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)
 * The change was made based on good evidence from reliable sources. See WP:BOLD. Doremo (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be more constructive to slow down and discuss rather than make a unilateral decision. --— Erik Jr. 10:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Romsdal Fjord → Romsdalsfjord – Unwarranted move to less common name without discussion — Erik Jr. 11:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The name Romsdal Fjord is common in English sources. Doremo (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.