Talk:Norwegian First Division

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 27 November 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: No consensus: after a month of discussion, it is clear that there is an irreconcilable difference between those in the WP:CONSISTENCY camp and those in the WP:COMMONNAME camp. No prejudice against another RM after a cool-off period as long as everyone is pinged, nor against taking this decision to move review as it appears that there is a 6-6 split between support and oppose. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Norwegian First Division → 1. divisjon – 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 1. divisjon, or at least 1. divisjon (Norwegian football). 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". Reitimwinkl (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 08:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for consistency with 2. divisjon and 3. divisjon. Number 57 09:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Makes sense. It's what the league is called, therefore it's the competition's common name and, in Wikipedia terms, helps things remain consistent. R96Skinner (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I initially closed this RM, however I have re-opened it following a request on my talk page. Iffy★Chat -- 08:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as far as I can tell the proposed name does not meet any of the WP:CRITERIA for picking article titles. It is not WP:PRECISE, because it is simply the Norwegian name for "1 division" which could refer to very many different things. It is not the WP:COMMONNAME in English for this subject - indeed I haven't seen any other English sources whatsoever referring to it as "1. divisjon". That means the proposed name is not WP:RECOGNIZEable to ordinary English speaker. And we shouldn't use the Norwegian name per WP:UE. That is probably the crucial difference between this and examples like "2. Bundesliga". Finally, WP:CONSISTENCY is mentioned above, but the true consistency should be with other entries in the category Category:Second level football leagues in Europe and they overwhelmingly use the format "[Nationality] [N] Division" for examples where there isn't an established English name. In fact it's 2. divisjon and 3. divisjon that are wrongly named and they should be moved to be in line with this one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No reason to anglicize the name. There are many examples of leagues with non-english names, such as: Eliteserien, Allsvenskan, Úrvalsdeild karla etc. The best example is perhaps Superettan, which is the 2nd tier of football in Sweden, just like the Norwegian First Division, better known as 1. divisjon, is the 2nd tier of football in Norway. Why can't the Norwegian equivalent have a non-english name too? Sørhaug (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's every reason to anglicize the name. It's called WP:UE, a policy. That's why we say "Germany" rather than "Deutschland" etc. Things like Bundesliga work OK, because they are well known and recognizable to most people, but "1. divisjon" is just gobbledy-gook to anyone who doesn't speak Norwegian.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so you think Superettan is recognizable to English-speakers, but 1. divisjon is not? And what about leagues like Ykkönen, Esiliiga, I Lyga, I liga and LigaPro. These are all national 2nd tiers of football. Are these leagues more recognizable than 1. divisjon? Sørhaug (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they should be anglicised, too. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no need to anglicise the name, because it isn't the common name. Agree with above reasons for why we have it in native languages for all the other European leagues. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There IS a need to anglicize the name, per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, as Amakuru pointed out, because all ENGLISH sources that refer to this topic also anglicize it. Whether the current title is considered the name for the topic most commonly used in English or the best descriptive title for the topic in English doesn't really matter. Either way, its meets COMMONNAME, UE and WP:AT WP:CRITERIA much better than the proposed foreign language name which is not used at all in English sources. Since this RM was just re-opened I'm relisting as well. --В²C ☎ 19:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add: There is no evidence that reliable English sources uses the divisjon spelling. To the contrary, relevant English sources like soccerway.com use English division[1]] --В²C ☎ 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I've merged in the requested moves at Talk:2017 Norwegian First Division#Requested move 5 December 2018 and Talk:2008 Norwegian First Division. Ping all who commented: @Reitimwinkl, Number 57, R96Skinner, Amakuru, Sørhaug, Joseph2302, Steel1943, BarrelProof, In ictu oculi, and Born2cycle:. Hopefully with this centralized discussion we can get a clear resolution in a week :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – Per WP:UE, we'd only use the untranslated name if there were no common English name in reliable sources. In this case, "Norwegian First Division" is not some artificial contrivance, but the common name in English for this subject. See Google News and Google Books. Admittedly, this subject is not that commonly discussed in English, but when it is, the English name is used. There is no evidence of use of "1. divisjon" in English...searches produce only Norwegian-language results. For that reason, I strongly oppose this change. The present title is clearer, more common in English, and more recognisable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anglicize as per Amakuru and B2C and sources. The proposed form does not seem recognizable to English readers. I agree with B2C that English-language sources would be almost certain to anglicize the name, which seems confirmed by reviewing the sources cited in the article. I suggest considering "Division 1 (Norwegian football league)" and "First division (Norwegian football league)". There are three sources cited in the article that have some English in them. Two are from RSSSF Norway, both using "First division" in their headlines. The other is from Soccerway, which uses "1. DIVISION" as its headline. Using "(Norwegian football)" might give readers the impression that Norwegian football is something different from the football played elsewhere, as would "(American football)" or "(Australian football)". