Talk:Ulster Bank/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ulster Bank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:UlsterBank20.jpg
Image:UlsterBank20.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us † 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- A fair use rational has now been added. Hope this is acceptable to save this image from deletion! Cnbrb (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:GBfiver.jpg
Image:GBfiver.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A fair use rational has now been added. Hope this is acceptable to save this image from deletion! Cnbrb (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Someone deleted it from the article yesterday. The reason given was "nfc #8". #8 says Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.. I think the rationale at Image:GBfiver.jpg speaks to that. An image of the bank note, in comparison to the one left in the article, helps the reader to understand what the bank's commemorative notes look like. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. I'm getting a bit tired of these delete police going around removing useful stuff without consultation. It was perfectly justifiable.Cnbrb (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about the Ulster bank, not about the bank's commemorative notes, and you don't need to know what these look like to understand how the bank operates. This note has only ever been in general circulation in name only. The omission would not be detrimental to readers understanding of the topic Ulster bank. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure that that such a dry interpretation of 'how the bank operates' is in the spirit of NFC #8. Nobody claimed it was in general circulation. Instead, this part of the article speaks to a way of doing business that is very unusual in the commercial banking world: issuing commemorative lawful money. Probably no more than 7 banks do this (if that), so the image would help the understanding of a reader interested in this aspect of Ulster Bank, by illustrating the colours, layout, security measures and artistic style. Is there any suitable IFD precedent? (Other than movie posters and album covers that seem to survive IfD routinely?) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The note is an anomoly, and given the century old history of the bank the issue is not a significant event. The issue is unusual, but then do you need to show a picture of a particular note to understand the concept of a commerative note? If you want to discuss layout, security measures and artistic style you can do this with reference to Image:UlsterBank20.jpg (WP:NFC#3), which is similar in style. I don't know about any IFD debates, one way or the other Fasach Nua (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- At risk of causing a riot, I think you're offbase again with an excessively narrow interpretation of NFC #8. There is a clear difference between the standard bill and the commemorative and as an average user with no previous exposure to the bank's notes or practises I find it extremely helpful to my understanding of what the bank does. We don't have private bank notes here in Canada, so it exposes me to something interesting and unique. I think you're being grossly unfair to other contributors here with your drive-by deletions of images which are often motivated solely by your oft-stated POV approach. There is a legitimate place here for properly used non-free content. And you still don't appear to have a handle on the concept of courtesy towards other users that involves discussion and the use of established processes for deleting images. Your talk page is little more than a sad litany of complaints about your tactics. There is a clear acceptance of the use of numismatic images (supported by policy, guidelines and consensus - again) and the editors of this article have established a clear context for the inclusion of the commemorative note's image. To the editors of this article, stand up for yourselves. You've got a legitimate case to argue. It's not appropriate to let hard-core anti-fair use content editors tear up the place without genuine cause. If it's done to you here, it will be done to you elsewhere. This kind of stuff just sucks the joy out of the place. Wiggy! (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Drive-by deletions" - I second that! :-)) You might as well just take images out of WP altogether. The whole point of these fair use guidelines is to make use of images possible in a controlled way, not to provide a mandate to erase all visual illustration and expect readers just to imagine stuff. Where there is doubt, there are talk pages.Cnbrb (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- At risk of causing a riot, I think you're offbase again with an excessively narrow interpretation of NFC #8. There is a clear difference between the standard bill and the commemorative and as an average user with no previous exposure to the bank's notes or practises I find it extremely helpful to my understanding of what the bank does. We don't have private bank notes here in Canada, so it exposes me to something interesting and unique. I think you're being grossly unfair to other contributors here with your drive-by deletions of images which are often motivated solely by your oft-stated POV approach. There is a legitimate place here for properly used non-free content. And you still don't appear to have a handle on the concept of courtesy towards other