Talk:Wells Fargo/Archives/2019

On the subsection deletion by 71.56.50.120
The reason given for the deletion of the subsection 2018 advertising campaign, "This entry does not describe a lawsuit, fine or controversy," is insufficient. The campaign certainly represents an attempt to restore the firm's reputation in light of the Wells Fargo account fraud scandal and perhaps other bad publicity. As such, it does relate to lawsuits and controversy.

I am not reverting, however, as the subsection has problems with verifiablity. Specifically, the link in the first reference does not lead to the May 2018 article intended and the link in the second reference is dead. If any editor can supply the sources, I recommend that the subsection be restored, perhaps with more specificity as to what negative publicity Wells Fargo intended to counter. Peter Brown (talk)

Strange edits by User:GrapefruitSculpin on 2 December 2018
Two major issues. First, in formal American English, it is always U.S., not US. Second, no one except for certain employees of the United States federal government describes it as the "U.S. Federal Government." It is always the "United States federal government," the "U.S. federal government," or simply the "federal government" if it is pragmatically inferable from context that we are talking about the United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey Coolcaesar, I'm a fan of your quality work—especially for California and infrastructure—you're genuinely doing a public service. Pleasantries aside, please don't present your opinions to me as absolute facts.


 * "First, in formal American English, it is always U.S., not US." Narrator: It's not. Unlike French, there's no formal regulator for the English language, especially for what's nebulously defined as American English. Of course there are style guides, including some that prescribe U dot S dot. However, the Chicago Manual of Style and MLA are cool with US, along with some scientific style guides, like the ASA–CSSA–SSSA's. However, none of that matters here, because we abide by en.Wikipedia's style guide, specifically: MOS:US.


 * "Second, no one except for certain employees of the United States federal government describes it as the 'U.S. Federal Government.'" Feel free to prove that, or at least qualify it better than "except for certain employees". Anecdotally speaking, as a former employee of our federal government (we're both Americans, right?), I recall there being numerous ways to name the national government, but I can certainly tell you it wasn't "always" in the formats you defined. If you want an official guideline, the 2016 US GPO Style Manual specifies "Federal Government" in title case.


 * "...if it is pragmatically inferable from context that we are talking about the United States." Agreed. The problem is, that's a subjective assessment and I'm biased towards specificity for our global audience, not presenting articles from an American perspective to cater to American readers. See: WP:CSB & WP:WHATPLACE. I'm a little bummed you consider my edits "strange" when I consistently leave explanatory edit summaries describing what I'm doing in that regard, and I'm pretty f'n good at it.


 * All that aside, I'm not going to wikilawyer any further with an actual lawyer. No hard feelings on my end, I hope you feel the same. Also, I saw you were discussing a potential RfC on naming conventions for California propositions. I agree with your arguments. If it pops up again be sure to ping me for positive support. Take care, →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 10:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Pay ratio -- add to info box
I would like to see the pay ratio, and possibly associated data like median pay and CEO pay added to the infobox. I have mentioned this article here where I requested a "pay ratio" parameter be added to the infobox for that purpose: Template_talk:Infobox_company. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)