![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should the article be renamed to "Natwest" as the common name? Even the article says Natwest is the common name in the opening. WP:COMMONNAME has more details to support my motion. Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
From "NatWest" to "National Westminster Bank"
From "National Westminster Bank" to "NatWest"
It seems that the page resided at "National Westminster Bank" first and that initially there was a page split due to a cut and past move to "NatWest" which was fixed with a history merge by user:Keith D in 2008. After that merge the page remained at "National Westminster Bank" for for about a year when it was briefly moved to NatWest (one hour). It then resided at "National Westminster Bank" for about 4 years until June 2012 it was moved to NatWest that move was reverted in September 2012 and it resided at "National Westminster Bank" until you moved it in January 2014.
As an administrative action to stop this slow move flip flop I am going to move it back to "National Westminster Bank" Please use the WP:RM process to see if there is a consensus for "an uncontroversial policy-based move such as this" If there is then future moves will have to be done through the RM process and this should move the slow motion move war onto the talk page. -- PBS ( talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead."-- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
National Westminster Bank → NatWest – To stop a slow move war and brings some stability to the name. PBS ( talk) 15:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
" common usage"(within the prose as well as the headlines). This is hardly surprising, with the offical name being such a mouthful! Are we done with this yet? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This article seems to contain a disproportionate amount of information about the Royal Bank of Scotland Bank Group. Could some more info about NatWest be added?-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 09:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the footprint of the NatWest Tower is in the shape of the bank’s logo, and cites a BBC article as reference. The footprint of the building is *not* in the shape of the logo - it may approximate it, vaguely, but it’s a very, very loose correlation, and furthermore it’s actually running the wrong way round… This was pointed out to me by Mike Swann, one of the graphic designers who created the original logo. Add to that the cite BBC article doesn’t actually relate to the claim of the footprint, and this should probably be re-thought. Jock123 ( talk) 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"; its footprint loosely approximating the bank's logo"again, because this is not referred to within the cited BBC article. Whether or not the article text has been modified to
"loosely approximating"isn't of much relevance in this case. Making an (unsourced) note of such loose approximation isn't an encyclopedic way of going about things. Content is required to be verifiable, and contributions should not generally include original research. If I've misunderstood something, please say so. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 12:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, the bank is still officially named 'National Westminster Bank'. This is the name registered at Companies House (where it's also appended with "public limited company"). This is more than just
a formal name, regardless of the
WP:COMMONNAME used for the actual article title itself, as referred to at
WP:NCCORP. Therefore I'm reinstating the "officially named"
wording. Have I missed something? --
Trevj (
talk ·
contribs)
12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"formally"and
"formerly", so I think in cases suh as these it's best avoided. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should the article be renamed to "Natwest" as the common name? Even the article says Natwest is the common name in the opening. WP:COMMONNAME has more details to support my motion. Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
From "NatWest" to "National Westminster Bank"
From "National Westminster Bank" to "NatWest"
It seems that the page resided at "National Westminster Bank" first and that initially there was a page split due to a cut and past move to "NatWest" which was fixed with a history merge by user:Keith D in 2008. After that merge the page remained at "National Westminster Bank" for for about a year when it was briefly moved to NatWest (one hour). It then resided at "National Westminster Bank" for about 4 years until June 2012 it was moved to NatWest that move was reverted in September 2012 and it resided at "National Westminster Bank" until you moved it in January 2014.
As an administrative action to stop this slow move flip flop I am going to move it back to "National Westminster Bank" Please use the WP:RM process to see if there is a consensus for "an uncontroversial policy-based move such as this" If there is then future moves will have to be done through the RM process and this should move the slow motion move war onto the talk page. -- PBS ( talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead."-- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
National Westminster Bank → NatWest – To stop a slow move war and brings some stability to the name. PBS ( talk) 15:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
" common usage"(within the prose as well as the headlines). This is hardly surprising, with the offical name being such a mouthful! Are we done with this yet? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This article seems to contain a disproportionate amount of information about the Royal Bank of Scotland Bank Group. Could some more info about NatWest be added?-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 09:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the footprint of the NatWest Tower is in the shape of the bank’s logo, and cites a BBC article as reference. The footprint of the building is *not* in the shape of the logo - it may approximate it, vaguely, but it’s a very, very loose correlation, and furthermore it’s actually running the wrong way round… This was pointed out to me by Mike Swann, one of the graphic designers who created the original logo. Add to that the cite BBC article doesn’t actually relate to the claim of the footprint, and this should probably be re-thought. Jock123 ( talk) 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"; its footprint loosely approximating the bank's logo"again, because this is not referred to within the cited BBC article. Whether or not the article text has been modified to
"loosely approximating"isn't of much relevance in this case. Making an (unsourced) note of such loose approximation isn't an encyclopedic way of going about things. Content is required to be verifiable, and contributions should not generally include original research. If I've misunderstood something, please say so. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 12:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, the bank is still officially named 'National Westminster Bank'. This is the name registered at Companies House (where it's also appended with "public limited company"). This is more than just
a formal name, regardless of the
WP:COMMONNAME used for the actual article title itself, as referred to at
WP:NCCORP. Therefore I'm reinstating the "officially named"
wording. Have I missed something? --
Trevj (
talk ·
contribs)
12:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"formally"and
"formerly", so I think in cases suh as these it's best avoided. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)