From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Singapore (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cluster bombs[edit]

Removed the part regarding 'INSYS/cluster bombs' since the most recent report by Campagne tegen Wapenhandel [1] shows that ABN AMRO has sold their shares. bFunk 12-Nov-2004

Merger or acquisition?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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 (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 ABN - Pronounced only as the names of letters
  • BBC: British Broadcasting Corporation
  • DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid
  • LED: light-emitting diode
  • USA: United States of America
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
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[edit]

ABN AMROABN Amro — Above detailed English capitalization rules and use common namesgidonb (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)


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 Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Agree, Amro seems to be the logical capitalisation of that based on that precedent. Support the move. ~ mazca t | c 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 Wikipedia guideline from WP:MOSTM. Regards, gidonb (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:MOSTM. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope. They use "ABN AMRO" (all caps), it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


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.
  • For the record, the discussion in the above renaming proposal showed that there was no consensus to rename the ABN AMRO article to "ABN Amro". Despite this, the renaming took place which led to a complaint registered in WP:AN which led an administrator to overrule the change and to protect the ABN AMRO article from renaming. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Official name[edit]

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:

[2] [3] (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. (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 Wikipedia 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)
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. (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): [4] --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 [5] sufficient proof? Also, check out the Hoover's directory at [6] which also identifies the company as ABN AMRO. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been listed as a lame edit war at [7]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, the community has decided only a few days ago on the name of the article, according to our policies and procedures. You are of course welcome to differ in opinion and suggest another name, but please do respect our policies and procedures. Please stop this edit war immediately! gidonb (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Um, no, not "the community", a few self-selected people. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No no, I precisely followed the procedure, even taking the "longest road" upfront in order not to get into situations as we are getting into now. The person who closed the discussion also followed our procedures. I am a bit disturbed that a decision by procedures and policies is being cancelled out by the force of assertivesness or edit warring. This is simply not done. gidonb (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It seems that the procedure was done behind many editors' backs such as myself. Once the changes were spread to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank which I closely monitor as I am a customer, that when the manure hit the fan. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • [1] You can open a new discussion of course, but there are procedures to do so much. Until another decision falls ABN Amro is the name that en.wikipedia has selected. What you are doing in the meantime is edit warring and not according to our rules. The name that has been decided should be restored. [2] It is OK to be a client of a bank or to provide services to a bank and to participate in the discussion here. However, keep in mind that the kind of judgement we make here is according to our policies. One should not edit under conflict of interest. If one cannot divide between business relations with a firm and editing here, it is wise to refrain from making statements about the desired name. [3] The case of ABN Amro is very straightforward according to WP:MOSTM. We do not capitalize according to the wants of commercial firms (with all due respect), but according to English spelling rules. The explicit policies are quoted in the shaded discussion above. gidonb (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
          • It is not the place of "the community" to decided what a company has the right to call itself. What a company calls itself overrides standard rules. I suppose you would argue that a certain brand of facial tissues should be called "Cleanex" instead of "Kleenex"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Use form that prevails in reliable sources[edit]

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 [8] from BBC News to see what I mean. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Open their website - - and look at the browser title bar. Look at the email footer in mail from their employees, if you have any. Look at the usage on their site, which is consistent as far as I can tell. As far as the name of the company goes, you don't get a much more reliable source than the company itself - the fact that other people get it wrong is not really a great argument for us doing likewise. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Guy, you, of all people, shouldn't need a lecture on what is and what isn't a reliable source. The company's marketing literature is just that, marketing literature. We are required to use whatever form is prevalent in independent sources. In addition, as you have acknowledge that they are a client of yours, should you not disqualify yourself from this issue as per WP:COI? Ronnotel (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • COI? That is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. They are a customer of my company, so I know that they always use the capitalised form. W appear to be telling the subject that they are wrong - I don't think it's our place to do so. If they call themselves ABN AMRO, then we call them ABN AMRO. As usual, we respect people's self-identification. Or are you going to go through changing all references to John Wayne to be Marion Morrison? Really, it is particularly silly to go around "correcting" a company's own statements in the name of our manual of style. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are. Even the BBC can't decide as already mentioned above at [9]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd be in good company to reject their capitalization. --NE2 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy to correct the subject of the article? The company is, for the umpteenth time, officially ABN AMRO. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP uses reliable sources to substantiate it's information. Burma styles itself Myanmar. However, because the preponderance of reliable sources refer to it as Burma, so it is called in WP. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points:

  • Someone else will have to look it up, but I'm quite sure I've seen a policy or guideline somewhere that says that we can use primary sources to determine basic things like dates of birth, etc. Company name should surely fall into that category.
  • Secondary sources seem to disagree on the capitalization. Even more reason to go to the primary source to break the tie.
  • Consensus can change; now that more people know, and care, about this, a new consensus should be developed; don't just say "we decided this already".
  • If the promary source wanted to spell it "ABN дΜЯØ", I can see how we'd default to the MOS. But for something simple like this, where the company clearly calls itself ABN AMRO, I see no reason to default to the MOS in spite of this.
  • Probably shouldn't use "Burma/Myanmar" as an example showing the way things should be. There's actually no consensus there, it's split fairly evenly last I looked, and it's only where it is now because of various users playing chicken with 3RR and wheel warring.
  • COI is a red herring; it's not in Guy's best interest to change this, he just thinks it gives him better information. If his info couldn't be verified, we wouldn't say "COI", we'd say "WP:RS". But since it can be verified, this particular point doesn't matter.

--barneca (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    • "Secondary sources seem to disagree on the capitalization. Even more reason to go to the primary source to break the tie." No, that's when we use our manual of style to break the tie. --NE2 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSTM:

