Talk:RBC Roosendaal

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RBC (football club). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pBA7PsgUIqcJ:www.indewandelgangen.com/column/read/138/RBC-Roosendaal-wil-terug-naar-de-top-van-het-amateurvoetbal+&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl with https://web.archive.org/web/20150320043018/http://indewandelgangen.com/column/read/138/RBC-Roosendaal-wil-terug-naar-de-top-van-het-amateurvoetbal on http://www.indewandelgangen.com/column/read/138/RBC-Roosendaal-wil-terug-naar-de-top-van-het-amateurvoetbal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2019

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

RBC (football club) → RBC Roosendaal – The Dutch WP is big on dabs. It just loves parentheses in texts, titles, and practically anywhere. En.wiki has slightly different standards. Netherlands articles, however, often get moved around without community decisions to follow whatever is used at nl.wiki or is (perceived to be) official rather than commonly used and appropriate in an international context. I propose moving "RBC (football club)" back to its common international name "RBC Roosendaal" that is also commonly used in Holland. RBC Roosendaal is also the name in the logo. Alternatively, the full name "Roosendaal Boys Combinatie" is doable, just not as common. Getting rid of the dab is in reach here by WP:COMMONNAME. I look forward to a real community decision! gidonb (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. I'm particularly attracted by the use of this name in Dutch sources as well. GiantSnowman 12:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "RBC Roosendaal" is a tautology; as the nominator points out, RBC stands for "Roosendaal Boys Combinatie", so "Roosendaal Boys Combinatie Roosendaal" wouldn't make sense. – PeeJay 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's historic. The club name officially changed to "RBC Roosendaal" on October 23, 1999, i.e. tautology was no issue for the club. Then why would it be for us? The new amateur club is called RBC, i.e. not "Roosendaal Boys Combinatie" either. "RBC Roosendaal" is still widely used, for example in the press and the name of the supporters club, and was the last name of the professional era. "RBC Roosendaal" was the OFFICIAL name of the club during all its years in the Eredivisie! gidonb (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If that name change were official, why isn’t it mentioned in the article at all? You’re going to need to provide a source for that. – PeeJay 00:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PeeJay, yep, very official. This once people did not make the entire article about the name but did start using RBC Roosendaal inconsistently after the name change. Source would be here. Quoting: "23 oktober 1999 RBC verandert de naam in RBC Roosendaal." At your suggestion, I will add it to the article. Given the source you asked for, I would appreciate it, if you can join the community consensus for the common name. Only together we can make the names less cluttered. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need unanimity for a decision to be put through. Your evidence is sufficient. – PeeJay 12:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PeeJay, I know yet always nice to get everyone on board. I assume that you asked me questions (thank you) to provide your best feedback! A unanimous consensus to unclutter WP, to the extent reasonable, would be great! gidonb (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2020 (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.