Talk:SWIFT

message: 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)
thread_title:  Review " in more than 200 countries and territories" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revenue a secret?  

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 February 2022 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Swift format optional fields problem.72 and 53B SBK