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To me, this comes down to choosing between a “Name” (the Norwegian version) vs a “Descriptive title” (the anglicized version). Both are acceptable, so I do not have strong Preference for either. That said, we do need to consider the issue of Consistency with the related 2. divisjon & 3. divisjon articles. If this one is anglicized, those should probably be Anglicized as well, if the Norwegian version is used here, we should use Norwegian there as well. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. Whatever is decided here should be reflected in those article titles too - I can't imagine anyone objecting to that. --В²C ☎ 03:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Amakuru. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey! Bradv unearthed this one English source that uses "1. divisjon"[2]. Far from qualifying as common, but does refute the claim that no English sources use that spelling. --В²C ☎ 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per N57. GiantSnowman 08:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we assume, as appears to be the case with Number 57, that if the other two titles were changed, the current title would be OK for you? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't support changing the other two titles. Number 57 12:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Sørhaug's justification Mrsmiis (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per B2C. With consistency per Blueboar's comment.--PBS (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The proposed names are so generic that they could apply to many sports and locations. There is a wider issue here that needs consideration IMO. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

There seem to be at least two issues raised above that need some thought here IMO:

  • Consistency. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • Recognisability. See below.

Both have appeared in other recent RMs. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recognisability[edit]

As I said above, the proposed titles are very generic. IMO they are likely search terms for other locations and other sports. Does this matter? I think it does when a proposed title is as extremely generic as these are, with only small differences making them unambiguous from other sports and locations that do appear in reliable sources, even if not by exactly that name. But, where do we draw the line? This is such a big issue I think it deserves a section all its own. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 26 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.

Requested move 5 October 2021[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.

– I propose moving all the Norwegian men's football divisions from level 2 to level 5, in addition to the women's level 2. The reason being consistency in the article titles. As this is the English Wikipedia, it seems only reasonable that English language sources should have an impact on the names, especially when the current Norwegian names are not very prevalent in neither English nor Norwegian sources. For example, SofaScore, SoccerStats.com, FootyStats.org, Tribuna.com, and RSSSF (Norwegian football archive) all refer to the second level as the Norwegian 1st Division (or Norwegian First Division), and the lower divisions should match that name for consistency. There are also pages like Soccerway and FcTables.com who refer to the league as 1. Division, which is an incorrect translation of 1. divisjon. A correct translation would be "1st division". The Norwegian Football Federation, Altomfotball, Eurosport, VG, and Global Sports Archive refer to the Norwegian 1st Division by its sponsored name, OBOS-ligaen, which is not ideal as a Wikipedia title. Sources that refer to the second level as 1. divisjon are: NRK, NIFS, WorldFootball.net and National Football Teams. The titles I would suggest are Norwegian 1st Division, Norwegian 2nd Division etc. But they are in no way set in stone. Another opportunity is to substitute the number in the titles with letters, so that Norwegian 1st Division would become Norwegian First Division. However, I think Norwegian 1st Division should be used in that case because it is more concise and a better translation of the Norwegian "1. divisjon". The names should not be confused with Category:Divisions of Norway though. Yet another opportunity is to use the Norwegian names, but it is worth mentioning that a proposed move to 1. divisjon in 2018 reached no consensus. Another question to be had is whether the word "Division" should be capitalised or not. Also keep in mind that there are of course many templates, categories and season pages that go with these articles that would also have to be moved should this proposal be accepted. Sørhaug (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like this could get messy and confusing with counterpoints all saying Move, especially if someone says "Move per person XYZ proposal", where you'd have to go back to check that person's proposal. Can we make it so that it is something like:
Option 1: Move all to Norwegian X Division
Option 2: Move all to Y.divisjon
