Jump to content

Talk:Nigel Farage Coutts bank scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 3 August 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A number of alternative titles were discussed, but there is no consensus either against the current title or for any of the alternatives.

Editors may open a new move request at any time to discuss some of these alternatives; my assessment of the discussion is that "Nigel Farage–Coutts bank scandal" or "Nigel Farage–Coutts bank controversy" received the most support, although insufficient to get consensus here. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Nigel Farage Coutts bank scandalNigel Farage Coutts scandal – The bank is called just "Coutts" on wiki, so it should be the same in this article. 90.255.19.247 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:CONCISE. This is as needless as writing "Nigel Farage politician scandal". (Though I'm also fine with other possible names.)
Popcornfud (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is pretty much everyone can see that Nigel Farage is a person but not necessarily "Nigel Farage Coutts" with Coutts the bank. Though Nigel Farage Coutts is also unclear about which part is the bank, removing "bank" would make it even worse; I support the ENBETWEEN version the most and oppose any proposed title without "bank" in it regardless. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing to policy is probably the ENBETWEEN proposal; IMO CONCISE doesn't really apply as "bank" is pretty needed information. balance brevity with sufficient information Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.