Talk:S.V. Zulte Waregem

Belgium Mid‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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: no consensus. Suggest revisiting in a month or two, but next time please do it as a multi-move rather than listing a dozen separate RMs all with the same rationale. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

S.V. Zulte Waregem → SV Zulte Waregem — Most sources refer to SV Zulte Waregem, not S.V. Zulte Waregem (see their Official website and UEFA page). 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC).

Support move. Also, I think that this is how the Manual of Style recommends to write abbreviations. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC).Reply
Oppose - as unnecessary. There is no clear consensus on this and it is my understanding that either is acceptable. Some people say that as an abbreviation it should have the ".", others not. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - unnecessary and inconsistent. Have a look also at Talk:Manchester_United_F.C./Archive_12#Requested_move. --Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 18:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Mild Support So, the MOS does say, "The letters in an acronym are generally not separated by periods (full stops) or blank spaces." However, a brief search reveals that most Belgian clubs do use full stops when SV occurs in their name. These two factors are at odds with each other, and I cannot say that I strongly care one way or the other. Nevertheless, the MOS exists for a reason, and I suppose it deserves the benefit of the doubt in close cases. Xoloz (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2014 (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.

Add topic