Talk:List of sort codes of the United Kingdom

Revert

I have restored the version which was in place before edits by both User:Ian3055 and the anon. IP 136.8.152.13. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version is, in my opinion, far better. It is, for instance, wrong to say that the ranges 50–66 (former National Provincial and Westminster banks respectively) belong to RBS, as NatWest, although a member of the RBS Group since 2000, is a member of the CCCC in it's own right; while leaving the range beginning 01 (former District Bank) as NatWest. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, fixed that. The other reverting back reintroduces far more issues that are contrary to WP:MOS, as well as countless errors and inaccuracies. Therefore I have put the table back with the correction you have mentioned. If you spot anything else you think is wrong, you should correct it on this table, not revert it, because my edits were not vandalism, but were totally legitimate. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one very specific point - legal statuses of companies (plc, ltd etc.) should not (per WP policy) be used with the company name in general usage. The correct place for that to be included is the opening paragraph of the article on the company itself. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have re-reverted again, without explaination. This is begining to be vandalism. Please re-visit policy, particularly WP:OWN. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and needless to say 'I think it's better' isn't exactly an explanation - hence the reference to WP:OWN. It's not your article to censor changes to. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From personal talk page: Your version is clearly not an improvement and removes information. You have made these changes without reaching consensus and against the wishes of two other editors. (by Chrisieboy)

I'm still unclear as to what your problem is, and I have explained why my edits were in line with policy. Reaching prior consensus is not a requirement for every edit. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only information that I can see that has been removed was the headquarters location of a couple of the banks. This didn't seem relevant to the sort code and their history, and it's available by wiki-linking through to the articles on the banks themselves. Plus it was provided very patchily here. Similar arguments also apply to the legal statuses of the corporations (ltd, plc, etc) as well as the clear policy point on them. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two other editors have disagreed with the changes you have made here. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean they're wrong. WP:OWN can also apply to groups. You still haven't given any reasons, and appear to be assuming that all edits to this page require your permission. They don't. I am perfectly happy to discuss the substance of your unhappiness with the edit, if you'd like to explain it. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to precisely where the MoS mandates the changes you have made. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of this, I propose to revert your edits until a consensus can be reached. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies that are relevant have been cited above, and I have explained myself adequately. You have still not explained any specific issue with my edits, and in view of that any reversion would be inappropriate.

I can see that you originally introduced these tables to the article originally, but this doesn't mean that your permission is required for changes to them. I'm quite prepared to discuss any criticism you might have of my edits, but so far you have refused to enter any such discussion. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please list them here. Why, for instance, have you reformatted the codes..? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll justify specific points in detail if you can explain some problem with them. What's wrong with the formating of the codes? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works! Chrisieboy (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but, yes, that is how it works. You are assuming ownership of this article at the moment. Please feel free to go to dispute resolution if you disagree. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not assuming ownership, as you keep implying, I just think the changes you have made are for the worse. Can you justify them please..? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting that other editors justify minor edits, without first raising an issue with the edit, is very clearly against WP:OWN. I have provided sufficient general justification. That you personally consider them worse is merely your own view - your attitude that you have a personal veto over changes is, again, an example of WP:OWN. I note that your previous edits, additions, and reversions to this page were never discussed on this page before you did them. Why for example did you put the table in originally? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please engage meaningfully as you indicated you would. Why have you changed the formatting..? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the formating of the codes to make them line-up, and make them clearer. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were "lined up" and perfectly clear in the same font as the rest of the article. This is not sufficient reason. Please refer to the Manual of Style. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's talking about font sizes and font types specified through CSS codes, rather than the standard 'code' tag. This is not a case of in-line font formating. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that that section of the MOS uses exactly the same formating I've used for clarity within that piece of text. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to argue that it improves clarity. This is simply not the case. The MoS states Typically, the usage of custom font styles will reduce consistency — the text will no longer look uniform with typical text; reduce usability — it will likely be impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as bother people with color blindness; and increase arguments — there is the possibility of other Wikipedians disagreeing with choice of font style and starting a debate about it for aesthetic purposes. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion on clarity, I believe otherwise. As I said, this isn't CSS, so the bit about overriding custom style sheets simply doesn't apply. Again, as I said, even the MOS adopts the same practice I have. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the general community for their views - see below. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, that's your opinion. I support the RfC and will accept the outcome of that. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the versions my edit of 4 March had a very bad edit summary, I'd got tied up in the addition of "Brilliance Bank" sort code 00, and that clouded my thinking. I can only apologise. Ian3055 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive articles

'The Co-operative Bank' is 'Co-operative Bank' - the definitive article ('the') isn't part of the bank's name, and hence isn't in the article title for that bank.

