Talk:Commerce Bancorp

What I expect for a history article

To me, a company's history, and therefore article, should start with its formation and end with its demise, whether takeover, merger, bankruptcy, or whatever. There should be clear references to any surviving entity and article about that survivor (or any preceding entity, for that matter), but the each prior, extant, and subsequent company should each stand on its own. As I am a relative newcomer, I don't know how that fits in with general practice, but that is what I would expect as a user.Sallijane (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles

See also discussion at Talk:TD Bank (United States)/Archive 1#TD Banknorth and TD Bank.

Since this is more a merger of 2 banks into a new third bank, I'm of the feeling we should leave it as 3 separate articles, 2 on defunct banks and a new third one on TD Bank. Commerce bank was around for 30+ years and is notable on its own. Banknorth was also around awhile. TD Bank is a new thing that has different characteristics than either of them. Since over time the TD article will get lots of new information, we should leave the two other articles about the historical bank and keep the new TD article for the current bank. MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no legitimate reason why this page should be here and not merged with the TD Bank, N.A. page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

As I state above, Banknorth and Commerce Bank are entities with lengthy histories in their own right. TD Bank is a new entity with a totally different brand, management, and scope. Per past practice at Category:Defunct banks of the United States and the fact that TD Bank is a new bank that will generate new information and fill out the already good sized article, I believe we should leave Banknorth and Commerce as historic articles and continue with current practices at TD Bank. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved RfC comment: I agree. I wish this is how he had handled a somewhat analogous situation at AT&T.

See, the company now known as AT&T Inc. was incorporated as Southwestern Bell in 1983 as part of the consent decree. But they acquired the old AT&T Corp. (along with Bell South), and adopted their current name. This never ceases to confuse some users, who are puzzled by the history section of AT&T, which did various things before the merger that AT&T Corp. obviously didn't do. They always try to add in the history for AT&T Corp., and this would all be cleared up if the history section began with the merger. I wish we had kept SBC Communications as a separate article, and explained the company's components in a separate article on AT&T Inc. (the post-2005 history, if you prefer) It would say that the name was adopted after SBC acquired Bell South and AT&T Corp, making it clear that AT&T is just a continuation of SBC, but that all three prior corporations have relevant history—including the "old" AT&T.

Even if TD Bank had retained all their old management, it's a significant merger, so would be a good point to divide the company's history anyway. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why this page should exist. The relevant information should be integrated into the new TD Bank page and a redirect should be put here.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

History Merge

• This seems to be a moot point: page Commerce Bancorp seems to have been split off from page TD Bank, N.A. at 01:53, 3 November 2008 by User:MBisanz, and the greater part of the text seems to have been left in page TD Bank, N.A.. Commerce Bancorp was a Cherry Hill, New Jersey–based bank created in 1973. In 2007, it was purchased by Toronto-Dominion Bank and merged with TD Banknorth to form TD Bank, N.A.; all of its banks and branches were given the TD Bank logo. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• File history:
  1. At 13:30, 24 June 2008 User:Zzuuzz histmerged page Commerce Bancorp to TD Commerce Bank. This included undeleting 5 edits of page TD Commerce Bank; these edits may be "16:32, 22 June 2008 Xnatedawgx (13,760 bytes) (category addition)" and some preceding edits, now in page TD Bank, N.A., as two redirect edits have got shuffled in with them.
  2. At 22:12, 24 July 2008 User:Stickguy moved page TD Commerce Bank to TD Bank, N.A.
  3. At 01:53, 3 November 2008 User:MBisanz started a new page Commerce Bancorp by cut-and-paste splitting page TD Bank, N.A., replacing a redirect left by User:Zzuuzz's histmerge.

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• • The pages were split incorrectly on Nov. 2 2008, probably because it was easier than moving pages. The Commerce Bancorp history should remain intact throughout with TD Bank, N.A. being the new page. Cmjc80 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Of the page which is now named TD Bank, N.A., its history seems to be continuous, with its only big interruption being between the edit at 21:07, 2 November 2008 by User:Eleveneleven (14,821 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 24.47.38.47 identified as vandalism to last revision by ChrisP2K5. (TW)) and the next edit, which is at 01:53, 3 November 2008 by User:MBisanz (spliting); At 01:53, 3 November 2008 User:MBisanz started the new page Commerce Bancorp with the matter that he split off. Whichever of those 2 pages I put the edits-before-the-split under, that will leave the history of the other page split between pages.

  In the history of page TD Bank, N.A., the name TD first seems to appear in the bank's name at 03:35, 27 April 2008 by User:69.123.112.18, but forthcoming takeover by TD is mentioned a while before that. The topic change from Commerce Bancorp to TD seems to be gradual. The bank starts being called only TD Bank in the course of July 2008. Through all this the file's general history is continuous. Please what is the exact point that you want page TD Bank, N.A.'s history to be split at? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)