Talk:Norwegian First Division/Archive 1

Professional vs. semi-professional
There is an ongoing dispute regarding whether Adeccoligaen is a professional or a semi-professional league. This has implications outside this article, as for instance the league's former top scorer Kenneth Kvalheim cannot be included due to notability guidelines unless the league is professional. In this article, a citation is required for the claim "18 players with a professional contract of minimum 180,000 kroner a year". It is agreed that this would indicate that the league is semi-professional, so if the citation is provided, the dispute is resolved. Until this is provided, the article will hold that the league is professional, not semi-professional, as current citations show that (1) explicitly, "professional contracts" are required for all players, (2) there are minimum wage requirements, and (3) players must be given a minimum of 20% employment; foreigners must be given 100% employment. Moreover, media commonly report that a "professional license" is required in order for a club to play in Adeccoligaen, although the official phrasing is "club license".Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Erh - that the clubs needs 18 professional players with a minimum-wage of 180,000 NOK is from the citations you added to the article. Did you actually read them? But if you want this league included in the list of fully pro leagues, WT:FPL is the place to discuss it. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you were referring to 18 professional players in the league as a whole. If 18 players are required for each club at what in fact amounts to a full Norwegian wage, it is a professional league, WT:FPL or not. You need to provide at least one notable citation for your claim that the league is semi-professional: several citations have been provided that indicate that the league is professional. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I re-phrased the sentence to "Formally, Adeccoligaen is a professional league" - leaving it open whether it is professional or semi-professional in practice. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is correct here is that the clubs needs a professional contract with the majority of their players (those five players on the B-list don't need a professional contract), but since the minimum-wage is 180,000 NOK it is infact only a semi-professional league, and that is what should be written in the article. In your initial post you wrote "if the citation is provided, the dispute is resolved", but my claims is supported by the citations you provided - shouldn't the dispute then be resolved ? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added the view that a significant proportion of the players are semi-professional - but a tag has been included, as it is not self-evident. For the record, the Scottish Football League has some of the same problems of definition connected to it. In sum, the reason for the disagreement is that "professional" is ambiguous: it may (1) refer to the formal status of the league as defined by the football association, and (2) refer to the actual employment status of most players. Also, (3) it has not been substantiated through citations or else that a significant proportion of Adeccoligaen players are not full-time players. Maybe you have some inside knowledge that most people are not aware of when it comes to actual contracts in this league. If you do, you may delete the citation needed tag without adding a citation. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your example from Scotland is indeed a good one; the Scottish First Division has in the recent years had one or two semi-pro clubs, and it has been some heavy discussions at WT:FPL whether it should be removed from the list of fully pro leagues. Similarily, when Sarpsborg 08 was promoted to Tippeligaen, they became the first semi-professional club in Tippeligaen, and in this article from 2009 you can read about how many professional players Sarpsborg 08 had in 2009 (13) and 2010 (0), and as far as I know they still only use semi-pros and I believe Sandnes Ulf has been using the same approach after their promotion. You wont find a source for a claim that "Adeccoligaen is a semi-professional league", but we do know that the players needs professional contract with a minimum wage of 180,000, and the club needs atleast 18 on a professional contract to obtain a "profflisens". I believe you need better proof to call this league "professional" instead of "semi-professional". The article from Dagbladet shows an example of how it is in most clubs at the second tier, but that it was uncommon for clubs at the first tier to be semi-professional. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that citation settles it; no crystal clear definition of a "professional league" exists - and although I think the league's formal status is more important to communicate than its de facto status, I can see the arguments to the contrary. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Request move

 * 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. 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. Rettetast (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Adeccoligaen → Norwegian First Division – Adeccoligaen is no longer the name as the sponsor contract with Adecco has expired. 1. divisjon is now the official name. At least until a new sponsor comes in. Kjello (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The constant change of names of the leagues to match sponsors is creating havoc in the naming of leagues and seasons in Norway. A consistent use of non-sponsor names will eliminate the chaos, and the division is commonly referred to by non-sponsored names to such a degree that following WP:COMMONNAME very well may supersede any official (sponsored) name. Arsenikk (talk)  20:52, 2 April 2014 (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.

