Talk:Coutts

Splitting proposal
I propose that the section about Nigel Farage's account being closed be split into a separate page. A draft has already been started at Draft:Coutts–Nigel Farage controversy, please expand that. 90.255.19.247 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise this had already been done at Nigel Farage Coutts bank scandal. 90.255.19.247 (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References in culture - "section appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references"
A flag on this section says it appears to contain clutter - trivial, minor, or unrelated references. I suggest it doesn't. The section mentions four popular-culture works; all four are linked to their own articles, and all four content-creators are identified and are also linked to their own articles. To me, this comprehensive linking establishes tht all the works, and their creators, are NOTABLE - not trivial, or minor. (And the details included within the section establish tht the references are not unrelated.)

Accordingly, and given tht the links are of course on plain display in the section, it seems to me clear tht the section doesn't even appear to contain clutter references. The flag is uncomplicatedly mistaken. I suggest deleting it. (It's been there since Oct_2019.)

Beyond that, I'd suggest there's also a Wikipolicy issue. How about amending the relevant policy too?

As a general thing, it's clearly reasonable to suggest tht these "References in culture" sections should include citations to reliable, secondary sources, rather than simply listing appearances. But the circumstances here present an exception, where the links themselves demonstrate Wikipedia's own assessments of importance. In this case, citations of third-party assessments seem at best pointless. I'd think the policy should be amended to recognise this exception. 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:BDB6:D58:F466:219 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)