Talk:Barings Bank collapse

Merge?
Much of this is covered in the Barings Bank article -- but perhaps this should be merged into Barings Bank?? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this looks like it was taken from there directly. Does this need to be split out from the Barings Bank article at all? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! Both the bank itself and the collapse are notable enough to merit separate articles, IMO. Jose João (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that both the major and the minor topics are notable enough; but can an adequate rationale be provided for splitting this topic off from its (natural) parent? My answer would be no but I will await a response. Alice.S 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not really in a position to comment on the matter. Actually, you're not in a position to comment, period. Jose João (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can you address the subject under discussion (a merger proposal) and not disparage the folks who are making the proposal. On this subject, please would you also provide a rationale for deleting the merger proposal template that I placed on the article and that you, User:Perspicacite (alias Jose João), deleted with this edit.
 * Disparage the folks? I have not disparaged ArglebargleIV in any way. To the contrary, I provided a rationale on his talkpage prior to reverting... you. You have not proposed anything regarding this page. You are not a party to this discussion. You followed me here by looking at me contributions. You are contrarian for the sake of intimidation. You're therefore violating WP:STALK and WP:POINT. Jose João (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic of this section: should this article be merged back into our Barings Bank article that most of the material was taken from when you "started" it. Now are you able to provide
 * 1) an adequate rationale for splitting this topic off from its (natural) parent
 * 2) a rationale for deleting the merger proposal template that I placed on the article?

Please be civil and pertinent. (The contributions records are public for very good reasons. One of them is so that, where a particular user shows a particular pattern of disruptive or erroneous edits, then those edits can be tracked and rectified/ commented upon). Alice.S 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S 09:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Why'd you get blocked the other day? Jose João (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall it had something to do with a WP:STALK violation, and a little less to do with my "disruptive or erroneous" edits. But then again I would not want to gloat. Jose João (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Skipping the off-topic discussion
I'd rather keep this discussion on-topic, if we can.

If the articles are going to remain separated, at a minimum two things should happen.
 * 1) Right now, the text of this article and the Barings Bank section have virtually identical text -- not surprising, since this article was taken from there.  The collapse section of the Barings Bank article has to be replaced with an adequate but short summary.
 * 2) Barings Bank is primarily known for the spectacular collapse - if the collapse is to stay removed from the article, then the rest of the article needs to be beefed up.

I still don't think that the articles should be separated, however -- a single medium-length expository article is better than two short ones. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur (I've restored the merge template on this article and mentioned it here) Alice.S  13:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Strength of this article
This article has improved significantly since the beginning. I'm still nominally in favor of a merge, but for now, I think the collapse section of the Barings Bank article probably should be summarized, since this article is far better than the section left behind. If a merge is still desired, the merge will proceed in a cleaner fashion (IMNSHO). -- ArglebargleIV 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on the article
I'm working on finding more references for this article, and a bit of a major rewrite to provide more narrative and exposition. I'd like to ask that people hold off on the blind reverts back to their 'preferred version' until I've finished with the changes across the next couple of days. At least, discuss the changes here. Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Date format
As long as the dates are wikilinked, it really doesn't matter if it's written as February 26 or 26 February since the date will display according to the user's set preferences either way. demo : February 26 or 26 February -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is only true for the majority of editors (as opposed to readers) who mostly have date preferences set in their profiles.

For the vast and overwhelming number of readers (who are either not registered or not logged on) what is written is what they see. That is why it is important that articles should

a) be consistent and

b) (less importantly) use the variety of English that has a strong national link to the subject matter (in this case, British and Singaporean English - which both use the same spellings and date formats.

I do so agree that it is better to edit than revert; that way mistakes are not put back in blindly... Alice.S 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your recent edits, both here and elsewhere, but you are wrong in your interpretation of ENGVAR. This has no national tie to any nation. The Japanese do not speak English and this occurred in Japan, Singapore, and the UK. Therefore it maintains the variant originally used by the author who began writing the article, which in this case is my spelling. Jose João (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the variant used in Japan is more commonly US English, but, since Japan does not have it's own variant, it can be discounted for our purposes. Is it true that you, Perspicacite alias Jose João "started" this article? (I thought that the words were just lifted wholesale from our article on Barings Bank) Alice.S  20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged
This page is merged into Barings Bank. Neither are long enough to need something separate, and it's a pain for readers to have to click on a separate link for information which is basic to the bank.  Wik idea  18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect to Barings Bank -- there's still no reason to separate the articles. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion again
User:Perspicacite has undone the merge and redirect to Barings Bank, claiming no consensus exists, after the forced departure of one of the merge supporters. The text of this article has mostly already been moved over to Barings Bank, and now it's looking to me like a pointless fork to have two separate articles. I'm going to request comment on re-doing the merge. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Merging this article with Barings Bank
Should this article be merged with Barings Bank?


 * This article was merged into Barings Bank on 2 January 2008, after some discussion, on the grounds that one article covering Barings Bank was better than two, and this article became a redirect. On 3 February 2008, the original article author undid the redirect, stating that there was no consensus to merge the articles. I reverted the un-redirect, which was in turn reverted back. I'm not going to revert that again.  Although I now strongly think the articles should be merged -- most of the info here is was moved to the Barings Bank article already -- I think it's more important to see if there is a community consensus either way about these articles, and have no wish to get into a pointless reversion war.  -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - the two fit together well, and aren't too large. It's more efficient to have them on the same page, and makes for a better read. Since all the material is included in the Barings Bank article, I've restored the redirect.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge for the same reasons The Transhumanist gives. Is "Second collapse" the best section heading?  I don't think 1890 was exactly a collapse, and most people haven't heard of that event anyway.  Perhaps "Final collapse" or simply "Collapse" would be better. Certes (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, (with no prejudice to recreation later). This could easily be split off into it's own article if Barings Bank was large. That article is pretty short for such a important and longstanding bank, but for the moment there isn't enough in the Bank article for the collapse article to be necessary. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, as the Baring Bank's history is being repeated, which suggests to me that the collapse can only be understood within the context of the article about the bank itself. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It appearing that this discussion is long-completed, and that the consensus was Merge, I have removed the RfC call. John M Baker (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)