Talk:S.A. (corporation)

Archives (Index)

2011 2012 2015 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 4 June 2015

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: procedural close as no consensus. Discussion has ranged over multiple pages with various suggestions. This one hasn't gained consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

---

S.A. (corporation) → Corporations under civil law – This is not specifically about S.A.'s, this is about corporations as formulated under civil law in general. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC) -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. See my comments in #Discussion, and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015_June_4#S.A. 70.51 does us well to bring this up. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

s.p.A. and S.P.A. are up for discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion. User:70.51.46.11, a regular there (as I am), kindly referred to this RM, and I am linking back to that with similar courtesy. I don't really want to split the discussion, but of course the redirects will follow the move, that is the correct master/slave relationship.

I feel that the proposed title is far too vague. S.A. currently redirects to the DAB at SA, which doesn't even mention it. (Of course, I could WP:BOLDly add it, but don't like to do so when things are under discussion: patently I think we would all agree it should be at that DAB, whatever its eventual title is.) But I think it would be better to move it over the redirect at S.Ato Société Anonyme^{Struck and changed by Si Trew (talk)}. Obviously we need to do a lot of tidying up with this one, but I don't see why it needs to have the "(corporation)" when S.A. is going spare. In any event, it should at least, I think, be listed at the DAB. In the meantime, I will mark it as {{R from other punctuation}}, without prejudice to this discussion or the one I shall start on RfD -- I don't like to split discussions but this is a bit of a rat's nest, we'll get there together, I'm sure. Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at this, the best thing is to move this over Société Anonyme -> S.A. (corporation), obviously with the {{R from title without diacritics}} at redirect Societe Anonyme, and {{R from initialism}} at S.A.. A bot will tie up the double redirects, wherever we put it, but it is a WP:SURPRISE and WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion" for that redirect to go to a DAB that doesn't mention it. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2015 (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.

"SA"

The usage and primary topic of SA is under discussion, see Talk:Sturmabteilung -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2015

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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

---

S.A. (corporation) → S.A. The discussion immediately above this, from 70.51, a regular at WP:RFD refers to, is also listed there but now closed. Since that is now not in the way, I still propose that this be moved over. SA without the punctuation is maybe a step too far, but S.A. with the punc I think is fine to move over and we don't need to DAB it with the parenthetical (corporation). @BDD: may think otherwise, though. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the French corporation type is the primary topic of "S.A." and further, this article isn't even about the French corporation type, per the preceding move request, the content of this article does not attempt to describe the French corporation type, it attempts to describe all corporations under civil law, not just those under French law, so the proposed title (and current title) is misleading. If this is to only cover "S.A."s, then the article needs to be rewritten to be about French corporations that are S.A.s because corporations under civil law have a variety of names, not just "S.A." -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, I see no evidence, or even any strong indicators that there is a primary topic for this two-letter combination. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE see also intertwined nomination at Talk:S.A. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Do you seriously think there is a single global primary topic for an initialism/acronym/word with such a long and varied disambig page? I live in South Australia and wouldn't try to claim that has global dominance over South Africa. The disambiguation page is longer than the article this move suggests is the primary topic, and even that is mostly only translations to different languages! --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not primary topic.--KTo288 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the initials are used for more that one subject matter/topic. Kierzek (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (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.

"paid to whomever held the certificate"

Grammatically speaking, this is a classic "whoever" vs. "whomever" dilemma. Personally, however, and for what it is worth, I incline to the former usage of those two. Toddcs (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)