Talk:S.V. Zulte Waregem

Requested 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: 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)

S.V. 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).
 * 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)
 * Oppose - unnecessary and inconsistent. Have a look also at Talk:Manchester_United_F.C./Archive_12. -- Pelotas talk undefined contribs  18:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.