Talk:Nigel Farage Coutts bank scandal

Requested move 3 August 2023

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)

---

Nigel Farage Coutts bank scandal → Nigel 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)

• No, the word bank is helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've skimmed a couple of articles cited. In case I missed anything: do any of them call this a scandal? The headlines say "row" or even "dossier". Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The article name for it is "Coutts" because that's their official name and what those who know it know it as. However most don't know it or that it's a bank. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aaron Liu's reasoning. As for the issue with the word scandal, I suggest controversy as an alternative but I'm fine with either choice. Killuminator (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Nigel Farage de-banking controversy. "Nigel Farage Coutts" could be read as a single name (although "Nigel Farage–Coutts", per MOS:ENBETWEEN, would solve that). This keeps the "helpful" word "bank" without adding it to Coutts when the parent article on the bank doesn't. Ham II (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I support both of these, though I prefer the ENBETWEEN version better and it should be like "Nigel Farage–Coutts bank scandal" since "de-banking" is not a common word Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Relisting comment: requesting more comments based on policy — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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.