users that involves discussion and the use of established processes for deleting images. Your talk page is little more than a sad litany of complaints about your tactics. There is a clear acceptance of the use of numismatic images (supported by policy, guidelines and consensus - again) and the editors of this article have established a clear context for the inclusion of the commemorative note's image. To the editors of this article, stand up for yourselves. You've got a legitimate case to argue. It's not appropriate to let hard-core anti-fair use content editors tear up the place without genuine cause. If it's done to you here, it will be done to you elsewhere. This kind of stuff just sucks the joy out of the place. Wiggy! (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The note is an anomoly, and given the century old history of the bank the issue is not a significant event. The issue is unusual, but then do you need to show a picture of a particular note to understand the concept of a commerative note? If you want to discuss layout, security measures and artistic style you can do this with reference to Image:UlsterBank20.jpg (WP:NFC#3), which is similar in style. I don't know about any IFD debates, one way or the other Fasach Nua (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure that that such a dry interpretation of 'how the bank operates' is in the spirit of NFC #8. Nobody claimed it was in general circulation. Instead, this part of the article speaks to a way of doing business that is very unusual in the commercial banking world: issuing commemorative lawful money. Probably no more than 7 banks do this (if that), so the image would help the understanding of a reader interested in this aspect of Ulster Bank, by illustrating the colours, layout, security measures and artistic style. Is there any suitable IFD precedent? (Other than movie posters and album covers that seem to survive IfD routinely?) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about the Ulster bank, not about the bank's commemorative notes, and you don't need to know what these look like to understand how the bank operates. This note has only ever been in general circulation in name only. The omission would not be detrimental to readers understanding of the topic Ulster bank. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. I'm getting a bit tired of these delete police going around removing useful stuff without consultation. It was perfectly justifiable.Cnbrb (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done drive-by deletions myself, as I contribute to Wikipedia to create a free knowledge resource and don't wish to see that undermined. These bank note images are not free, but there is no possible free alternative image. I did not say that an image was necessary to understand this event (the note issue), but I do strongly contend that it significantly increases the readers understanding, which is the threshold required by NFC #8. With Fasach Nua reverting multiple editors without further explanation, and no IFD debates to cite, I am restoring the image while discussion continues. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the Fair use rationale using Template:Non-free image data and Template:Non-free image rationale. I hope this will support the legal use of this image on WP. If anyone would like to update other similar images using these templates, it seems to be the way to do it. Cnbrb (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Flags
I noted recent edits by an anonymous user to insert flags into the infobox template on this and a few other Irish banks. They're very nice and I personally don't have a problem with them, but I would advise that for any Ireland-related articles, sticking flags of any hue into articles is likely to cause trouble. It doesn't mean that the flag isn't correct, but there are big issues with using flags in this part of the world (in case you hadn't heard...). Inserting a flag into an Ireland-related article can be seen by some as an emotive statement. The simple solution is to simply leave them off any of these articles. See Northern Ireland flags issue and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Long standing copyvio
Reading the history section made my spidey-sense tingle and, sure enough, the entire thing was a copy-paste from the Bank's own website, since August 2005! So I've removed the section wholesale. By convention we retain the article history in such a case unless the copyright holder asks for its removal. Splash - tk 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Name of the Ulster Bank in Irish
A question for those who are fluent in Irish, and if you're a native speaker, even better. I'm a native speaker of Scottish Gaelic, and in our dialect/language, the Bank would be Banca Ulaidh, with an "i" in Uladh for the genitive. "Banca Uladh" for us would just mean "Bank Ulster," and wouldn't make sense. I've checked it out on Google, and "Banc Uladh" is far more common than "Banc Ulaidh." Our two Gaelics aren't that different from one another. Don't you use the genitive in Irish in names like this? Le gach deagh dhùrachd á Alba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
See also, fwiw
- http://www.ulsterbank.ie/roi/personal/legal.ashx#registeredIreland "Registered details - Ulster Bank Ireland Limited 21. Ulster Bank Ireland Limited. A private company limited by shares, trading as Ulster Bank, Ulster Bank Group and Banc Uladh. ..."
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)