This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 5 August 2008 (moved Talk:ABN Amro to Talk:ABN AMRO over redirect: Silly move. This company is a customer of mine, AMRO is how they style themselves, it's not for us to "correct" them.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:24, 5 August 2008 by JzG (talk | contribs) (moved Talk:ABN Amro to Talk:ABN AMRO over redirect: Silly move. This company is a customer of mine, AMRO is how they style themselves, it's not for us to "correct" them.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Cluster bombs
Removed the part regarding 'INSYS/cluster bombs' since the most recent report by Campagne tegen Wapenhandel shows that ABN AMRO has sold their shares. bFunk 12-Nov-2004
Merger or acquisition?
I just changed the header 'Build up to acquisition' to 'Build up to Barclays Group' becuase that is more neutral. Whether this is a merger or an cquisition is not to clear. Barclays has a majority share, but only just. The staff are mostly from Barclays, but the headquarters are in Amsterdam. This gives off a clear hint that it should be regarded as a merger. But are there no unequivocal definitions of these terms? DirkvdM 06:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The Barclays acquisition or merger is not certain. Look at the RBS bid that has come out.
the outcome of the ABN story is still very much up in the air. Therefor we only need to 'report' the facts as they come--tonyberge april 27TVB 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposed move to ABN Amro
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely sure, someone else can check on this: but the aritcle notes ABN AMRO is an acronym. However, I thought acronyms are actually able to be able to prnounced, not simply saying the letters aloud? so AMRO would be an acronym, but ABN is not? I suppose its not a huge deal, doesnt really have anything to do with the article but anyone who knows definately shoudl probably change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.85 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Both parts of the bank's name were originally abbrieviations and so AMRO should be written with capitals aswell ABN Amro is wrong ABN AMRO is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.34.7 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- ABN and Amro are both abbreviations. ABN stands for Algemene Bank Nederland and Amro for Amsterdam-Rotterdam (Bank). The relevant English language rules are as follows (rules and examples taken from our article acronym and initialism):
- For Amro - Pronounced as a word, containing non-initial letters
- Amphetamine: Alpha-methyl-phenethylamine
- Gestapo: Geheime Staatspolizei ("secret state police")
- Interpol: International Criminal Police Organization
- radar: radio detection and ranging
- For Amro - Pronounced as a word, containing non-initial letters
- The all caps style for Amro is a commercial typeset that is not an official part of English (or even Dutch for that matter). I suggest moving the article accordingly. gidonb (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wish to add that ANB Amro is also the common name used in the media, so ABN Amro is also the correct name per WP:UCN. A few searches:
- gidonb (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
ABN AMRO → ABN Amro — Above detailed English capitalization rules and use common names — gidonb (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also requested per WP:MOSTM: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" gidonb (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (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 Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.
- Agree, Amro seems to be the logical capitalisation of that based on that precedent. Support the move. ~ mazca 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Since it's a proper name it depends on how the owner brands it. Bengasalam 05:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Bengsalem. Please see my comment below, which quotes the relevant Misplaced Pages guideline from WP:MOSTM. Regards, gidonb (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support, per WP:MOSTM. – Cyrus XIII 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
Preferring brand names above English language rules seems to be against our explicit guidelines:
- Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
- Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything. For instance, use SAT for the (U.S.) standardized test.
Please see WP:MOSTM for more details. gidonb (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Official name
Moving this article to "ABN Amro" was stupid, but so is the policy behind it. I'd love to argue this in more detail, but frankly I'd probably be wasting my time.
Anyway, I corrected the spelling of the official names. Please do not "correct" them back. You can see the articles of association for yourselves if you don't believe me:
217.149.210.16 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anon, I have looked at the linked documents by ABN Amro. They do not replace English spelling rules, our guidelines and our community decisions. Please respect our policies and do not revert again. gidonb (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then I propose the official names be removed completely, since spelling them incorrectly is worse than not mentioning them at all. As you may have noticed, I only edited the name in those cases where it was referring to the name of an N.V. Honestly, this is just as ridiculous as renaming the article "The Beatles" to the "The Beetles" and using English spelling rules to justify it would be. 217.149.210.16 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anon, the preferred typeset by the firm is already reflected in its logo. As for The Beatles, if you believe The Beetles is correct, you would have to raise it there. Look out, however, for WP:POINT. Also, The Beatles and ABN Amro are the correct English form. An analogue to AMRO is TIME. Just like the quality press, English-language Misplaced Pages does not automatically follow preferences of multibillion dollar companies. Regards, gidonb (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- While the magazine's masthead says "TIME" the corporate name is Time Inc. You can easily look this up. On the other hand, ABN AMRO is always the corporate name. You can look this up as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anon, the preferred typeset by the firm is already reflected in its logo. As for The Beatles, if you believe The Beetles is correct, you would have to raise it there. Look out, however, for WP:POINT. Also, The Beatles and ABN Amro are the correct English form. An analogue to AMRO is TIME. Just like the quality press, English-language Misplaced Pages does not automatically follow preferences of multibillion dollar companies. Regards, gidonb (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll remove "N.V." from both names since that seems to be the only way to live up to that policy without providing information that is factually incorrect. 217.149.210.16 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Have any of you who favoured "ABN Amro" looked anywhere in the ABN AMRO web site? They always use ABN AMRO in all-capital letters. Offically, the institution is ABN AMRO. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anon, please do not remove information from the article. gidonb (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The media is split on what they call it (which means "ABN Amro" is what we should use): --NE2 10:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- If the media is split, then what the company calls itself should be the tie-breaker. The company calls itself ABN AMRO in all-capital letters. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone tried a company register? There should be a free search somewhere. I'm not familiar with any of them other than the Australian one, and it doesn't have a separate Australian subsidiary. JRG (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is this link sufficient proof? Also, check out the Hoover's directory at which also identifies the company as ABN AMRO. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Use form that prevails in reliable sources
We should be guided by whatever form prevails in reliable sources. In general, this means secondary publications of high editorial quality. Primary sources, such as company and regulatory publications, are inferior and should carry little weight. From my brief perusal of references to ABN in secondary sources (e.g. Google news), it seems that "ABN Amro" is the preferred style and therefore should be the form we use at WP. Ronnotel (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Those sources are very inconsistent and even one notable source can't agree on what form to use. See from BBC News to see what I mean. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)