This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This template 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This template 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
I agree that it is useful to identify the Big Five. However, I am not sure the scheme of using 'small caps' is very useful. It won't work on devices without a smallcaps font, such as a screen reader, but more importantly, HSBC doesn't stand out that way at all.
I have changed the HSBC link to HSBC Bank, to avoid visual confusion with the HSBC parent group article, and to allow small caps to work there.
I'm not sure I'm keen on the "small caps" approach: maybe separate out the "big five" and rename the commercial banks section as "Other commercial". There is the issue of some of the others being owned by one of the "big five" (NatWest being the prime example, as well as the various bits of HBOS, etc.). It might also be worth noting that the article Big Five (banks) is about Canadian banks. --RFBailey (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this template, I agree, so I've tried replacing the smallcaps with bold italics. (I first tried bold, then remembered this is what Wikipedia uses when a link points to the page it's on.) Does this work? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] PSBig Five (banks) might be about Canadian banks, but the "Big Five" link here currently points to Big Four (banks). Maybe the former should be renamed "Big Five (Canadian banks)" and the latter "Big Five (UK banks)"?
I've had a stab at redoing the template to address the following issues:
Something which shows the (shared) ownership of the brands; and
Need to distinguish between the "private banks" which are privately owned, and the "private banking" for rich folks.
There's still the paradox of having 7 big four banks. Either we emphasise the Groups which are "Big 4", or emphasise ALL their brands. The current halfway option makes little sense.
Any thoughts?
I've undone the "firming up" because the resizing is inconsistent. The superscript following Sainsbury's Bank seems to prevent Lloyds group firming up to the same degree as the rest, leaving it with the appearance of being favoured over the other banking groups. Bazj (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that certainly wasn't my intention, although now, having had a look, I can see your point. It's simply a side-effect of how Windows PCs interpret formatting (if you use Word, you'll notice exactly the same effect. Whilst there is a marginal additional spacing effect that you pointed out, it still makes the main template much closer and tighter-knit. I suggest it goes back, unless you can prove that the other is being over-emphasised. I might also point out that Sainsbury's Bank is not actually fully-owned by Lloyds Banking Group either, to be clear, which the template seems to suggest at the moment. It's only real competitor (Tesco Bank) is now fully-owned by Tesco. Does it deserve a line of its own??(109.224.134.102 (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You say "I can see your point", and then demand proof? Huh? Bazj (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said I had over-emphasised LBG. So prove it. I only said I saw because there's a noticeable widening - like I pointed out. But that's to do with Windows. I should've gone further (this is a very broad template, can take up to half-a-page. But I won't. Prove that LBG was being given undue attention, and I would accept it. (109.224.134.102 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I was wondering if a bank like Triodos shouldn't be added to the template. They are a small bank (in the UK) but have a strong focus on lending to ethical / green businesses. --Gigoachef (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As no one objected, I've added Triodos to the template --Gigoachef (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