  • 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. gidonb (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I get it. Not to speak for everyone else who thinks it should be AMRO, but I think we all understand what the MOS says. What we're (or at least I'm) saying is that the MOS should not automatically trump a clear primary source. I'll trot out the old chestnut that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy; not because I think that line just automatically always wins, but because a guideline can be broken if there's a good reason for it, and in this case I think there's a good reason for it. --barneca (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
And another thing: in your examples, they're all trademarks. "Time, Inc." is the actual name of the company, "TIME" is their trademark, so having the article at "Time" or "Time, Inc." or whatever makes sense. In this case, ABD AMRO is the actual name of the company, not a trademark. --barneca (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy either way. Amro/AMRO, both seem pretty clear. However, whatever the decision, hopefully we follow policy so that we can minimize the drama should this flare up again. I'm happy to support whomever makes the best case. Ronnotel (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not that I don't believe you, but can you show me a source for that being the actual name? (Their website doesn't count, or we'd use REALTOR.) --NE2 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It depends, NE2. Will it affect your opinion if I can find a different source? I'm not going to go to all that trouble if, at the end of the day, you're going to say "Well, it still violates MOS". --barneca (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have much more to say on this topic and I will be happy to continue the discussion after apologies for the diguisting personal attacks on me are offered and the article is restored according to the previous decision. Wikipedia should not become a lawless battle ground where people who are ruder have it there way. We can take it from there. gidonb (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Gidonb, if you're withholding your opinion until someone apologizes for something, you're punishing no one but yourself. I agree the article shouldn't have been moved then locked in place, but it doesn't matter too much what title the article is at while consensus is reached. Let's just come to a decision, and if the consensus is to move it, it will get moved back. As far as "disgusting personal attacks", I haven't seen any. Please point them out to me. --barneca (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but it would certainly be a useful data point to have. --NE2 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
How about the SEC? Every PDF link I've opened so far uses ABN AMRO. [10]. --barneca (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, Steelbear1 provided this link above; the Netherlands is where the company is headquartered: [11]. --barneca (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The guideline says to use the most standard source that appears in sources. It appears that "Amro" is pronounced "am-row," not A-M-R-O, and that the letters don't stand for anything. Therefore, capitalizing each letter is a non standard style. The more standard style more than appears in sources: it seems fairly common, if not very common. It appears that the arguments against are just "we should do what the company wants," which is SPECIFICALLY what the guideline says we should NOT do. That argument is analogous to saying that we should capitalize all the words in a section title (for instance, that we should use "See Also," not "See also" in this article) because "it looks better." That subjective judgment (looks better, we should do what the company does) goes against the MoS, which is a guideline supported by a wide consensus of editors. Yes, it's "just a guideline," but that doesn't mean that you can simply ignore it because it suits you: the burden is on you to explain why this case merits an exception. Why is this different from what the guideline is intended to address? Croctotheface (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. AMRO was derived from "Amsterdam-Rottingham" which was the merged bank name before it merged with ABN, itself the result of a merger. Another major reason is something you are ignoring--legal reasons. For example in the United States: [12] and in the United Kingdom: [13]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, look at the Dutch Wikipedia articles: [14] and [15] as ABN AMRO is a Dutch financial institution. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wrong about what? That it's pronounced letter-by-letter? If it is, then it should stay here. Am I correct that it's pronounced as a two-syllable word where the first part rhymes with "ram" and the second rhymes with "beau"? If it's not pronounced letter-by-letter, then I don't see why combining words that way, where the M and O don't stand for anything, should qualify it for special treatment. It's not an initialism. I have no idea what "legal reasons" you refer to. WP:MOSTM is very explicit that we are not bound by the style used by the company, even if they use them in legal (or religious, or any other) documents. Multiple styles exist in the sources, so we choose the one that most resembles standard English. All caps is not standard here, so we go with "Amro." What other Wikipedias do is not our business, as they have different style guidelines. Should we write this article in Dutch because the bank is Dutch and that's the language that the Dutch WP uses? Croctotheface (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"ABN Amro" would seem consistent with both normal English usage and our general practice on these issues. In addition that seems to be the form used by the preponderance of reliable third-party sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember that every English language legal document about this Dutch financial institution identifies it as ABN AMRO. It seems that only obsessive "strictly by the book" English language editors who are not present or former ABN AMRO customers or clients insist on identifying this company as "ABN Amro." My bank account is with former ABN AMRO subsidiary LaSalle Bank Midwest which is being absorbed into Bank of America. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should we automatically follow legal documents? If every legal document also wrote the name in a serifed font, would we be compelled to use it serifs as well? Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a legal document. Wouldn't it be better to follow secondary sources, which is what WP is built on, and our style guidelines? Croctotheface (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Now you are using an argument which would get you laughed out of a courtroom if you are a lawyer in a trial and get you admonished by the judge. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, courts deal in legal issues, so "who cares that it's a legal document" certainly would not be persuasive in a legal context. Capitalization, like font choice, is a style issue, not a legal issue. That's why the guidelines dealing with capitalization are in the manual of style. We should not find legal documents more persuasive on style issues than we find other sources. Croctotheface (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You are losing this case judging by the other replies. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how your comment here contributes to the discussion. Are you just telling me to STFU? I'm offering my analysis with the hope that it moves the discussion toward forming a consensus around my position. Croctotheface (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If this company calls itself by all capital letters, and legal documents also call it that way, then that's what it is, and it is not wikipedia's place to try to change that by applying so-called "grammar rules" to it. This is the same debate as The CW, and it's worth pointing out that the guy who kept insisting it couldn't call itself that, got himself indefinitely blocked for disruption. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What about a company that uses some crazy font, huge typeface, or other color when they write their name? It would not be "our place to change" that? We have the technology; there's no reason that all articles need to use black type. What about TM or (R) symbols? Must we replicate those? Croctotheface (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well - Yahoo! have an exclamation mark in its name, and the latest attempt to move the article to Yahoo failed. TrondM (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And notice that the film ¡Three Amigos! has the ungrammatical Spanish-style exclamation marks. "Yahoo!" has a redirect from "Yahoo". If someone wants to set up a redirect from "ABN Amro" (or actually it should be "ABN AmRo") they are free to do so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Croctotheface, we are talking about the names of legal entities, not trademarks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand the issue completely. Can someone please explain to me why AMRO is different from e.g. FIFA or CONMEBOL? What about the Norwegian bank DnB NOR? Why is there an explicit exception in the MOS for trademarks like iPod and eBay? Why is it OK for these trademarks to stray from the English capitalization rules? TrondM (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