To explain further, the article changes in context. So on the front of the bank's website it talks about "a Co-operative Bank Cash Mini ISA" not "a The Co-operative Bank Cash Mini ISA".

You can also see that it isn't included elsewhere in wikipedia, such as Template:UK banks.

The only exception in the UK banking community is 'The Woolwich', where the name does include 'The'.

136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er..check your facts! Chrisieboy (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean that it's part of the common name of the company, and we use common names here, not legal names. As I pointed out, the Co-operative Bank themselves trade as 'Co-operative Bank' when grammer dictates the article changes. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if you really want to debate the name, go and do that on the Co-operative Bank article, which clearly doesn't include 'The' in the name. Other articles should follow the lead from there, not go their own way. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, by your reasoning, you'd have a "The Woolwich mortgage" would you? See their website, which states Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) is part of The Co-operative Group, the UK's largest consumer co-operative. CFS is the group of businesses that includes Co-operative Insurance Society (CIS) and The Co-operative Bank including smile. What do you mean precisely when you state "when grammar dictates the article changes"? This doesn't make sense. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: was table formatting better before or after changes?

Is the current version of the tables in this article better or worse than the previous version? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't spot this before I made an adjustment to the article. The 'current version' when this RfC was added was this one. Mauls (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later version better... overall. Basically, I think the overall effect is better. The older table looked a bit cluttered, the new one looks sleeker, and gets the information across better. Looking at the detailed differences two versions, it's good that some unnecessary information was removed (the hometowns of the companies, and those letters after their names), and the missing years when companies changed name or got taken over seem to have been added. A specific problem with the old table was things like "Yorkshire Bank Plc, former [...] trading name of Clydesdale Bank Plc" where the dots were a rather bad split across columns. For some reason, the 'William and Glyns Bank' made it into the current name column, when it was an old name (same for Midland Bank). Bridging bank names across multiple rows to avoid repetition has also made the table clearer. Use of 'former' was unclear ('National Westminster Bank former District Bank' suggests that National Westminster Bank is the OLD name for District Bank. 'Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland' was just plain wrong, as the company name in full is 'Bank of Scotland plc', part of 'HBOS plc', and has been since September last year. In both versions, it's unclear why the parent company of Ulster Bank is indicated, when the same isn't true for other banks in the table. I'm not convinced about having the sort codes themselves in a different font. It does make them stand out, but also looks a bit odd. Maybe having separate 'from' and 'to' columns would be clearer? (Sorry if this is all a bit garbled, just thought I'd give a through comment!) Mauls (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No preference but significant content issues I really have no preference between the 2 font sets, but there are a 2 important content issues to be sorted out to stabilise the edits to this list.

1. What level are we going to take the list to? When I originally created the list it was purely the digits as allocated by the Cheque and Credit Clearing Company and the Scottish and Belfast clearings, since then we seem to have had agency arrangements and brands added to this list, if this were taken to its logical conclusion there would be hundreds of lines to this table and very frequent changes.

2. How to include the history of each allocation. I think the extra column for this makes it a much easier table to understand and that this content makes what could look like a very bizarre list actually make some sense, and put it in a historical context as it shows some important history about the UK banking industry. Ian3055 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible error

The article indicated that "15" is assigned to the Bank of Scotland. While this may or may not be true, "15" is (also?) used by the private bank C. Hoare & Co which is independent of any other bank and remains a partnership with no connection to RBS at all.Informed Owl (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

C. Hoare & Co. is not a clearing bank. If its sorting codes begin 15, its cheques and credits are cleared through RBS. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Clearing Members

Ian3055 removed non clearing members on 6th Feb 2010. But the title of the page is "List of sort codes of the United Kingdom". I got into trouble with HMRC when I used the information on this page as a Coop bank customer to do a Coop bank transfer for VAT, as my transfer was not accepted (which I only found out much later). The sort codes are 08 for the Co-operative Bank, 08-32-00 for HMRC VAT (Citibank) and 08-32-10 for National Insurance (Citibank). (It was a Coop bank employee who told me HMRC's bank is now Citibank). Why HMRC changed from the Bank of England I don't know - it caused a lot of work and confusion, and means an American bank (and therefore the American Govt?) will have details of all VAT and tax transactions for British firms? Can we at least explain the problem here? I can't as since I fell into the trap I obviously don't know enough! Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that HMRC only gave the sort code and a/c number, not the name of their bank, when they asked people to change. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, no-one more qualified updated it, so I did. Hope it's OK. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor title

This is a poor title. Why? Because it promises more than it actually gives. I propose to rename it to something more accurate. Please let me know if this isn't okay. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let us know what you propose to call it and then everyone can say whether it's OK or not Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]