Talk:NatWest/Archives/2014

Article Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Well spotted. I've now moved it back. I think I'm right in saying that any registered editor could have done this (provided there'd been no subsequent edits to the resulting redirect) in an uncontroversial policy-based move such as this. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the log on both pages of the move history

From "NatWest" to "National Westminster Bank"

• 15:23, 29 June 2008 Keith D moved page Talk:NatWest to Talk:National Westminster Bank (Histmerge from old page move by cut & paste)
• 18:51, 27 August 2009 Chrisieboy moved page Talk:NatWest to Talk:National Westminster Bank over redirect
• 14:20, 1 September 2012 Chrisieboy moved page Talk:NatWest to Talk:National Westminster Bank over redirect

From "National Westminster Bank" to "NatWest"

• 17:34, 27 August 2009 Cadbury Wispa (talk | contribs | block) moved page National Westminster Bank to NatWest over redirect
• 00:24, 23 June 2012 Barryob (talk | contribs | block) moved page National Westminster Bank to NatWest over redirect (common)
• 14:04, 21 January 2014 Trevj (talk | contribs | block) moved page National Westminster Bank to NatWest over redirect (WP:COMMONNAME, also Talk:NatWest/Archives/2014#Article Rename)

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)

Thanks for the summary of the moves. After further analysis, I think that there's already demonstrated consensus for the article to reside at NatWest, in policy and numbers terms, if not in length of time at that title.

If the recent move to National Westminster Bank was purely administrative, then we just have the 15:16, 29 June 2008 move (Keith D) and then two moves by Chrisieboy (18:51, 27 August 2009 and 14:20, 1 September 2012) to consider. These are not policy-based moves.

The moves to NatWest were 17:34, 27 August 2009 (now blocked sock Cadbury Wispa), 00:24, 23 June 2012 (Barryob) and my move. The latter two were supported by policy, also by JetBlast in the above comment.

Therefore, we have 3 editors expressing a policy-based preference for NatWest, and no arguments expressed against such a move, just (non policy-based) actions. I think this can be interpreted as a consensus, unless anyone has any policy-based reasons to keep the article at National Westminster Bank. I therefore propose a move back to NatWest, per WP:COMMONNAME, on the understanding that such a move isn't controversial.

Thoughts? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to move it use RM process, clearly not everyone agrees with you so you need to allow disinterested editor who closes the RM to decide if the consensus is to move it. As the page has been move several times it is clearly a controversial move and asserting there is a consensus is not the same as gaining one. It is not a complicated process to initiate just follow the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. With WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in mind, I've dropped notes on the talk pages of the 2 editors who previously moved the article back to National Westminster Bank. I'm not totally averse to initiating an RM but am conscious that the ensuing discussion may be unnecessary for such a policy-based move, with reference to the fact that WP:RM states "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)

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: 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)

• Neutral As will be seen in the previous section, this article has been subject to moves between it current name and NatWest on several occasions. A decision made using RM should stop this happening unless there is a consensus to change. I am putting this request in as an administrator to stop the move war, and I have no opinion on what is the best name to use. -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't seem sufficient move activity to call a "move war" or even an unstable page. I agree with Trevj above that this is an uncontroversial application of title policy. benmoore 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from being the proper name, National Westminster Bank is not especially uncommon (Google returns about 13,300,000 results, as opposed to about 1,630,000 for NatWest). Since 2003, the article has been moved to NatWest—which redirects here—for periods of one hour, three months and one day; the current title is stable and was in place through the GAN process. 2.27.81.168 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  13 million hits for the three terms: national, westminster and bank. Try searching with quotes. benmoore 21:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  IP 2.27.81.168 WP:COMMONNAME specifically states that it is usage "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" (not general usage) which matters, therefore raw ghits are not a suitable method of determining usage in reliable sources. You need to find some way of qualifying your search to exclude unreliable sources. For example a usage survey of the non-redtop London newspapers or use in books or something similar.-- PBS (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks for listing this. (My policy-based move could also be classed as an administrative action.) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  You make the assertion per WP:COMMONNAME how did you come to this conclusion? -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Via general knowledge from the reading of national daily broadsheets for the last 20+ years, i.e. common sense. Additionally, a quick check of a couple of such papers online indicates that NatWest is the preferred "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)