FIFA is standard; all the letters stand for something. "DnB NOR," since that just seems to be for style, should be standardized, provided that a more standard equivalent exists in sources. Conmebol/CONMEBOL is like this case, and it should be moved as well, since "Conmebol" exists in sources. Croctotheface (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what "sources" call a company. That company knows what its own name is better than any "source" does. It is not the place of either wikipedia or some external source to decide what a company is allowed to call itself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't accept your premise here; capitalization is a style issue, not part of the name. All style decisions, which include font, capitalization, color, and so forth, are distinct from the actual name of the company. Capitals, like font and color, are not pronounced and do not have any semantic content. This is not an issue where we propose "changing the name," just writing it in a style that comports with standard English. Croctotheface (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I say again, you are out of line imposing your view of "grammar" on what a company can call itself. There's probably a reason they spell it in all caps. They own their name, we do not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This article exists for the readers, not for the company. It's our job to serve the readers, not indulge the company in their idiosyncrasies. Capitalization is analogous to color or font, not to "changing the name." The name is the same however we capitalize, since these capitals have no semantic purpose. This is why, even though you put the word "grammar" in quotes, I never refer to grammar. The issue here is style, not grammar or spelling or "changing the name." For style questions, we follow our manual of style, and the relevant guideline here is WP:MOSTM. Changing the capitalization does not change the name. I am not advocating "correcting" the "grammar" of names, which could change the name. The guideline would not say that, for instance, 50 Cent should be called 50 Cents. The issue here is that the way the bank writes their name is not the only way it is written. There are many, many sources that write it the way I advocate. When multiple styles exist in sources, we have to choose. The MOS says that the readers are served by standard English, so we choose the most standard version. Croctotheface (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. And if a reader knows it's spelled in all caps and sees us presenting it differently, then wikipedia looks stupid. That's where the IAR principle kicks in: It's more important to get it right than to adhere to pedantic rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
We're not going to see eye to eye on the issues here, which is fine. Your opinion about what people will think is just that. I personally think that people will find that Wikipedia "looks stupid" if it blindly follows weird and wacky styles favored by corporations, and especially if it is the most prominent source that does. Which of us is right about what people think? We can never really tell, unless we conduct some kind of public opinion poll. However, I don't think that it's appropriate to cite IAR just because there's a rule that you disagree with. There's the example of capitalization in section headers: if I think that the section looks better with each word capitalized ("See Also" rather than "See also") should I make all those changes, citing IAR? What about if I do it at just one article that's really only edited by myself and three other editors who also think that "See Also" is better than "See also."? IAR is not a blank check. Croctotheface (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing "weird or wacky" about all capital letters. I've got a copy of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC on my desk, yet it doesn't look weird or wacky that way. And if your going to be pedantic, spelling it "Amro" is not correct, unless that city now spells its name "rotterdam". It would have to be "AmRo". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
We can disagree about how unusual these styles are; I think it's pretty weird to capitalize words for no reason. The issue is that if we follow the "do what the company does" rule, then we have to accept any style (would you be ok with "/-\ ^^ r ( )"?) if the company uses it themselves. We'd need to use the same color if they prefer a color, the same font if they prefer a font, and the TM or (R) symbols if they always use them. If you agree that we can deviate from those styles even if the company prefers them, then we're no longer following the style that the company uses. Croctotheface (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a red-herring argument. And you have no basis for saying it's for "no reason". You just don't happen to know what the reason is. I worked for a company once whose name was similar, an acronym plus a regular word. They spelled it all in caps, simply because it looked better that way. And so does this. And I say again, if you're going to spell the second one in mixed case, it's got to be AmRo, not Amro. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, marketing and decoration are indeed reasons. I should've said "no semantic reason." I don't think that "the company thinks it looks better" is a reason that we should find compelling. If the company decided that "/-\ ^^ r ( )" looked better, would we have to use that? If they decided that serifed fonts look better for the name and therefore will only write the name in a serifed font, even within a document written with the Helvetica font, must we follow that, too? Croctotheface (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hypotheticals, red herrings. If they actually do that, get back to me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
They're hardly red herrings. Your rule would force us to follow these styles, right? Unless I misunderstand your position, you're saying that the we should always use the company's style, however nonstandard. If you're willing to deviate from what the company does for any case, even an outlandish hypothetical, then you believe that we can standardize nonstandard styles and the rule that we should do what the company does evaporates. Croctotheface (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to start more edit wars then? Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This remark is incredibly uncivil. Croctotheface (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No it's not, it's a fair question. So is your answer "yes" or "no"?
To be fair, though, He can't know if moving those pages will result in edit wars or not. It'll only be an edit war if the editors responsible for those pages oppose a move. I guess the proper question is if he intends to initiate moving those pages or not. TrondM (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your question would more be civil. To answer it, no, I'm not going to move the page or edit to change the capitalization without a consensus that agrees with me. Croctotheface (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is getting to be almost as long as the "The/the Beatles" dispute which flares up occasionally in Talk:The Beatles. The difference is that in the Beatle dispute (note that I'm using this as an adjective, not a noun), it split the Beatle Wikipedia community down the middle with absolutely no consensus. The noun "The Beatles" continues to prevail in all Wikipedia article related to The Beatles. The difference in this dispute is that all parties familiar with ABN AMRO as a financial institution are united in using that company's legal name in all-capital letters. The opponents--let me break for a moment to say that the term anal retentive is not supposed to be an insult but fits perfectly the behavior of obsessive "by the book" editors who follow the Wikipedia MOS as a Holy Bible not to be questioned--are not familiar with ABN AMRO at all but wish to impose their naming conventions on everything else despite what they call themselves. When this editor reported the ABN AMRO editing dispute in the Administrators' Notebook, the ABN AMRO article name was restored and subsequently locked with nearly all the ABN AMRO references in all-caps restored. That's because a key administrator who locked the article happens to have ABN AMRO as a client in his day job. I've requested a re-evaulation of the MOS in cases like this in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's like The CW, for which a user named Rollosmokes managed to get himself permanently blocked for insisting they didn't have the right to call themselves with a capital "T". "The Beatles" is the name of the group, not "Beatles" by itself. Also, there's a fundamental flaw in the argument that it should be ABN Amro. Amro stands for Amesterdam-Rotterdam. Are they arguing that it should be spelled "rotterdam"? I actually know of some other examples of this issue, but would rather not bring them up because the pedantics will try to change them also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of consensus[edit]

