Talk:Vroom & Dreesmann

Dutchified English

This article is written in terrible 'Dunglish', with words like 'off' for 'of' (probably not a typo but a very frequent Dutch mistake, as in 'state off the art') and 'warehouses' for 'department stores' ('warehouse' is English for 'magazijn', not 'warenhuis').213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2016

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. Number 57 21:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Vroom & Dreesmann → V&D – The company is most commonly known by its abbreviation in the Netherlands and it is also the official name since 2007. English reliable sources are sparse, but what I can find, with a superficial analysis, is that V&D is accepted there as well. Dutch reliable sources are less ambiguous about this and seem to accept the abbreviation more clearly. Any thoughts?–Totie (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC) –Totie (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - V&D is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME even though having the page name be the actual company name is often preferred. Meatsgains (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The company logo says V&D, its current official name is V&D, sources usually refer to it as V&D in sources; need I go on? Also, here are some examples against the remark about actual company names above: A&W Restaurants, H&M, KFC. I think that when both a full name and abbreviation are used, Wikipedia tends to look at how the subject describes itself for a final answer, but that's just a casual observation. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (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.

Requested move 1 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 section.

---

V&D → Vroom & Dreesmann – Vroom & Dressmann is both the WP:COMMONNAME and unambiguous per WP:TITLEFORMAT (among others), as V&D is also used for Voice and Data and Verification and Debugging (among others). Vroom & Dreesmann does not show in the references as the previous nominator actively replaced all articles with Vroom & Dreesmann in the title with titles that contain just V&D. I saw this happen in real-time but failed to understand that this was part of an RM, even after it was over. After the previous decision was made, nom insisted that the bold text should be V&D (Vroom & Dreesman) which looks like the reverse order, at least to me. I'm revisiting this decision after more than 2 years, after this gained some historical perspective. Common names through Google search will mislead, as many of the internet documents coincide with the final years of Vroom & Dreesmann. The correct way to look at this is through Delpher. As for 120 years, the company's name was Vroom & Dreesmann and only briefly V&D, this a clear case of WP:UNDUE. Of course, during the 8 years of V&D's existence, a better case could have been made for the abbreviation, but the previous decision was made AFTER bankruptcy in 2015. TBT, V&D was sometimes used alongside the official name also before 2007. After all, that name is shorter. Yet, even during the few official V&D years, Vroom & Dreesmann was commonly used just as well and still on some buildings. Out of 128, 120 years is a whopping 94%. Let's put this company in its historical context again! gidonb (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2019 (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.