Talk:Romsdalsfjord

Unwarranted move

Romsdal Fjord is perhaps used in English, but the move wa done without discussion and with limited evidence. --— Erik Jr. 10:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made based on good evidence from reliable sources. See WP:BOLD. Doremo (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more constructive to slow down and discuss rather than make a unilateral decision. --— Erik Jr. 10:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly searched through major English language newspapers: NY Times

Romsdal Fjord 1 hit
Romsdalsfjorden 1 hit
Romsdalsfjord 2

The Times (London)

Romsdal Fjord 0
Romsdalsfjorden 0
Romsdalsfjord 6

Telegraph (London)

Romsdal Fjord 0
Romsdalsfjorden 0
Romsdalsfjord 4

Google Scholar returned the following hits

Romsdal Fjord 51
Romsdalsfjorden 206
Romsdalsfjord 229

Does not seem like "Romsdal Fjord" is the most commonly used name in English. "Romsdalsfjord" seems more common than "Romsdalsfjorden" (definitive form). — Erik Jr. 11:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 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: Moved BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romsdal Fjord → Romsdalsfjord – Unwarranted move to less common name without discussion — Erik Jr. 11:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The name Romsdal Fjord is common in English sources. Doremo (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The question is not if it is used, but the most widely used name in a modern context. Please let us not repeat the discussion from Gudbrandsdalen. In addition, "-fjord" is perfectly understandable for English speakers. --— Erik Jr. 12:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both are common in English-language sources, so we should prefer the name under which the article was originally created. There was no need for a move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2017 (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.