Talk:NatWest

I'm surprised that there is no reference to the debanking of Nigel Farage in the current article.

I am not. 109.131.60.100 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

His account wasn't in NatWest bank proper, it's discussed in NatWest Group. --PaulT2022 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Strugglehouse would like to see National Westminster Bank in the lead and National Westminster Bank Plc in the infobox replaced with National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company. 2A00:23C7:C9C6:BD01:3090:F690:71B8:2E1E (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to make an RfC without a normal discussion first, but I suppose I'll reply here.

I have no idea why you keep reverting this. I have explained a number of times why I'm doing this, and why it's literally the rules of Wikipedia to do so.

Template:Infobox company/doc, states that the |name parameter should be "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." Therefore, we should keep the full words in the infobox.

MOS:FIRSTCORP states that "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name". Therefore, we should have the full company name at the start of the lead. Just having "National Westminster Bank" is doubly wrong.

The references in the lead, here and here, clearly show that NatWest's full company name is "National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company". Per the policies provided above, this should be placed in the infobox and at the start of the lead sentence. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

You were asked to seek consensus for the change but chose to engage in an edit war instead. 2A00:23C7:C9C6:BD01:3090:F690:71B8:2E1E (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Well I do apologise. But my point still stands.

It's just a bit infuriating when I'm trying to follow policy and others are blatantly breaking this. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you actually give a valid reason why we shouldn't follow policies? Strugglehouse (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox company/doc and MOS:FIRSTCORP I agree that we should have "National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company" in the infobox name field and lead sentence - I don't necessarily agree with those guidelines on not abbreviating to "plc" but I see no reason for an exception to them here. Andreworkney (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Neutral-ish - I am fairly neutral on this in that I think there are instances where concision per WP:CRITERIA should trump inclusion of the full name (personally, I think the infobox should have the full legal name, but having the full "Foo Corp Unlimited of Nebraska, PLLC" in the lead is clunky and overly verbose.) That said, this is within the MOS and that is correct, so there is no reason the MOS should be ignored as it currently is.ASUKITE 14:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asukite I don't think using the full company name is clunky. It tells the information about the company. It especially helps when a company has a different legal name from its trade name, such as here.

It's been a policy for a long time and there's no reason not to follow it. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am in full support of following policy - (nitpicking here, but the MOS is not policy, however WP:AT for example is. It's a small difference, but an important one), regardless I am not disputing that the name should be declared as proposed, merely that a change to the MOS may be welcome. That's the purpose of an RfC, after all! ASUKITE 14:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asukite Understood. Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I do note that taking a look at NatWest's home page at the bottom, they use plc. (I'm merely giving a statement, so I'm neutral on the changes.) JuniperChill (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@JuniperChill Indeed they do, but I'd argue this shouldn't matter, as a company can present themselves however they'd like. It doesn't change how they're legally registered. Strugglehouse (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I see no indication that prior discussion on this matter has occurred, just one edit to the article, a revert of that followed by a reinstatement of the first edit, none of which satisfies WP:RFCBEFORE. Rather than reinstating the first edit, WP:BRD should have come into play; 2A00:23C7:C9C6:BD01:3090:F690:71B8:2E1E was correct to open a discussion but it should not have included a {{rfc}} tag. I have pulled that tag; this does not mean that discussion should end: to the contrary, it should continue, but without the formality of a full-blown thirty-day RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• Extrapolating from WP:NCCORP#Disambiguation, if we include the legal status of the company we should follow the company's own preference for abbreviated or unabbreviated form and for the capitalisation and punctuation thereof. I have no strong opinion whether we should use it, but if we do then it should be as "National Westminster Bank plc" as that is (with exactly one exception) the only form that I can find the company uses. The singular exception is (expand the "Will the Scheme change the terms and conditions of my account(s)?" section to see). Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf This actually has nothing to do with this and is for disambiguation of article titles. Plus, it's disputed anyway.

  We should not be using this policy in regards to the lead and infobox. They have their own policies and guidelines which we should follow, and which I've been trying to follow. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It's been five days since any response, and twelve days since this was opened. Everyone seems to agree that we should be following policies and guidelines, so I think it's time we change this back, no? Strugglehouse (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Any other comments/updates on this from anyone? I'm still seeing a majority in favour of inclusion.

Any actual reasons for going against this? Strugglehouse (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. See my 13 November reply below. ~2025-33247-40 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-33247-40 I'd argue that MOS:FIRSTCORP saying "normally" just means that that's what we do, unless it's an exceptional circumstance, which this does not need to be. The full words, "Public Limited Company", are part of the full company name, so should be included. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

We should be following MOS:FIRSTCORP so I am assuming the disagreement is about using "public limited company" as opposed to "plc" is that correct?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Yes, we should be following MOS:FIRSTCORP, which clearly states to use the full legal name. This means the full name. This means the full words: Public Limited Company.

This is the same as Template:Infobox company, which says to use "full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof." This means the full words: Public Limited Company. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Very aware of what it says. I think the crux is that many companies with the "plc" in the title likely have a full legal name of "public limited company." For instance, a state I used to live would require "limited liability company" to be written out in the title of anyone applying for a LLC, but they all put "LLC" on any other document. For infoboxes, they are not required so I never cite anything they say as policy. Here, I would only agree that the full legal name should be used in accordance with FIRSTCORP, but have no opinion on the full or abbreviated ending.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but I think that the majority of the time it is up to the company itself what they register as. In the case of NatWest it indeed was their choice. If they wanted to be legally "PLC", they could have been, and they could still be. But they're not. They chose, willingly, to use the full words. We should mirror this per MOS and documentation. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding that, per Section 78 of the Companies Act 1980, NatWest has always had the option to have either "public limited company" or "plc". They've always chosen "public limited company". Strugglehouse (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

A reasonable interpretation of MOS:FIRSTCORP does not mandate the use of Public Limited Company. It merely states that "the lead sentence [...] should normally begin with its full legal name" (my emphasis). The letters Plc are widely accepted to be an abbreviation of those words and are used almost exclusively to that effect by NatWest and others, as permitted by Section 78 of the Companies Act 1980, under which it was re-registered in 1982. ~2025-33247-40 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-33247-40 But what is the reason for making an exception here? Strugglehouse (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t believe it is an exception. This was put to rest three months ago. There is no consensus for the change you want to make. ~2025-31685-91 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31685-91 It's not really a change that I want to make, because it was in the article for a while before it was reverted.

Plus, others agreed we should follow what the guidelines say and include the full name. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You added it in the first place. ~2025-33247-40 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-33247-40 Sure, but it's sourced and follows MOS. Others agreed we should follow this. What's your reason for going against this? Strugglehouse (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

We’re going round in circles. Please refer to my previous response. ~2025-35606-57 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-35606-57 Okay, you don't think it's an exception. I think it definitely is, and we would be going against MOS if it's not included. Others agreed we should follow MOS, and I see zero reason to not. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This article was promoted to GA in 2008, over 14 years ago. I see that some end of paragraphs don't have citations as well as a citation needed tag dated October 2020. If these don't get fixed within a month, it may be taken to WP:GAR. JuniperChill (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)