Talk:SWIFT

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Review " in more than 200 countries and territories"

This is a misleading information, there are a maximum of 197 countries in the world. The phrase has the intention of showing grandiosity, clearly a marketing move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:CF12:E46E:5417:DC97:C0DE:8356 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

196 if you count Taiwan (ROC); 197 and 198 if you count Niue and The Cook Islands as independent sovereign countries. More if you count countries that are not generally recognised as independent like Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, etc. Three more if you count the constituent "countries" of the UK as "countries and territories." It's complicated. SWIFT isn't really clear about what it means by this but it's kind of a moot point becasue SWIFT connects banks with banks, not countries with countries. SWIFT bragging about how many countries it does business in is like if the UN bragged about how many continents and regions it includes. Yeah, sure it may be technically relevant but it's not how the system actually works. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Revenue a secret?

I have tried to find information on SWIFT's revenue and which countries contribute which sum/percentages. This may be relevant in the Russian context. If Russia is kicked out, SWIFT fees for others must rise. We have seen it in the context of drugs in sports and the European Council that memberships matter financially as well. We can't ignore that completely, regardless of where we stand. Someone ought to enlighten us what the finances tell us. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:A8D3:56B1:AE6:C195 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication → SWIFT – The WP:COMMONAME for this organization is the abbreviation PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Vpab15 (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment I think that SWIFT (organization) would also work fine. The full name is just almost never used, which makes it barely recognizable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment There are 5 criteria for choosing an article title. SWIFT wins hands down for the Recognizability, Naturalness and Concision criteria but fails for Precision criterion due to the programming language of the same name. But if SWIFT vs swift (or Swift) are disambiguated on the relevant pages (e.g., a simple redirect notice) then for the Precision criterion SWIFT could be judged acceptable. I don't know enough to judge on Consistency but I would quote Emerson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In sum, I agree. I have never heard of the Society's full name and will forget it by tomorrow whereas the whole world now knows about SWIFT, sanctions and all the other s**t. EOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:489C:5600:7514:DE4C:8B7A:D026 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swift format optional fields problem.72 and 53B SBK

Does Swift realize issues had occurred prior on mapping of the optional 53B SBK field along with field 52B OBK originating bank. If the transaction on screen does map the field of 53B in a transaction and the next transaction has no 53B and a field 52B it is not refreshed on screen of MTS money transfer system and may trap Pay advise lines on MTS. It was a CSS issue if I remember correctly in BK AUT. 97.118.204.66 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