Orphaned references in Norwegian First Division
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Norwegian First Division's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bakke": From 2015 Tippeligaen:  From 2015 Norwegian First Division:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
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)

Requested move 18 December 2018

 * 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 early close per SNOW by nom, reluctantly. The argument that this is an urgent exception (use of name not used in English sources is blatant violation of COMMONNAME) to immediately reconsider after the previous RM is not gaining traction. В²C ☎ 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

1. divisjon → Norwegian First Division – I'm aware of the RM that just closed but I got here a day too late. More experienced RM editors need to weigh in, as they have in the subarticles and where corresponding moves are not gaining support. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the RM above did not reflect community WP:CONSENSUS. got it exactly right. We need to use the name most commonly used in English, per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. 1. divisjon is most certainly not it, not in English. В²C ☎ 02:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the RM tag. If you believe I evaluated consensus incorrectly in the above discussion, the appropriate venue for that discussion is move review. If you think I've evaluated it correctly, but you don't like the result, then the solution is probably to wait a few months and see if consensus has changed. Brad  v 🍁 03:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , normally you’d be correct and we should wait, but this is an unusual situation. Your reading of that discussion was reasonable - no grounds to review. However, as I explained above, there is reason to believe that particular local consensus was out of sync with community consensus. That reason is the way the subarticle discussions are going (e.g. ). Have you looked at them? It’s essentially the same argument but is failing there. In other words the discussion you closed was a fluke.  Let’s see how this one goes. There is good reason to redo now.  —В²C ☎ 06:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally think it might be more productive for Brad to review his close and reclose as no consensus or relist. Sure, on the face of it there appears a consensus in the discussion above, but when the opposing views from the related discussions are taken into account, as well as the poor quality of argument in this one, (the alleged consistency with other European leagues simply doesn't exist), it's quite clear that there is no community consensus to switch the name of any of these articles into Norwegian. Brad, please could you look at it again? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the other discussion when I closed this one, and had hoped that by closing one of them it could provide some clarity to the other. I agree this is highly unusual — RM discussions should be kept together whenever possible in order to make consensus easier to establish. And now, by opening yet another RM, this confusing situation is unfortunately made worse, not better. Brad  v 🍁 14:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have waited for the 2017... one to be closed before starting this one but the outcome here had been so obviously counter to community consensus (UE and COMMONNAME), and the 2017... is/was thankfully going in that direction, that I thought it would be best for WP to start this corrective RM sooner rather than later. There are repercussions wherever this is referenced that are changing now and will have to be reversed. That’s the disruption I’m hoping to limit. Consider articles that reference both this main one and the year-specific ones. What a cluster! But as far as the close goes I think it’s too much to ask the closer to find no consensus in that discussion as it stood. I know it’s possible to request it be reopened in an MRV but that could take weeks to resolve while a new RM could be resolved in a week. That said I suppose the ideal is that Brad revert his close and close this one, so that original RM discussion could continue. I would support that.  ?  —-В²C ☎ 15:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I indicated on my talk page, the correct way to do this is to close this discussion, wait for the other one to conclude, and then open a new RM if necessary to resolve the conflict. For the record, I don't like the new title either, but it was the right decision based on the conversation above. Brad  v 🍁 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose We just had a perfectly reasonable move discussion to move it. And the other discussion isn't going the other way, it just has more discussion and a higher varieties of opinions. Starting another discussion because you don't like the result of the first one is pointy in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument was “no need to Anglicize”. What about WP:UE? —В²C ☎ 08:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My main point was that 1. divisjon is the common name used in English sources. So far nobody has refuted that claim. Joseph<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, in fact it's the opposite. The term 1. divisjon appears in *no* English sources,as I pointed out in the debate, and nobody refuted that. The main argument in support appeared to be the incorrect assertion that all other second tier leagues use a foreign language title, which should have been rejected by by the closer per my category link above. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy close (too soon). Immediate restarting RMs is disrespectful of the close and disruptive.  Either challenge the previous close at MRV or wait six months and make a very good fresh nomination.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, but don’t you agree this is an unusual situation? Again, no disrespect to the previous close. But all but one of the participants there were misguided. Look at how the same argument is failing at 2017 Norwegian First Division. The 6 month moratorium is a good rule, but there are exceptions.  I think this is one. Or we’ll end up with this conflict for 6 months and a misleading precedent. The time to correct this is now.  Please reconsider.  —В²C ☎ 15:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Not the right way to do things. Number   5  7  11:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per above. <u style="font:1.1em/1em Arial Black"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">Flooded <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> with them <u style="color:#7f2ed1">hundreds 16:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.


 * Hold on. This was speedy closed as withdrawn, yet an admin has moved the page? That makes no sense. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The closer of that previous RM was persuaded to revert/reopen, much to his credit. —В²C ☎ 22:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)