Talk:Citibank

Citibank
"The service mark under which Citicorp offers banking services." Because the entry doesn't even pretend to give the word a meaning and only names it as a brand. DCDuring created this recently, I suppose to make trouble or test the limits of the brand arguments. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

if the word's largest bank doesn't meet wikt:brand i don't know what doesGtroy 02:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

moved to RFV -- Liliana • 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has no place to seek in RFV: The term is easily attestable: . --Dan Polansky 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

RFV 1
From RfD, needs to meet company name criteria. -- Liliana • 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Citibank" is attestable and this is RFV: I propose this nomination is withdrawn. Try RFD for "company name criteria", which is an unvoted-on and contested piece of CFI. --Dan Polansky 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously verifiable as a word:, and "all words in all languages" takes precedence over anything else. SemperBlotto 07:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Largest bank in the wordMindingmybusiness 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * RE "all words in all languages", what language do company names belong to? Serious question.  Do they all belong under the ==Translingual== heading?  So far as I can tell, en:Sony is es:Sony is ja:Sony is fr:Sony is de:Sony is zh:Sony ... ad infinitum (or at least nauseum).  -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Sony in Chinese is 索尼. See zh:索尼. And in Japanese, it is ソニー. But this raises the question of whether a translingual entry could be made with supplemental entries only where needed. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To be a translingual, IMO, it just has to be language-independent in some languages- it doesn't have to be a translingual in all of them. In the early days of taxonomy when scientific publications were all in Latin, the binomials would be grammatically treated as Latin, the endings changing with their role in the sentence. Outside of Latin, they're completely independent, to the point that I can go to Chinese wikipedia, type a botanical name into the search box, and pull up an article completely in Chinese characters- except for the botanical name.
 * I would agree with Eirikr that many proper nouns (not just brand names) function as translinguals in a great many languages. For your edification, I've pulled a random page I got by searching for "Justin Bieber" with the language set to Chinese: (yes, he's everywhere...) Chuck Entz (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tough one, line of one CFI says "all words in all languages" but then the rest of the document explains which words to include and not include. The section on company names which hasn't been voted on as it predates voting on WT:CFI issues (unless someone can show me otherwise) directly contradicts "all words in all languages" by saying "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." So CFi simultaneously supports keeping and deletion. And people wonder why I say I hate the document! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dropping "WT:CFI#Company names" fixes the issue with CFI. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is only your opinion: please stop stating it as fact. Some of us think that the editors of every major "real" dictionary (in print, by scholars) have got a reason not to include them, and it may not just be lack of space. Equinox ◑ 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MG says that "CFi simultaneously supports keeping and deletion"; I have said that the issue [mentioned by MG] gets fixed by dropping "WT:CFI#Company names", which is a fact--a true statement. Put differently, MG has pointed to a contradiction in CFI (a contradiction that is there as long as "Citibank" is a word), and I have stated how that contradiction can be removed. --Dan Polansky 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some editors (SemperBlotto, Mglovesfun, yourself) apparently think that company names are "words". I, however, do not, and so do not see a "contradiction" here that needs to be "fixe[d]" or "removed". —Ruakh TALK 21:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's test the theory that we should drop the CFI for companies. Here are six companies formed in 2008, each of which meets the CFI for "words" in terms of having been used in print three times over the span of a year since their "coinage" (citations for most are available on their respective Wikipedia pages): tenKsolar, Stemgent, Curotek, enStratus, Gamerizon, Tapulous. Are these "words" that should be defined in our dictionary? bd2412 T 16:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For one thing, to drop CFI for companies in its current wording is not to include any and all single-word company names. If you drop CFI for companies, names of companies get regulated by the section for names of specific entities, which correctly states there is no consensus on inclusion criteria for these. Current section for company names is not based on consensus, and yet is in CFI, a poor state of affairs.
 * For another thing, if we decide to include all attestable single-word company names, then the listed company names get included, assuming that you are correct in that they are attestable. If someone thinks these are too ephemeral, we may tighten the attestation requirements for company names in such a way that a span of not three but ten or twenty years is required. Nonetheless, I see no problem with including "Gamerizon" as long as it is attestable. Furthermore, I do not see what makes you say that "Gamerizon" is attestable per WT:ATTEST: and ; from what I can see, "Gamerizon" fails to meet WT:ATTEST; I do not know what durably archived sources could be used for attestation. --Dan Polansky 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to solicit input on whether the quotations in the entry met whatever standards are relevant, or not, but I notice that there is only one quotation in the entry. Before we can discuss whether or not the term passes RFV by having standard-meeting quotations, it needs to have three quotations, full stop. Will someone please add ones that appear to meet COMPANY/BRAND or whatever standard we apply? Then we can discuss whether or not they indeed meet that standard, and pass or fail the term. (An alternative is to delete this as uncited.) - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Citibank

 * Previous discussion: Talk:Citibank.

Like Amtrak. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept. I don't care whether this and the other terms stay or go, and no-one has commented proposing that they don't meet CFI, so they're staying. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)