---

SWIFT → Swift (banking) – SWIFT uses "Swift" name commonly. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose, as this is a genuine acronym, even if it is a bit of a forced one. BD2412 T 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• "Interbank" seems to be an adjective, which isn't typical on Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ohh... Just fixed the proposed name. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, SWIFT/Swift is not a bank. Perhaps "banking" would make more sense than "bank". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Or "banking network" or "banking cooperative". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, with analogy to acronnyms radar, laser, etc. No need for all caps if that's not the most common way to do it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support, all caps form almost never used nowadays. Vpab15 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Frequently, [a common-enough name] is preferred over [the most common name but with an added parenthetical]. See WP:NCDAB and WP:NATDAB. On the other hand, page names that differ only by capitalization can be weak when it comes to clarity. Since I'm not familiar with the subject, I don't feel qualified to make a call between SWIFT and Swift (banking). Jruderman (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Another NATDAB option is to create a title that uses the name as an adjective, as in Swift network or Swift banking network or Swift banking system. But it's so easy to mis-read "Swift" as the everyday adjective "swift" that I fear readers will think the title refers to a type of network rather than a specific network. I'd prefer a parenthetical disambiguator over those options. Anyone up for SWIFT banking network or The Swift banking network? Jruderman (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's an acronym, for "Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication", so capitalized as an acronym per MOS:ABBR. Whether the entity still uses that full name is irrelevant; NAACP remains "NAACP" not "Naacp", despite the fact that they no longer use their original full name. There are many other cases like this. E.g. IKEA. Whether the acronym is "forced" or a "backronym" is also irrelevant; a large proportion of commercial and governmental acronyms are of that sort, but remain capitalized anyway. We also do not lower-case things to match excessive lower-case stylization in marketing materials like logos, per MOS:TM: it's Macy's and Pyrex, not "macy's" and "pyrex".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Typical WP:DIFFCAPS instance, similar to other articles like MAVEN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is more similar to Laser, which is also an acronym but is not all caps. "Swift" is the common capitalization in the company's website and logo, and also in reliable sources, like the BBC ([1]). "Swift" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Vpab15 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. A quick look at the article reference list confirmed the impression I formed when working with the system... everyone called it SWIFT, capitalised in that fashion. The style used in the current logo is surprising to me but not relevant, as that's a primary source and in article titles we specifically disregard the style of trademarks and company logos, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. It's part of their corporate image engineering. Similarly their own literature is a primary source. We look at what other people call them. Andrewa (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  I added a link above. See also the Financial Times ([2]). The all caps form (SWIFT) is almost never used nowadays, even if it was the common capitalisation in the past. Vpab15 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Almost never used? I just did a Google on "swift funds transfer", the first ghit was their website, lower case, but then followed https://www.keycurrency.co.uk/swift-transfer/ and then one lowercase, but then https://statrys.com/blog/swift-payment-what-it-is-and-how-it-works then https://australianmutual.bank/banking/travel-and-foreign-exchange/send-receive-money/swift-transfers/ and https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050515/how-swift-system-works.asp and https://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/swift-international-money-transfers.do and https://www.westernunion.com/au/en/swift-bic-codes.html and I went no further. So it's almost never used except by Citibank and Western Union and those others, is that what you're saying? Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as "SWIFT" or move to "SWIFT banking network" instead. "SWIFT" is the common name in reliable sources (see our guidelines on trademarks, which discount the official styling a bit). "SWIFT banking network" is kind of also the common name and trades concision for clarity. I lean slightly toward the longer title. I'm curious to see what I think once others weigh in comparing the two titles. Jruderman (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Opposition on basis of MOS:ABBR misread the guideline. While MOS:ABBR does necessarily oblige NAACP since it is almost always read as N-double A-C-P, but almost no one pronounces IKEA as I-K-E-A. I don't see how IKEA is a case of ABBR. Wikipedia primarily uses IKEA and NAACP, and not Ikea or Naacp, because IKEA and NAACP are the WP:COMMONNAME policy (which trumps guidelines like ABBR anyways). Here, if even the company is not observing the SWIFT stylization on their official website and most of the sources listed in the article don't observe it either, then it's fairly easy to conclude that SWIFT isn't the common name. 122141510 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATDIS. Whether or not this is the most common spelling, it is a common spelling (in reliable, independent sources – not whatever the company uses or its logo shows). And all caps is certainly sufficient disambiguation for WP:DIFFCAPS (even more so than sentence case vs. title case). SilverLocust 💬 22:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see SWIFT as an acronym, and if you search the web (I used Google and Bing in this case) for "swift code" ("code" is a very common keyword here), the results are overwhelmingly expressed as "SWIFT", which to me indicates that the common usage is in fact "SWIFT". That said, some of the support arguments are leaning on "Swift" being the common name, and save for one comment pointing at the article's own sources (a valid but flawed analysis, as that is easily skewed with the sources having been selected by us, the purpose of WP:UCRN is to ensure freedom from editorial bias), I have not seen any actual evidence of "Swift" being the common name here. ASUKITE 15:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - SWIFT in capitals has been in common use for many years and is sufficient disambiguation for WP:DIFFCAPS. I have rarely seen "Swift" used and I agree with SMcCandlish. Sargdub (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Its clear that Swift is the trade name and trademarks, . And S.W.I.F.T. SC, is the legal owner. We need to separate both. Its not about we fight who right or wrong (common name or so on). Common name is misleading, where it will be subjective (who likes SWIFT vs swift vs Swift). Dont look it as acronym, as this will lead to SWIFT company, or SWIFT system. Swift (banking), is the system. SWIFT (company) is S.W.I.F.T. SC. Kekacang (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• That is not a policy-cognizant rationale of any kind, and fails the "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner" instructions at MOS:TM (and, in variant wording, at WP:OFFICIALNAME). Let's repeat the salient material from MOS:TM: When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Exceptions may apply, but Wikipedia relies on sources to determine when an unusual name format has become conventional for a particular trademark; only names that are consistently styled a particular way by a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are styled that way in Wikipedia. (Emphasis in original.) This case obviously fails that test, since "SWIFT" continues to remain common (for this specific subject) in independent reliable sources. Next, no we are not going to separate the service from the company operating the service (other than being clear in our sentences about the difference when it actually matters). We only do separate articles when the company is stand-alone notable in its own right for multiple sevice/product lines; that's not the case here. Lastly, it's correct that WP:COMMONNAME is not pertinent to this question; it has nothing to do with how to style something (as "SWIFT", "Swift", "S.W.I.F.T." or whatever; that's controlled by style guidelines). COMMONNAME is for choosing between two completely different names for the same subject, like David Johansen and Buster Poindexter. But COMMONNAME not mattering for this question doesn't mean that no other guidelines or policy matter and that you get to impose a stylized version you simply like better (either aesthetically or because it helps with the company's logo branding).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose SWIFT stylised in that way is well known, and commonly used. I don't see a point in disambiguating it into lowercase, when SWIFT is the main usage. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.