Speaking as an actual contributor to the article, I don't think you've made a case for it to be moved. I can find plenty of reliable sources for National Westminster Bank (Google Books returns about 200,000 results, as opposed to about 93,400 for NatWest). 2.25.221.140 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How can we tell what proportion of those books count as reliable sources? Books don't always have the same editorial oversight as quality newspapers are expected to have. Whether or not one has contributed to a particular article is not related to settling on an article title, which is decided according to policy. Your contributions (from this IP address) do not demonstrate any contributions to the article itself. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Book search on "National Westminster Bank" returns 10,900 (estimated) last one returned numbered ~940
• Book search on "Natwest" returns 15,500 (estimated) last one returned numbered ~1,000
• "natwest" site:guardian.co.uk 399 results "national Westminster Bank" site:guardian.co.uk 9 returned
• "natwest" site:independent.co.uk returns 7,240 "National Westminster Bank" site:independent.co.uk 4,490
• "Natwest" site:Telegraph.co.uk About 5,000 "National Westminster Bank" site:Telegraph.co.uk About 881 results
• "Natwest" site:thetimes.co.uk About 2,210 "National Westminster Bank" site:thetimes.co.uk 19

-- PBS (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Trevj. Natwest is the common name, as in it is the name the bank is commonly known by. All the branches are named Natwest, the website is natwest.com, and it is regularly referred to as Natwest in the media. Cloudbound (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Surprisingly, contrary to my initial expectation, it seems that the bank is indeed reliably known at NatWest, and much more frequently referred to as NatWest. NatWest has become the standard common name, it is not just a nickname. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 31 January 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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article actually about NatWest?

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)

I concur. The article says nothing about the recent £2.8M fine levied on the Natwest by the FSA, and the withdrawal of the People's Charter advertising campaign (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81324573/) following two complaints to the office of fair trading (FTB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reveaes10 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 February 2011

This issue doesn't appear to be fully resolved, looking at the current content within NatWest#Structure (although I note that it's been slightly pared down since September 2010). Therefore, I'm replacing the {{undue-section}} tag. This should remain in place until it's clear that there is consensus about the resolution of the issue. For instance, the info about RBS's other subsidiary undertakings belongs in its own parent article, not here. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For starters, about a third of the previous text has been cut since September 2010, so I don't think "slightly pared down" is a fair assessment. Secondly, if, by "RBS's other subsidiary undertakings," you are referring to Coutts & Co. (acquired 1920), RBS Securities (1998, as Greenwich NatWest) and Ulster Bank (1917), they are direct subsidiaries of NWB (see p. 191 of the 2012 Annual Report and Accounts) so why not mention them here? For these reasons, I have removed the tag. 2.25.221.140 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Without direct reference to the sources, I found the wording ambiguous. I've amended it slightly. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Logo and Tower…

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)

Removed as original research. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 06:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, and accept that being told something by the chap that did the design would need a citation; I mentioned it so that someone with the ability and time might see if it was a fruitful line for examination - and to point out the miss match between the cited article and what it was supposed to verify (which it didn’t). However, the fact that it's footprint isn’t the logo is demonstrably true - you just have to look at it. Surely this is a case for common sense and the balance of probabilities to remove a “fact” which isn’t true (regardless that it is a much repeated, and therefore “citeable” one)? Jock123 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jock123 and am removing "; 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)

Well, these sources are a good find, so this is probably resolved now. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Official/legal/formal name

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)

Additionally, a proportion of readers may confuse the meanings of "formally" and "formerly", so I think in cases suh as these it's best avoided. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your first comment, but the Manual of Style/Lead section states: "Also acceptable are formulations like Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli, when applicable," so, if you're trying to avoid confusion, I don't see why: "National Westminster Bank, commonly known as NatWest" needed rewording. 2.25.221.140 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you're referring to this edit, just after the move. WP:LEADSENTENCE refers to the page title being the subject of the first sentence, with variations also being included. With the article being titled 'NatWest' it's logical for readers to expect to encounter that as the first term. This is a format which is employed commonly throughout other articles, where more than one name is appropriate. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)