" is the most commonly used name even in English language. --— Erik Jr. 10:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional search in Google scholar (scientific documents) returns: 10 hits for "Gudbrand valley", 3230 hits for "Gudbrandsdalen", 1390 hits for "Gudbrandsdal". A search in the EBSCOhost returned 94 hits for "Gudbrandsdalen", and no (zero) hits for "Gudbrand valley". --— Erik Jr. 17:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed title

WP naming conventions says that articles should use the most commonly used name as article title. While "Gudbrand valley" have been used occasionally, it is rare. The name can not be decomposed because the first part "Gudbrand" does not carry any meaning (see discussion above). The move was done without proper discussion. --— Erik Jr. 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This does not add anything new to the discussion above. Doremo (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but it clarifies that the move is controversial. --— Erik Jr. 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me as a starting point quote some points from the relevant guideline:

• General guideling:...it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.
• Specific for places: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name.

--— Erik Jr. 17:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not going to repeat the conversation from the section above. Doremo (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we need others to have a look at this, so I just presenting the facts. --— Erik Jr. 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Others' comments are certainly welcome. Given that both forms are found in English sources, try to make a case for why Gudbrandsdalen is more useful/informative/clear than Gudbrand Valley for readers of English Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 22:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Gudbrand Valley → Gudbrandsdalen – Move from Gudbrandsdalen to Gudbrand Valley unwarranted. Gudbrandsdalen is the commonly used name in modern English sources. Additional facts and arguments on talk page — Erik Jr. 10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ENGLISH; Gudbrand Valley (the more English name) is found in reliable sources published by university presses in both the US and UK, and is a more transparent name for users of English Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PLACE, "Gudbrandsdalen" is the most commonly used in modern English sources (see facts in earlier discussion sections). As far as I know transparency is not a criteria for choice of title. While some compound words in Norwegian can be decomposed, it does not make much sense in this case because the first component ("Gudbrand") does not carry any information. If a more informative title is needed, then add information in parenthesis like "Gudbrandsdalen (valley)" or "Gudbrandsdalen (district)". --— Erik Jr. 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: According to the article (and the encyclopedic source cited), Gudbrand does bear information, referring to the first ruler of the valley. Doremo (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is more or less a legend (some Norwegians have heard about it and most dont care, so why should English speakers be more informed? that is why Norwegians dont decompose the name), and most importantly refer to anything in the modern context such as other geographical features. "Rhine valley" is informative because it is the valley of the river Rhine. Surnadal is the valley of the river Surna. But Gudbrandsdalen is the valley of the Lågen river (or river system). --— Erik Jr. 20:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. It is the nature of Norwegian to form compounds, as mentioned above (like Groruddalen, Margaretakirken, Bergenshalvøyen, etc.). It is not because Norwegians think Grorud, Margareta, and Bergen are meaningless syllables. Doremo (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you miss the point. Norwegian certainly form compounds, not unlike German, that is an important way Norwegian language develops. (Even the definite article is fused with the noun.) Both proper and common names are created this way. But in some names the components are permantly fused and can not be meaningfully decomposed. Oslo is a clear example. Trondheimsfjord is obviously the fjord at Trondheim and we know that Surnadal is the valley of river Surna (can be meaninfully decomposed), but Tafjorden or Hjørundfjorden can not be decomposed anymore even if we understand that "-fjord" indicates a fjord. --— Erik Jr. 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from the encyclopedic source cited that Norwegians believe the valley is named after a man named Gudbrand. It doesn't matter if he is a real person or a legend; it could be called Askeladdensdalen or Pippilangstrømpedalen and it would still have a meaningful basis. Doremo (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not something the average Norwegians believes, some Norwegian perhaps remember the story from history textbooks in school. --— Erik Jr. 21:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Erik den yngre. A permanently fused name, commonly used in English (and I've never, heard of this Gudbrand fellow, and I did attend school in Norway). Manxruler (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a compound in Norwegian, but that's not the question here. I don't believe that our individual knowledge is relevant. Most English have surely never heard of Ia of Cornwall, but St Ives is nonetheless still named for her. Doremo (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You're the one bringing up what "Norwegians think". By the way, "Grorud" doesn't mean much, etymologists can't even figure out the meaning of that one properly. Manxruler (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That's referring to the assumption that Store norske leksikon is a reliable source. I don't really know what anybody thinks, although I highly doubt that Norwegians see no structure in the name Gudbrandsdalen and view it as an meaningless sequence of fused syllables. After all, it's not only the university presses, but also Norwegian authors that have used the English name Gudbrand Valley (e.g., here). Doremo (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwegians of course see the structure in the name, it is transparent to anybody that speaks Norwegian that it is a compound. For instance Romsdalen and Valldal are clearly valleys, but the components are permanently fused and can not be readily decomposed. Romsdal means Valley of Rauma river, so can not be decomposed to "Roms Valley", for the average Norwegian "Roms-" does not carry any meaning. For Valldal the "Vall-" does not carry any meaning in a modern context. --— Erik Jr. 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the structure of Gudbrandsdalen as transparent as that of Severndalen and Moseldalen? Doremo (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Sorry

My request for 3rd opinion was deleted and a move request recommended instead. I made a mistake when I added the RM template, so duplicated above. Sorry. --— Erik Jr. 10:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)