Based on my quick overview, I see seven editors for "AMRO" (Bengasalam, Guy,, Steelbeard1, Baseball Bugs, barneca, TrondM) and seven for "Amro" (Croctotheface, gidonb, mazca, Cyrus, Ronnotel, NE2, Christopher Parham). I haven't checked if any of these are single purpose accounts. Shouldn't we, lacking a consensus, default to the result of the move request, which was "Amro" and to the style that the our manual of style recommends? Croctotheface (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but "AmRo" could be acceptable, unless that city is spelled "rotterdam" nowadays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should we default to the style that neither the RM discussion nor the MOS recommends? Croctotheface (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the merits[edit]

At the risk of having you screw around with another article, I direct your attention to the gasoline company called "ARCO", which stands for "Atlantic Richfield Company". According to your interpretation, they have no right to capitalize that "O" since it's not the first word of a name. So it should be "ARCo". Just like it can't be "AMRO" according to you, despite that being an acronym for "Amsterdam Rotterdam", and hence I say it can't be "Amro" either, so it has to be "AmRo"... unless you're willing to concede that "AMRO" is, in fact, an acronym containing the second letters of one or more of its words, just as ARCO is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
First, the remark about me "screwing around" with articles is incredibly uncivil, which surprises me because you have been civil to this point. The question is not "what do we think is correct." As MOSTM says, "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." The question would be what styles are in use and then which one most closely resembles standard English. Are any styles in use besides "ARCO" for that company? If not, then we have an easy choice. For this article, "ABN Amro" has widespread use. I don't think "AmRo" is used at all. If it is, we would have to figure out what style is most standard. Croctotheface (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, when I get annoyed with someone who's being obtuse and pedantic, I lower myself to such comments. AMRO is an acronym. The fact that "Amro" is in "widespread use" by ignorant writers doesn't make it appropriate. The company decides what their name is, not you or me or anyone else. The company's name is all caps, just like ARCO's is. And it has been pointed out to you that other writers DO spell it in all caps... which is what it is. And don't come back at me with red herrings about fonts. ARCO has a special font, but the article is written in a normal font, as per usual. ABN AMRO is an acronym, and as such, it is ALL CAPS. That is standard style for an acronym. What part of that do you not understand? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Calling me names is also not very civil. Is the standard you advocate "use what the company does" or "use what is standard"? I'm confused about whether your disagreement is with the guideline or with how it might be applied here. The bolded argument is a new one, and it seems to suggest that you agree with the guideline. Could you help me out with this? Croctotheface (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, sometimes I'm a little obtuse myself - and when the ARCO example popped into my head, I realized that this is the same situation - it's an acronym, hence it's all capital letters, in harmony with what I presume the rules to be about acronyms. So no issue. Case closed, yes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I made a polite plea in the MOS Capital letters talk page not to make major changes to the ARCO article which could create an edit war with the ARCO article editors and Croctotheface also considered that plea uncivil. So I decided to report that to the adminstrators. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's case closed for ARCO if there's no other style that exists in reliable sources. If there are multiple styles, we would need to decide which is most standard and use that one. My question is whether your argument is that the MOS, specifically MOSTM, is fine as is, but "AMRO" is what the guideline calls for, or whether you believe that the guideline is bad and should be replaced by a standard that says "do what the company does." Croctotheface (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Acronyms are capitalized, and it's an acronym, and dat's dat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No, not always, not by a long shot. Should we move Radar to "RADAR"? Croctotheface (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It used to be called RADAR and now it's called Radar. Try again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
But I thought we were supposed to capitalize all acronyms because they're acronyms? Is it not possible that it used to be standard English to capitalize acronyms formed this way, but now it isn't? You won't even address my very simple question here: do you think that we should ignore MOSTM or that we should apply it? Croctotheface (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Radar became a generic word found in the dictionary. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
So, the issue is not that acronyms must be capitalized, it's that we should do what the dictionary does? Why would you trust the dictionary when you don't trust MarketWatch, Bloomberg, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the New York Times, and on and on? Croctotheface (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Because they don't always agree. The New York Times, for example, at [16]. And in case you haven't comprehended the fact, "amro" is not a word, it is (for the umpteenth time) an abbreviation derived from Amsterdam-Rotterdam. To call it "AmRo" makes the article look silly. So to make it look right, "AMRO" is the way to call it. If you still don't comprehend it, I'm sure a high-powered administrator will clearly make it known to you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the threat. Croctotheface (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, that NYT source is from 2000. Does that indicate that "Amro" has become standard over time, just as "radar" and scuba" have? Croctotheface (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Radar was once an acronym, but no longer is regarded as such, it's regarded as a word, as Steelbeard1 is saying. The same thing happened with SCUBA, for example, which is now "scuba". ABN AMRO is still an acronym. Acronyms get capitalized. That's how it works in English. As for why some publications are spelling it Amro instead of AMRO or AmRo, maybe Croc could write and ask them about it, and get some insight on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Interpol? Croctotheface (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the last word at [17]. Try to rebut that, Croc. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to rebut that. We don't use all caps unless it's standard English to do so. This is a case where it's not. I suppose that you're going to head over to Interpol and demand that we use INTERPOL? It's basically the same case. Croctotheface (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another citation to back me up, from an old Lansing, Michigan business publication article about Standard Federal Bank which was later renamed LaSalle Bank Midwest after ABN AMRO bought it. It's at [18] Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Another supporting citation found at [19] with info for the Michigan National Bank article as ABN AMRO merged it with its Standard Federal Bank (later LaSalle Bank Midwest) leading to the closing of overlapping branch offices. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of consensus, again[edit]