Then everyone can say Support option 1 OR Support Option 2. Might be easier to see results that way. RedPatch (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Option 1 all to 'Norwegian X Division' per GiantSnowman.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the avoidance of doubt, my support above is the same as Option 1 suggested by RedPatch. GiantSnowman 13:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Option 2 is my personal preference given other leagues similar to the Segunda Divisão and Terceira Divisão in Portugal, both of which went through renames from to change from English to Port recently Talk:Segunda Divisão#Requested move 20 November 2020. I'd be okay with Option 1 though if that is the consensus. RedPatch (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That move to "Segunda Divisão" makes no sense whatsoever, I'm not sure why it was approved. It's not the common name in English, and no evidence was presented that it was. It's not even a unique name, since it's ambiguous with the Campeonato Paulista Segunda Divisão in Brazil. I suggest that it should be moved back to the previous title. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Option 1 per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Option 2 if the common language of the country can be rendered in the Latin-script alphabet, it should be in the language of the territory. The "common English" might not be a correct translation. --dashiellx (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:UE: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage so it doesn't matter if it is a correct translation or not. That doesn't mean that the fact an incorrect translation is used for an article title can't be explained in the article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Option 2. Why is the first one even different to the rest? my vote is to move it to 1. divisjon to be consistent with the others, alongside the fact that we dont have "the league" for La Liga. Muur (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    La Liga is a name that is known all around the world though, which 1. divisjon is not. Also keep in mind that "1. divisjon" is not pronounced like "one division". It's pronounced like "første divisjon" (lit. "first division"), and I don't think many English speakers would refer to it that way, therefore Norwegian First Division is more applicable. Sørhaug (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per WP:USEENGLISH. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 5. divisjon page has been redirected, so I removed it from this discussion. Sørhaug (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over-capitalization[edit]

Did nobody notice that in RGlochester's new link above, and news in general, first division, second division, etc. are uniformly lowercase? So any objections if I just fix this? Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, there have been multiple requested moves already. You don't reverse them with a casual "can I just fix this?" Submit a new RM because this is, per the WP:RM instructions, "potentially controversial". – wbm1058 (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of the previous RMs considered this capitalization issue, I would think it routine to just fix it. But I'm asking first if anyone watching this article would be bothered by that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dick, I'm really tired of this. They "didn't consider it" because they all assumed that Norwegian First Division is the proper name of a specific entity. Not a generic descriptor of some generic thing. This is the same deal as the NFL Draft. This should be automatic for needing an RM. Whenever a title is up for move, all aspects are up for possible consideration. Given there have been multiple previous discussions, it's a huge stretch to assume that nobody noticed it was a proper name that shouldn't be proper. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is why I asked. But if you insist that an RM is needed, based on speculation that someone might object, we can do that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this is a BIG DEAL because it's not just this page. There are nine divisions and the first four have articles, so there are several impacted pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be some work involved. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2022[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, and one rescinded earlier close, there is still a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time, and a reasonable argument that the current titles are permissible. Discussion basically appears to be a back-and-forth "are too/are not" on the question. BD2412 T 03:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– These division terms are not usually capped in sources. They are uniformly lowercase in news, and don't appear often enough in books to get stats (and some of the capped uses in books are about military divisions). Other pages dependent on these main ones will also be affected, as before. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Most of the news sources that use "Norwegian first division" are actually referring to the Eliteserien. The first four articles that I see are about Inter Miami and their signing of Robert Taylor (footballer, born 1994). He has never played in the Norwegian First Division, only the Eliteserien. There's another article that refer to SK Brann as a "Norwegian first-division club" in 2021, but they played in the Eliteserien at the time. There are also articles that claim Daniel Chima Chukwu has won three "Norwegian first division titles". Again, they are actually referring to the Eliteserien. Sørhaug (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and evidence presented. The news evidence shows mostly l.c. The book evidence shows mixed usage, taking into account context (ie soccer not military). Specificity is archived by the definite article so, specificity is not defining of a "proper noun/name" - ie a noun phrase can be specific but not a "proper name". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are not ipso facto proper nouns/names. They are descriptive of a category. Specificity may be a feature of a proper noun/name but it is not defining of a proper noun/name. As already stated, specificity is achieved by the definite article - which we see in these cases. Because there are differing views on what should (or shouldn't) be capitalised the broad community consensus per MOS:CAPS is to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. With only limited English language book sources, news sources are a reasonable corpus to rely upon. If the "first division" may refer to the Eliteserien, then we can look to the other divisions. Searches for the second and third divisions that show similar mixed usage that does not support capitalisation. WP:CONSISTENT applies to similar articles and this is a group of similar articles (ie the Norwegian league) but an argument to consistency has a diminishing reach. For example, "province" is not always capitalised when used as part of an article title (see here) but capitalisation is usually consistent within a country because the reasons to capitalise (or not) vary from country to country. Consistency does not reasonably extend outside this group. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Norwegian capitalises proper nouns but it does not capitalise "1. divisjon" etc for these names. Hence, they are not considered proper non/names in Norwegian and there is no good reason to assert that they should be translated to a capitalised form. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is the proper name of the league in English and should be capitalised, like all the other examples above. GiantSnowman 13:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The news sources presented as evidence are worth nothing. Why wouldn't these be proper names? Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dismissing the sources as "worth nothing" seems a little off-piste when using sources to make that assessment is the entire basis of WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS. "Why wouldn't these be proper names?" you ask... because they aren't, and there's no evidence anyone treats them as one.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of the first 5 sources found in Google searches (excluding one that I can't access for GDPR reasons) for "Norwegian first division", [3], [4], [5], [6] (4/5) all refer to teams in the Eliteserien, whereas [7] is only one that actually means Norwegian First Division. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This RM is not just about the first division. If we can't easily get a clear picture for that, what about the other divisions and the evidence for them? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no evidence has been presented that it's the WP:COMMONNAME for the other divisions, as the nominator only posted for the First Division (which is what I've refuted above). The onus is on the people requesting a change to demonstrate the need for it, which nobody has done through providing sources yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Sources were provided "previously". Per MOS:CAPS, the onus is to show that caps are necessary. Nobody has shown that caps are necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Joseph2302. The onus is not to show that caps are necessary. For a requested move, the onus is on the proposer (and their supporters) to show that their request is correct or the common name. This would be to show that caps are unnecessary, i.e. a move from Norwegian First Division to Norwegian first division. Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like what was the case with "Norwegian first division", the same is the case for "Norwegian second division". The news that refer to the Norwegian second division are not referring to the Norwegian Second Division. They are referring to the Norwegian First Division, which is the second division or second level of Norwegian football. The news sources don't prove anything in regards to what the name should be. The use of "first division", "second division" etc. in news is simply descriptive. Sørhaug (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per above comments, lots of the mentions of "Norwegian first division" are for the top division Eliteserien. Also, this change would make these articles inconsistent with every single other sports article on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: I originally closed this as "Not moved", but undid my nac close after a request on my talk page. Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That this RM is still alive is really annoying. Let's go back and review the previous move, #Requested move 5 October 2021. That moved this off of 1. divisjon. Or was it the previous move requests from November and December 2018? Whatever. There is some precedent and support for titling these football minor leagues in their local language, e.g. 1. deild and 1. deild karla (football). An argument given for not using those names was "per WP:USEENGLISH", without any explanation or interpretation of the guideline. I take this as a simple assertion that divisjon is not an English word, the English word is division, dammit! But the guideline says If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. Hmm. The references are all (in Norwegian) – we have no English-language sources! (Do you expect to find Norwegian-language coverage of the International League? lol) Per WP:Notability Sources do not have to be written in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources says follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about. This topic is most talked about in Norwegian and the established Norwegian conventions are OBOS-ligaen (OBOS League) and 1. divisjon fotball for menn. The "burden" should be on those supporting this move to show that "Norwegian first division" is the established Norwegian convention. In the previous RM someone said It is not the WP:COMMONNAME in English for this subject - indeed I haven't seen any other English sources whatsoever referring to it as "1. divisjon". That begs the question of whether you've seen any other English sources whatsoever referring to these topics. Show us the reliable English-language sources! All I've seen are sources saying that Norwegian first division is a common name for the Eliteserien, which is a different topic! – wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Sørhaug is asserting that the English language sources referring to the second division are actually referring to the first division. That sort of ambiguity will still exist for Anglophone readers (this is En WP) regardless of whether one uses "division" or "divisjon" in the title. It hardly takes a master linguist to tell that they are the same (ie they translate directly). But the division and the tier are actually misaligned. WP:AT would allow us to choose a less ambiguous title. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is your proposal for a less ambiguous title? Many editors here have pointed out that "First division", etc is ambiguous (thus they oppose the move), and so they believe that "First Division" (the status quo) has less ambiguity, as it appears to be a proper name. Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no argument being made that "First Division" is somehow less ambiguous than "first division". I am not certain what might be a good title but I am seeing that "tier" can be used to refer to the level unambiguously. I also see that they have other names, such as the OBOS league. I can only say that it would be silly to continue with names that are clearly ambiguous. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First Division" is less ambiguous because it is the proper name of a specific league, not a generic term describing the level of play. Compare with International League which is the capitalized proper name of an American minor baseball league. Calling this "international league" would be a misnomer because in the current makeup it's not an international league. All teams in the league have home fields in the United States, but the name comes from the fact that in its history the International League had teams in Canada and Cuba as well as those in the United States. We don't have this problem that association football leagues have because there are plenty of English-language sources that capitalize the baseball league's name (the American League actually is an international league, because Toronto Blue Jays) . "First Division" might still need disambiguation between men's and women's leagues, and other sports with a "First Division" such as hockey, but not between leagues for the same sex and sport. Really though, I don't understand your objection to closing this. We shouldn't be moving from one ambiguous name to another, at best, equally ambiguous name (though as I just said, one I feel is even more ambiguous). The issue should be taken up as a naming convention for association football teams, as this issue impacts more than just Norway, and effects hundreds, probably thousands, of articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Division" is clearly ambiguous here as evidenced by the ambiguity of use in the sources. I would presume that you are using "proper name" in the grammatical sense. Capitalisation does not resolve the ambiguity. There is often a false perception that proper nouns|names are capitalised therefore capitalised words are proper nouns but whether a word is a proper noun is a matter of grammar while capitalisation is a matter of orthography. The two sets are quite different properties. We hear and understand proper names in speech but we can't hear capital letters. As I said, Norwegian capitalises proper nouns yet "divisjon" is not capitalised in this name. Whether the ambiguity we have here exists in other sports/leagues is another matter, as is whether terms are consistently capitalised in sources that would lead us to capitalise them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia: A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as Africa, Jupiter, Sarah, or Amazon, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (continent, planet, person, corporation). I guess that is a grammatical concept. In modern English orthography, it is the norm for recognized proper names to be capitalized. So, yes, Norwegian First Division is a single entity, not a class of entities. The assumption here is that this single entity is the WP:primary topic for this proper name, i.e. the men's football league is highly likely—much more likely than Norwegian First Division (women) and Norwegian First Division (ice hockey) combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for Norwegian First Division. I'm open to the idea that there is no primary topic, but that would not be a reason for moving this to lower case. Norwegian first division (lower case) would be a broad-concept article about the class of all second-level sports divisions in Norway, and such an article would cover both men's and women's football and ice hockey, and any other sports with second-level divisions. We should not move any article to a title that changes the scope of the article (or at least without prior agreement that a scope change is necessary). Bold changes in an article's scope usually bring trouble, so this proposal is, again, a nonstarter. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A name is a noun phrase. A noun phrase that is not a proper name can identify a single entity when used with the definite article. We refer here to "the Norwegian First Division"/"the Norwegian first division". Uniqueness is not defining of a proper name. However, true proper names are arbitrary and not descriptive of their referent. This is not such a case. Proper nouns are linguistically cross-cultural. Norwegian capitalises proper nouns but does not capitalise "Norwegian 1. divisjon" in the context of this article. It is clear evidence that the phrase is not a proper noun. "Division" is ambiguous, since not only is the lowercase being used to refer to the first tier competition in English language sources but the upper case also appears to be referring to the first tier competition per these.[8],[9] It is a redherring to argue that an article for all second tier sports across Norway might exist or that readers might perceive such an article could exist. Readers are most likely to be searching for a particular sport (or the military use) but for which tier of a sports competition is ambiguous - certainly in soccer. If anything the title (regardless of capitalisation) might be perceived as a disambiguation or, if they are actually searching for the second tier mens' soccer competition in Norway, a fortunate confluence. For a short title such as "Norwegian First Division" or "Norwegian first division", ambiguity exists regardless of capitalisation. It can only be resolved by context, such as in the lead or by a less ambiguous title. If anything, the evidence is suggesting that the English language WP:COMMONNAME for the second tier competition (this article) is "Norwegian second division". Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, especially MOS:SPORTCAPS, and per nom: "These division terms are not usually capped in sources. They are uniformly lowercase in news" pretty much nails it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMcCandlish. Can the Norwegian editors please work out this mess about first vs second division? Either way, it shouldn't be capped in English. Tony (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GiantSnowman – these are proper names, not descriptive names ("Norwegian first division" as a descriptive name refers to the Eliteserien, which is the first (top) division). Number 57 11:38, 1 April 2022 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norwegian_First_Division&oldid=1202173731"