Talk:Liverpool Victoria

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liverpool Victoria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

History etc

Could someone add an explanation of why the Liverpool Victoria should be in Bournemouth? Also, the article is a little bit like a brochure with too much emphasis on product and not enough on actual history. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title (2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Isn't this article wrongly named? 'LV', 'LV=' and 'Liverpool Victoria' are trading names - the proper name of company (and therefor the article) is 'Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited'. What's more, 'LV' isn't even a registered trade mark of the company, whilst 'LV=' and 'Liverpool Victoria' both are. Obscurasky (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow that, because Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited is the legal name of the company, it should be the name of the article; following that logic, an article on Bobby Charlton should be Robert Charlton etc. It seems reasonable to use as the article title the name by which the subject is most commonly known; today, this company is clearly presenting itself to the world as LV= and you have to hunt quite hard on its website to find the true legal name. It is quite sufficient that this article cites for information the correct legal name. You should note that the article was originally Liverpool Victoria until I changed it in March 2008 to LV=; it was subsequently changed in November 2009 to LV (company), citing "= is purely decorative and not pronounced, see WP:MOSTM)" as the reason. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point about the title not having to use the legal name, but would still argue that 'LV' is the least valid of all 4 names. However, if it's been discussed previously, I'm not going to pursue it. Obscurasky (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME applies. --Trevj (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.automotive-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=C5676446-3383-4133-A25C-FD708A50BF72
Triggered by -business-review\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 06:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move (March 2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Liverpool Victoria. LV (company) redirected to LV disambiguation page. Xoloz (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LV (company) → ? – I propose that this page be moved to either Liverpool Victoria or LV=, both of which are currently redirects to this page. My preference is for "Liverpool Victoria", but I can see the case for LV=.

The official name of the company is "Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited", and its trading name is "LV=". "LV" is not a name that has the company's sanction, although it is sometimes used.
"Liverpool Victoria" appears prominently in the company's current logo and promotional material.
References in the media to its sponsorship of the Cricket County Championship (eg this BBC article) generally refer to it as "LV=".

The page was moved from Liverpool Victoria without discussion in 2008. See also the "Title" section of the talk page. Tevildo (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use Liverpool Victoria, "LV=" fails MOS:TM I think. And "LV (company)" is just highly ambiguous, so should redirect to the disambiguation page LV; particularly the fashion house Louis Vuitton comes to mind first with "LV". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Liverpool Victoria. Agree with all the points raised by the above IP. Zarcadia (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Liverpool Victoria, LV (insurance company) and LV= (company) also improvements. Present title should redirect to LV dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Liverpool Victoria. Still the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move Request (November 2014)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Victoria → LV= – We (Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited) are writing to request that the Wikipedia page “Liverpool Victoria” is moved to “LV=”. At present the wording “LV=” automatically redirects to the page “Liverpool Victoria” and it is our preference that the page is moved to “LV=”. The wording “LV= Liverpool Victoria” does not automatically redirect to the “Liverpool Victoria” page.We feel that changing the name to “LV=” would be reflective of the common usage of Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society Limited by the public. It is the most recognisable and natural. This is so because the majority of our marketing material, online presence and policy documents refers to either “LV=” or “LV= Liverpool Victoria” and not “Liverpool Victoria. Lodinisr (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per March 2014 move request; WP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use official typgography just because the organization does. MOS:TM the "=" is decorative, and not English wording. The website lv.com clearly shows "Liverpool Victoria" underneath the stylized logo "LV=" -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We shouldn't move a page just because they want it moved & personally I'm not so keen on the LV= anyway, I suppose it could be moved to LV (insurance company) if really wanted... –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - first I declare an interest as a senior executive of the company in question. This has been discussed more than once before and LV= ruled out (correctly in my view) as per MOS:TM. What needs to be established is what is the name by which the subject is most commonly known. Six years on from the rebranding from Liverpool Victoria to what is pronounced as LV (the = being silent), LV is on balance probably the name which meets that criterion. However, that is ambiguous, pace (inter alia) Louis Vuitton, and therefore the correct answer within Wikipedia convention, as per WP:COMMONNAME, is to rename and disambiguate as LV (insurance company). --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The Sage of Stamford - you declare that you are a Senior LV= executive - please could you identify yourself so that this can be discussed internally, or contact Nick Joy. Lodinisr (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia debate and this is the forum for it, not a matter for internal LV= discussion. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The common and unambiguous name is still Liverpool Victoria, not some bizarre and recent marketing ploy. LV would be acceptable, but that's far too ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Liverpool Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demutualisation

The move last year from status as a friendly society to that of a private company is a very significant one, not just for LV= but for the friendly society movement. It deserves substantial coverage in the article, which at present it does not get. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

It seems unlikely that the friendly society was incorporated under an act that is dated 32 years after the event, but I don't know enough about the history to correct it. Meesher (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]