At this point, I think that I've articulated my position pretty clearly. I don't think that a protracted back-and-forth between me and a couple of other editors is really helping anyone at this point. I can continue if the other editors really want, but we're not going to create a consensus by arguing among ourselves. In my view, the proper course is to move the page back to ABN Amro, as that was the result of the prior move request as decided by the closing admin, and then open a new RM discussion about whether we should move to ABN AMRO. At this point, I imagine that the discussion will generate a lot of traction, so there won't be an issue with lack of participation. I, of course, am willing to abide by any consensus generated by that discusison, and I take it that Bugs and Steelbeard1 would as well? Croctotheface (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your focus should be to get it right. And all caps is right in this case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The proper name is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters. Calling this company "ABN Amro" makes as much sense as calling the British music company EMI "Emi." Croc's argument is not holding water and it has become obvious that most of the editors who follow ABN AMRO agree with me as do key administrators. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the earlier INTERPOL question, it's good you brought that up, because I would say that should also be all caps, as per the consistent usage on their website. [20] But let's fix one article at a time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And I also wouldn't be likely to pursue that one so vigorously, on the assumption that "Interpol" has entered the popular lexicon as a normal word, as with radar and scuba. I would also have to study that one some more and see if what I just said is actually true. But I think it's safe to say that this bank is not nearly so widely referenced as those other three items. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I know that all you care about is enshrining the usage you want. I don't see a purpose in my trying to discuss this with you--none of us is going to change his position. I'm suggesting a process by which we gather consensus. Do you guys agree that what we need to do is bring in other editors to help us do that? Or are you saying that you believe the "rightness" of your opinion overrides any consensus that disagrees with you? Croctotheface (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why the adminstrators are involved who not only give recommendations and fix articles, but also have the power to overrule and punish obstinate editors such as the one who insisted on using "the CW" when it is officially "The CW" Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
So your answer to my question is yes, that you will not abide by the consensus if you disagree with it? Croctotheface (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Now who's being "uncivil"? You mischaracterize our positions. It has nothing to do with the "rightness of my opinion". It has to do with the company's right to call itself what it wants, and that that overrides the nose-in-the-air pedantry of some wikipedia editor that claims otherwise. It has to do with presenting the information correctly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
My question was whether you guys believed that the supposed "rightness" of your opinion (which, again, goes against the MOS) would override any consensus. The reply was some threat about "punishment" from administrators. Setting aside the fact that administrators don't intervene in content disputes, I had trouble finding a way to read that comment as anything but "I don't believe in consensus, I believe in finding an administrator who will enact the version I like by force." So, I asked about it. The question, in context, was entirely civil. I was asking for a clarification. Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Getting the facts right overrides pedantic rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that you are saying you would refuse to abide by a consensus to use "Amro"? Croctotheface (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You already stated that there is no consensus. That's where the adminstrators come in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
From my post from a 20 or so minutes ago: "I'm suggesting a process by which we gather consensus. Do you guys agree that what we need to do is bring in other editors to help us do that?" Do you agree that we should engage in some process to gather consensus? Croctotheface (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Show me where the manual of style says that acronyms are not to be capitalized. Also, show me where it says we decide what a company has the right to call itself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It says that we "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner:" The name is trademarked, and capitalization is a style issue, not a "naming" issue. I've said this before, which is why I don't see a purpose in continuing this back and forth. Croctotheface (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And that's where you're wrong. Capitalization *is* a naming issue. Even Wikipedia itself admits this by means of interpreting article names in a case-sensitive manner. If the naming of articles were case-insensitive, you'd have something of a point, although I'd still disagree with you then. But as it stands, I really don't see why you're arguing something that is so obviously not true. (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If capitalization serves a semantic function (IBM, SAT, etc.), that's a different case. It does not serve a semantic function here, which is why most publications use "Amro." Are things like punctuation, color, font, font size, and use of the TM and (R) symbols also necessary parts of the name? Croctotheface (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the capitalization serves a semantic function or not. Either it's a naming issue or it isn't, and I say it is. As for your other examples... Punctuation: Yes. Font: No. Font size: No. Symbols: Only if it really is part of the actual name, e.g. the exclamation sign in "Yahoo!" stays, but TM and (R) usually won't, because in the case of TM, it's normally only used to indicate that something is a trademark and thus not part of the trademark itself, although there might be exceptions. As a rule of thumb, anything that remains after conversion to plain text is part of the name. (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should plain text be the test? This is not a plain text encyclopedia, and basically no secondary sources are plain text sources. If they wanted to use a certain font, or bold text or underline, to bring up a different formatting issue, they could. We can and do use color, bold, and so forth when it's warranted. Would it matter to you if the company was very insistent that boldface or red lettering were part of the name? If not, isn't this just about what you personally think is important? Why should we follow your opinion rather than what secondary sources do? Croctotheface (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue that font or color or formatting in general is a naming issue, and apparently neither do you. So the question we're left with is why capitalization is a naming issue. It is because uppercase characters are distinct from lowercase characters, even if they represent the same letter. Wikipedia itself acknowledges this. There are many more examples of computer programs that do the same. A string comparison between "ABN AMRO" and "ABN Amro" will yield a non-equal result. Even you proponents acknowledge all this by referring to "English spelling rules" regarding capitalization. Unless you're going to claim that spelling rules now govern style as well, I honestly can't see why you're so adamant on insisting that capitalization is a style issue. (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That is why there is a discussion to reevaluate this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on there because you started it, not because of any kind of grassroots movement. You're not the first one to propose such a change to the guideline, and it hasn't happened yet. Maybe this time will be the charm, I don't know. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Which makes it apparent that this issue is by no means cut-and-dried. It's practically on a case-by-case basis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK, now we're maybe getting somewhere. Yes, the guideline is applied case-by-case. The issue is that in this case, there was a discussion that resulted in a consensus to use "Amro." That consensus was overridden by an administrator abusing his tools. At this point, there is not a consensus to use one version or another--I count seven editors on both sides, though I may have counted the aforementioned administrator twice, now that I think about it. In any case, 7-6 or 7-7 is not consensus. I am proposing opening this up so that it is no longer a drawn out argument among three editors. Let's use the normal venues, like WP:RM, to bring other voices into this discussion and hopefully reach a consensus. However, that requires a commitment from everyone here to actually abide by the consensus. I'll abide by a consensus to use all caps. Will you two abide by a consensus to use title case? Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"Standard English"? This is not a standard English word, it's an acronym. What does your precious MOS say about acronyms? And if you go trying to recruit people just to get your way on this, yes, you will be challenged about it. You'll be taken to WP:ANI and a stupid argument will ensue, just as it did with the now-indef-blocked user Rollosmokes. Yeh, that would be worthwhile, yeh, sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
What evidence do you have for suggesting that I will "go and recruit people"? I've never done that. None of your threats scare me at all. "Standard English" refers to the rules of standard written English. For instance, use Title Case, not ALL CAPS, for names of banks. If you are arguing that using all caps is standard English in this case because it's an acronym, then I think that's at least a reasonable argument, even though I don't agree with it. Let's open up a venue where you can make your argument and I can make mine and we can seek to have a consensus emerge. Let's agree to abide by the consensus reached by such a process. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's just your little comments like "bring in other editors" that led me to that conclusion. And are you saying bank acronyms are not all caps? That PNC Bank should instead be "Pnc bank"? Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"PNC" in PNC bank is not an acronym, first of all. To answer your question, no, not all acronyms use all caps, and they certainly don't by definition. "Radar" is one example, but even if you want to distinguish that as somehow "no longer being an acronym," another example is ABN Amro. Do you really think that MarketWatch, Bloomberg, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and the New York Times are all wrong about capitalizing acronyms? Do you really think that Bloomberg and the WSJ, respected financial publications, are ignorant of the way the company styles its name in print? Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You keep bringing up "radar", which is a false argument. It was originally RADAR and it evolved into a standard word over time. So in 1945, I would have been arguing for RADAR, but now radar is fine. And there are other citations that spell it ABN AMRO in all caps, so it is clear there is no publicly firm answer as to the "right" way. Which takes you back to the way the company has it, and that trumps the matter, because it is their right to name themselves what they want to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Something can be both a "standard word" and an acronym, and "radar" is. You keep alternating between rationales here. On the MOSCAPS talk page, you said that it's ok to go with "Sanyo" despite the preference of the company for "SANYO." Now, you seem to be saying that we should always do what the trademark owner wants us to do. Which is it? Croctotheface (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If SANYO were an acronym, I would be arguing for SANYO. According to the article, the way I interpret it, it's an actual Japanese word, not an acronym or abbreviation or whatever. Maybe I've got that wrong, but that's how the article reads to me. My dictionary says "radar" is derived from the words that formed the acronym RADAR. It doesn't say "radar" (as shown that way) is in acronym. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think"derived from parts of two or more words or phrases" is pretty much the definition of an acronym. So, to answer my question, "do what the company does" should NOT be our guiding principle? Croctotheface (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If everyone in the world called it ABN Amro, you might have an argument. But that is not the case. Some do, and some don't. So you have to go back to how the company calls itself. The only "guiding principle" that matters is to get it right and not make wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, from what I can tell, more sources use Amro, including a large number of highly respected ones. Really, you're just all over the place here. What you say about one company (Sanyo) gets turned around completely for another one (ABN Amro). Either we need to do what the company does or we don't. It's either "right" because they use it or it's not. Without pinning this to a particular standard (like "do what the company does" or "use the style that most conforms to standard English"), then we're left with nothing, no guidance. We disagree about what is "right" and what makes WP "look stupid." Neither of those is a helpful standard. Croctotheface (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
What they call themselves is more important than what others call them. ABN AMRO is an abbreviation, which would normally be all caps, and that's what they call themselves, so it's consistent. Sanyo's logo says SANYO, and if that's an abbreviation or acronym, it probably should be spelled in all caps. But if it's actually a word, it need not be in all caps. There is no inconsistency in my view on this. And the guidance is get it right. ABN AMRO is right for this company, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me whether "SANYO" or "Sanyo" is right, but the wording of the article suggests that "Sanyo" is acceptable because it's an actual word and not an abbreviation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And you're looking for a pedantic "standard" or "rule" when it really has to be a case-by-case judgement call. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So if "Amro" were neither an acronym nor a word in any language, and the company rendered it in all caps while most secondary sources did not, you would advocate to render it how? Croctotheface (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When everything else fails to settle an issue, there is one major Wikipedia guide which can be followed which is WP:IAR. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything you do under IAR must be justified on a reasonable basis which reflects consensus of the community. Keep that in mind before deciding to do something that does not reflect consensus. So I guess we're back to trying to come to a consensus, aren't we? Despite this pointless detour through IAR. --C S (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems some people are arguing if an acronym is pronounced we should treat it as a word. But why then are NASA, ASEAN and I suspect many other acronyms not treated as such? While I appreciate there are not trademarks (although my gut feelings is there are some, I just can't remember any) it seems to me the same principle applies. If a company styles their name in a certain way and this way is followed by other sources then we should defer to this name. Only if the vast majority of sources style it in a different way then we should follow the different way. As it stands, it seems some sources us ABN AMRO and some ABN Amro so we should defer to AMRO as it's how the company styles it Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If policy wonkery is bad, then guideline wonkery is doubly so. The guideline seems to be quite clear on this, although the much-publicised exceptions such as "iPod" arguably demonstrate the flaws inherent in it. The question, then, is whether our guideline trumps anything (which some here doubt), or everything (which some here seem to believe). I'm inclined to agree with Nil Einne. The company's preference is neither inherently awful nor all that surprising, considering that the name is an acronym. I cannot see that using the company's own capitalisation causes any harm, unless one associates harm with non-compliancy or challenges to MOS. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to ABN AMRO's early history[edit]

Somewhere along the way after ABN AMRO was bought up and split up, the early history timeline disappeared. Here is what it was:


  • 1824: King Willem I created the Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij by Royal Decree to revive trade between the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies.
  • 1861: De Twenstche Bank was founded.
  • 1863: The Rotterdamsche Bank was founded.
  • 1871: The Amsterdamsche Bank was founded.
  • 1933: Hollandsche Bank voor de Middellandsche Zee (HBMZ) merges with Hollandsche Zuid-Amerika Bank to form Hollandsche Bank-Unie (HBU).
  • 1964: Amsterdamsche Bank merged with Rotterdamsche Bank to form AMRO Bank. Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij immediately merged with De Twentsche Bank to form Algemene Bank Nederland (ABN).
  • 1968: ABN acquired Hollandsche Bank-Unie.
  • 1991: ABN and AMRO merged to form ABN AMRO Bank.

