Talk:Gudbrandsdalen

message: 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)
replies: text: I prefer renaming this article to Gudbrandsdalen. --Berland 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in English 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sinclair 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  distance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Style 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Move from Gudbrandsdalen to Gudbrand valley 

message: 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)
replies: text: This does not add anything new to the discussion above. Doremo (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it clarifies that the move is controversial. --— Erik Jr. 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sorry