Should we bring it back in this form or in a different form? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can add the following to the timeline:

I noticed that there is an Algemene Bank Nederland (ABN) article, but not an Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank (AMRO) article. I guess the timeline won't be needed if there is an article written about AMRO Bank. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have added a summary of the historic events back into the article and created a page for AMRO Bank with the timeline as well as expanding the Algemene Bank Nederland page slightly, although that could do with more work. Sargdub (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ABN AMRO vs. ABN Amro[edit]

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 no consensus to move. If anything, a significant majority is opposed, so the page stays where it is. I would like to strongly suggest that, if you really would like to argue this further, you take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). Since our guidelines are descriptive of general practice, not prescriptive, perhaps some agreement can be reached on how to change the manual of style for the future. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

Requested move to ABN Amro:

A recent RM discussion ended with a move to ABN Amro, but that consensus was unilaterally undone by an administrator, whose rationale was "Fuck the MOS." I propose we put the page where the first move would've had us put it. "ABN Amro" is common in sources. It's the style used by MarketWatch, Bloomberg, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the New York Times, and the Financial Times, among many others. The main argument against the move is that because the company uses all caps when formatting its name, "ABN AMRO" is the "official name" or "legal name," but our guidelines, particularly WP:MOSTM, hold that when such styles are in dispute, we should use "the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." It is clear that "ABN Amro" is standard English, since it is used among a broad range of sources, including major financial trade publications, and since the word "Amro" is pronounced as a single word, not letter-by-letter. Furthermore, even if you believe that capitalization is part of the name and not just a style issue, WP:UCN holds that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or thing." It is clear that "ABN Amro" is much more common. --Croctotheface (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Croc did not vote in this straw poll either before or after posting the above statement. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And that troubles you why? It's generally considered bad form to "vote" something like "go me, yeah, I'm totally right." My opinion is entirely clear already, as the closing admin will have no trouble seeing. Croctotheface (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
So it is official that Croctotheface has formally abstained from voting. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Only voters' signatures and the reason for the voter's decision belong in the voting section. Rebuttals are to be inserted in the discussion section. Any rebuttals found in the voting section will be moved to the discussion section.
Support/ABN Amro
  1. Obviously, I support my own nomination. Steelbeard1 is apparently confused about whether I do, so I'm putting my name on this list. Croctotheface (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) seems to be pretty clear on this. --DAJF (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. There's no reason to shirk the consensus on the MoS that we use standard English not company's rules on stylizing their names. Those opposing either do not offer a consistent rationale or apparently don't believe in the MoS consensus. --C S (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia does not tell subjects they are wrong about their own names. All actions on Wikipedia are unilateral, and invoking a move discussion with three opinions, of which one was opposed is not really very persuasive when set against the uniformly uppercase capitalisation used by the subject on its website. Consideration of the names and their derivations separately is irrelevant. The Google search proposed above returns both AMRO and Amro, so is a red herring. In email footers the company uses the all-caps form, and on its website and in all official communications it does the same. I am at a loss to understand why some people seem to be so very keen to change it to something which is so clearly at odds with how the company styles itself; MOS (a house style guide of no real-world relevance) is hardly a compelling reason to go against the company's own evident preference. Sure, you can find examples of the mixed case version. And you can find all-uppercase too, in the FT and WSJ and Time and Bloomberg and The Economist and all the other usual suspects. It's quite possible that it has changed at some point in the not too distant past, I'd have to go back through my email archives to find out, but that's not especially relevant - what is relevant is that the company's communications are, at this time, entirely consistent in using all uppercase. We should follow the company's preferred style, as we do with PricewaterhouseCoopers and other such stylistic excesses. An acronym is typically written all uppercase; NATO, SAT, UNESCO and so on. This is an acronym, though if we were going by that logic then it should be AmRo anyway as both Amsterdam and Rotterdam are proper nouns :-) As far as reliable sources go, the most reliable source for how the company styles itself, is the company's own communications. Whatever they may have used in the past, right now they use ABN AMRO, and as far as I can tell they use it universally and exclusively. So: Wikipedia house style guide, or the company's preferred style. Not a tough call, IMO, Wikipedia is not here to fix it when people in the real world refuse to follow our style guide in their own business. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Keep the capitalization at ABN AMRO. The number of times this comes up in different contexts suggests that the MOS is wrong, and those who blithely cite it in the face of opposition are wrong too. Very head in the sandish to say we know better than others about what their own names are. And a bit arrogant too. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per Guy. Although I don't particularly care about this one all that much. If the MOS actually does disallow this, as some seem to think, then the MOS needs to be emended to allow for such common sense situations. olderwiser 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. I just commented a couple of sections above. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Adherence to style guidelines does not trump what appears to be the most commonly accepted way of writing the corporation's name. Shereth 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. AMRO is an abbreviation and should be capitalized as such. –xeno (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no confusion on my part, it's just that Croc did not formally vote on this straw poll until he clearly inserted his signature in the proper place on the ballot. So as the write this, the score so far is six opposing the renaming of this article to "ABN Amro" and one supporting it. Croc almost pulled a butterfly ballot style boner here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To DAJF, we are not talking about a trademark, we are talking about the legal name of a company. Read the discussion in [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Companies which officially use all-capital letters in their name]].--Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re DJAF's vote. Policy at wikipedia is descriptive, with very limited exception, and so are guidelines such as the MOS. They do not bind, they reflect common practice. It is increasingly apparent that the MOS is wrong about this. Will you obstruct or adapt? (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To User:, please do not use the voting sections to rebut a voter. The only text allowed in the voting section is the voter's reason for the vote. All rebuttals to a voter's reason for his or her vote belong in this discussion section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, and I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this, but it seems to me that the Manual of Style indicates that we should use the form Abn Amro. The company itself uses "ABN AMRO" consistently. It seems that the bastard form "ABN Amro" is only coming from the secondary sources - or to be more specific, some of them. Others use the full-caps form. I can't see a strong argument for the half-caps version. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. People seem to want to use title case for "Amro" just because it "looks like a word" when it's really an abbreviation. –xeno (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, standard English calls for abbreviations that are pronounced letter by letter to be capitalized. For instance, SAT is referenced in the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What's your source for how the "ABN" part is pronounced? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I called this number: 1-866-747-4332, from their website, and asked. Croctotheface (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. Did you ask them how they like being called "Amro" instead of "AMRO"? that would be the next obvious question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:OR. Actually, of course, if we were to adhere rigidly to correct style and abbreviation form it should be ABN AmRo. But nobody uses that. AMRO/Amro is not a word, it's an acronym. Like, you know, NATO. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Calling the company is OR? I'd say they're a primary source. I wouldn't use "Nato," since (1) it is not a trademark, so the guideline doesn't apply, (2) each letter stands for something, at least, so it's arguably not nonstandard, and (3) NATO is prevalent in sources.[21]. However, does this case really turn for you on whether "Amro" is an acronym? If it were an invented word that was not an acronym at all, which they always wrote in all caps, you'd say we should use title case instead?
More generally, though, I don't think that this is a productive area of discussion. I'm likely to stop responding here, as my view is clear on this page, and I've answered basically every argument more than once now. It appears that the consensus will be to use all caps, which I vehemently disagree with, but it's not my place to enforce that disagreement. A few weeks from now, this page will be back to its normal low level of editing activity, and we can all move on to something else. Croctotheface (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
NATO should be left alone because it's not (also) a trademark? So for a company that wants its name to appear correctly on Wikipedia, the thing to do is *not* trademark it? Weird world you're living in... (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how snide remarks like "weird world you're living in" add to the discussion. Calling your position "correct" by definition begs the question. The guideline deals with trademarks, and NATO is not one. I suppose that if some governmental or intergovernmental organization styled their non-trademarked name in a nonstandard way for the purpose of marketing, the proper translation of our guidelines to that situation could be to standardize it. However, NATO is not a trademark, all caps is widely used in sources (about as widely used as the title case "Amro" is for this bank) and also has each letter stand for something. It's easily distinguishable from "Amro." I don't think I have anything more to say about this issue. Croctotheface (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that people keep asserting that it is somehow acceptable to change the proper capitalization of ABN AMRO just because it also happens to be a trademark. I have yet to see a satisfying explanation why it suddenly becomes okay to change a name's capitalization once it's trademarked. (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The same reason it's OK to use a different color from the one the logo uses, even though the logo is trademarked. It's a matter of style, and more standard styles serve our readers better. This article exists to inform our readers, not to serve the ends of the company. Here's an article that I suspect you will find unconvincing, but I don't think that anything will convince you to take the other side here, and that's fine. For now, I really don't think there's a reason to continue discussing this, since it's just going to be a back and forth between "official name" and "standard English" until we both collapse from exhaustion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, aren't you now saying that a name being trademarked has no bearing on how it should be colored, capitalized or spelled? In that case I'd agree with you, but your initial response to the NATO example seemed to indicate otherwise. The article does raise some interesting points I must say, altough some of it (like #4) clearly doesn't apply to ABN AMRO. Anyway, I agree that it's probably best to let this rest, seeing how we're not likely to convince each other. (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Shereth above, I think any perusal of secondary sources, such as the "ABN Amro" Google news search I linked above, shows that all caps is hardly the most common style. Croctotheface (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's not pronounced "enn ay tee oh", shouldn't it be spelled "Nato", by some users' logic here? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from WP:RM by User:JPG-GR)[edit]

Oppose move.--The move was quickly made before other editors could participate in the discussion which led a key administrator with ABN ARMO as a client, who did know about the move request until it was too late, overruled it. ABN AMRO is the legal name of the corporation and is identified as ABN AMRO in all legal documents and business directories. We are NOT talking about ABN AMRO as a trademark, we are talking about ABN AMRO as the legal name of a corporation. As for the use of "ABN Amro" by journalistic sources, those sources are split. The New York Times and BBC News, to give two examples, used both "ABN AMRO" and "ABN Amro" in news stories. It is not the job of Wikipedia to tell a company what to call itself. ABN AMRO is a set of abbreviations standing for the Dutch financial institution Algemene Bank Nederland/Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank. So it's obvious that AMRO or (to be more proper) AmRo stands for Amsterdam-Rotterdam. But "AmRo" would make the article look silly. So the acronym AMRO is used and acronyms are always spelled out in all-capital letters. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose move for the reasons Steelbeard1 states, and the un-moving admin's point (which I also keep making) that it is not wikipedia's place to tell this company how they should style their name. Many respected sources spell it all caps, so it's clear there is no public consensus on the matter, and thus the company's own styling of the name trumps the issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the original move to ABN Amro was by no means a clear consensus, as the same issues opposing it were brought up then. Amro or AMRO is no more of a standard English word than ABN is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

MOSTM does not apply to the legal name of a corporation[edit]

WP:MOSTM does not apply when it comes to the legal name of a corporation, but WP:IAR does. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MOSTM applies to all trademarks. Is the name of this corporation not trademarked? Croctotheface (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
MOSTM does not mention anything about legal names of corporations which also happen to be trademarks. So WP:IAR still applies. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Because it just says "trademarks," not "some trademarks" or "trademarks that are not legal names." It doesn't specifically say it applies to ANY trademarks, except perhaps the ones it mentions as examples. Does that mean the guideline does not apply to, say, Diet Coke because it doesn't say "soft drinks" anywhere? Croctotheface (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
MOSTM doesn't mention anything about names of banks that happen to be trademarks? Is that your argument that a sentence saying "this applies to trademarks" doesn't apply? --C S (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not surprising you are choosing to invoke IAR as some kind of legalistic rule, rather than what it is meant to be. IAR is not a trump card to be used when consensus goes against you. It's not carte blanche to do whatever you want. IAR only has power because of consensus, that ultimately rules are there to reflect consensus. IAR interpreted in the narrow way you are doing, means that anything you do under IAR can promptly be undone by anybody else invoking IAR. Think upon that before invoking IAR. --C S (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh get over yourself. MoS is a style guideline, it is not intended to overrule real-world facts. ABN AMRO self-identifies as ABN AMRO, uniformly. It's not for us to tell them they are wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We can disagree about whether MOSTM is a good guideline or not, but I don't see how you could arrive at the interpretation that "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner" is not meant to override the preference of the TM owner. We can and should still say that the company uses a given style, but that does not mean that we are beholden to use it in the text. My understanding is that the full legal name of this company is "ABN AMRO Holdings, A.V." but we rightly don't use that name every time we refer to it. It may well be time to open that guideline up to a community-wide discussion to see if it still has consensus. However, if we are to apply it, this case is just the type that it was meant to address. Croctotheface (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming you are not a present or former customer of an ABN AMRO bank as I am. So I am extremely familiar with this financial institution which sold the bank I'm with (LaSalle Bank Midwest) to Bank of America. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed the point of what I said. I know that the bank uses all caps. You seem to think that I am somehow confused about what the bank uses. I don't think that the style that the bank uses is the best one for our readers, just like it would not be best to always write out the full legal name. Croctotheface (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
And by what authority do we decide that our readers are better served by our own version of the company's name than by that which the company itself prefers? That displays quite remarkable hubris. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not "our own version," it's the one used predominantly in independent sources. We would never say "well, that's what the company wants, so we'll do it" if it came to reporting on a scandal they were caught up in. Even if you believe that all these publications used "Amro" in error, it's still the prevalent style. To reject what's common in sources in favor of just doing what the company wants would never fly here for anything else. If agreeing with the MOS is "hubris," then would you say that blindly following the practice of the company, despite the actions of reliable sources, is, I dunno, "sycophancy"? Croctotheface (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean that when you decided to conduct research into the prevalence, you found more that say Amro? But how do we know that they did not change recently? None of the sources are discussing the capitalisation, so it's not up to us to conduct surveys of web sites and be the very first to press with a comparative analysis. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS and proper names[edit]

Proper names are not edited according to Manuals of Style. I've worked as a professional editor. If the company uses all caps, then that's how it should appear here, as that's their name. If the Wiki MOS says or implies that proper names should be changed from how the person or company spells/caps it to something else then Wiki MOS needs to be revised. Companies, particularly today, have all kinds of weird names, spellings, capitalization, etc. A proper name is a proper name and you don't change it for interpublicational consistency. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked as a copy editor, too, and your statement does not comport with any style guide that I know. What do you say to the copy editors at MarketWatch, Bloomberg, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the New York Times, and the Financial Times? Croctotheface (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that maybe these publications have a house style that allows for this for some reason, or a coypediting staff that chose to go that way because they think the same way you do? Many publications use a house style, in conjunction with one of the major style books (AP, Chicago, AMA, whatever). Or maybe they're all wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A style question isn't a factual question, so I don't think you can't really be right or wrong as such. I just brought those up to show you that, actually, not every major style guide says that all proper names, including company names, must be rendered in the style of the company's choosing. In fact, a whole slew of mainstream publications apparently agree with me. Incidentally, you may be thinking of PERSONAL names, not all proper names. Come to think of it, I actually don't know of a style guide that says to always accept the capitalization scheme that companies use. My AP style book is hidden away somewhere, but according to this article, AP style calls for title case for names like AMRO/Amro and ARCO/Arco. If you have yours around, it might be worth double checking. Croctotheface (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Then how would you spell the name of the late Namibian actor Nǃxau? Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"N!xau" seems prevalent in sources, and I presume that's how he rendered it, so I'd go with that. Personal names are different from trademarks. Also, I take it that the exclamation point is the standard way to render the clicking sound in his name? This case is wholly different from "Amro." Croctotheface (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Croctotheface, as I've pointed out before, all those publications and more besides also have examples of the all-caps usage. The only thing you can say with certainty is that all-caps usage is inconsistent outside of the company itself, which is hardly a surprise as companies tend to be the ones most protective of their styles and marks. More importantly, none of those publications discuss the capitalisation - to infer from their usage that they endorse or assert one or the other style is a novel synthesis and not permissible. You might make osme headway if you cited discussion of the mark itself in those journals, but you don't. It's not even clear if the capitalisation style has changed over time. All we know for sure is that the authoritative primary source - the company itself - reliably uses all uppercase. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that the core difference here is that you think that WIkipedia should assist corporations in "protecting their styles and marks." That's not our job; our job is to make our encyclopedia as readable as possible, and all caps is SHOUTING when it's present within prose. The links you gave where, for instance, WSJ's website used all caps was, if I recall, something like a stock profile? If we did stock profiles, it might be appropriate to use all caps. Do you have an example where WSJ used all caps in the prose of an article written by one of their reporters? If I called the copy desk of the WSJ or New York Times or Bloomberg, and they said that their MOS calls for title case, would that make a difference to you? If these publications DID say explicitly that they believe that it is standard to render "Amro" in title case, would you change your position? What about it literally no secondary source ever used all capitals for anything, but the company always did? Croctotheface (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What if? That's just speculation. This is not about helping companies preserve their trademark, it's about a need to find consistency here: the most consistent form is the company's own spelling, whereas the publications cited above use both forms. What seems weird to me here is that we're comparing periodicals (that almost certainly use AP style as their basis) with Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and much closer to a book than a periodical. Most of the book publishing houses I know of use Chicago style (and medical publishers often use AMA). Just a thought. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Click the Google news link I've cited here and tell me how "inconsistent" these publications are. They're not. If you want to follow Chicago style, tell me where it comes down on the matter. I strongly doubt that it--or any respected style guide--is in favor of "do whatever the company does." Can you point to a single style guide that has that rule? Croctotheface (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Croc, you are starting to sound strident and unreasonable. It really is not even remotely plausible that I would be deferential to companies in promoting themselves in their terms, the number fo spammers I have banned speaks for itself on that score and there are plenty of examples in OTRS where people have asserted that X is their registered trademark and must be represented exactly thus, and I've told them to get lost. What we have here is different. We have a commercial entity which expresses a very clear choice as to how its name is represented (as we do with PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, which is considered absurd by many and on whihc, incidentally, we actually do have sources discussing the capitalisation). You appear to have decided that you don't like all-caps, which is a valid personal preference, and to have set out on some kind of crusade to prove that you are right and they are wrong, which is not. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 12 August 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.

Bethmann bank[edit]

Bethmann bank is now halfway to (preliminary) completion. I would welcome some guidance whether to steer it in the direction of a company article, as the bank is now part of Delbrück Bethmann Maffei, a unit of ABN AMRO, or to approach it as a historical business article, as there no longer is an independent bank named Bethmann. Should I add it to Template:Dutch financial services companies? Thanks,--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Article split[edit]

Since 6 February 2010 the bank has been split into ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. under ABN AMRO Holdings B.V.

I'm suggesting that we split this article into ABN AMRO Bank for the Dutch Government owned business and The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. for the RBS owned side. These are now two separate businesses and it makes sense to make the split. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see the reason for the new articles. There is a go-forward entity known as ABN AMRO which will be the combination of ABN AMRO and Fortis. This should be the subject of this article. If you want to focus on the RBS owned assets then that should be a part of the article on Royal Bank of Scotland. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓTALK ◄| 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Article merge with Abn[edit]

I suggest that ABN AMRO article be merged with Abn, it seems that this is a continuation of part of the same organisation that will carry on with the same name. The ownership seems a bit confusing so be good to hear from somebody who has more knowledge of this, but looks like after the dutch government nationalised the section of ABN AMRO and fortis within the netherlands, that this business will carry on trading as ABN AMRO, the Royal bank of scotland bits will be renamed, sold or wound down and could be covered in Royal Bank of Scotland article. If there are two different banks then it makes sense to have two articles, but in that case it looks like there is only one ongoing organisation. The RBS purchase, ownership and changes and the whole nationalisation and the merging with fortis branches can be covered in the history section. Sargdub (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the Abn page to ABN AMRO Group to better reflect the content of the article, but still think it would be better merged with this page. Sargdub (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of "We"[edit]

"After the merger of ABN and AMRO Bank in 1991, ABN AMRO continued to grow through a number of further acquisitions, including in 1996 the purchase of suburban Detroit based Standard Federal Bank and in 2001 the Michigan National Bank both of which we rebranded as LaSalle National bank."

I think wikipedia should not be used as a platform for ABN-AMRO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, have changed the sentence Sargdub (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam Sessler Alumi?[edit]

Ie he a notable former employee to put on the alumi section?FusionLord (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)