Talk:Royal Mail

message: Some of the images are placed in strange sections.  There are photos of vehicles that are in the Fleet section, and others that seem to be unrelated specifically to the section they are in.  The Ilminster postman with his bike is in the Public Interest section.  That may be Ok as a generic filler.
But the one I find confusing is the photograph currently placed in the Industrial Relations section.  Not only is it unrelated, but the description is very misleading.
It's named "Automated post sorting machine" which would lead some to believe it's what sorts the mail (i.e., grouped by addresses, etc).  The fact is that it's not.  It's a Seg, or Segregator, which is a rotating drum that separates flats (envelopes up to a specific thickness, which will fit into and be processed by the automatic sorting machine) from thicker items which will be processed manually.
Unless somebody has an image of an automated sorting machine that actually is one, this ought to be renamed... although I do not believe it's a good choice for an image because it would require more than a simple title "A segregator, part of the automated post sorting machinery".
Comments anyone?Twistlethrop (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think the article is a bit of a mess but don't have the time to do it myself; the lead does not follow the MOS guidelines some of which says that The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead and also per WP:MOSBEGIN while the transportation images dominate when others could possible better illustrate appropriate sections. Go ahead and be WP:BOLD, delete or move images and make appropriate prose or caption corrections where necessary. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I understand. Thanks for the info.  I too have not enough time to do such a thing.  But with this section now in existence, somebody might pick it up.  We can only hope. Twistlethrop (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement and accuracy 

message: Post Office Ltd islisted in the info box as a subsidiary of Royal Mail, something it ceased to be in April 2012.  Does this need removing, or clarifying?  --Truthmonkey (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed it.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidiary? 

message: "mail" is American English while "post" is British. It should have been "Royal Post". And strangely the US has United States Postal Service (USPS), --should have been  United States Mail Service (USMS)! How did this come to be? Any reason for this? - Polytope4d (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The mail was the bag in which letters were carried.  The post was the stopping place for the mail coach. Hence post office where you could put letters in the mail.  "Post" and "mail" are both acceptable in British English, but "mail" has become dominant in the USA. The 20th century concept came from the British "Penny Post".  Initially in the US the mail was coaches and riders, but they introduced stamps etc it was naturally called a postal service.Chemical Engineer (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English? 

message: I noted in the section "British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies" and the BOT entry for List of postal entities that the territories have their own independent local operators.  I'm rather confused, though, about photos on this page showing a Royal Mail vehicle on Ascension Island, and the RMS St Helena (1989).  Does Royal Mail currently have a relationship with the Saint Helena BOT?  Is the vehicle theirs, or is it leftover or sort of a joke for islanders?  It looks like the ship is privately owned; who pays for it to transport mail?  Are the Post Office staff employees of the territorial government or Royal Mail or someone else? -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Overseas Territories 

message: Yes, I agree with the earlier section about a disconnection between text and images.  That "Automated post sorting machine" looks like some gobbly machine out of the movie Metropolis.  Does it eat people?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.40.233 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify what you are talking about with "That 'Automated post sorting machine' looks like some gobbly machine" - is there an image you are referring to on Wikipedia, or is it on some external website?  Your comment is unclear and hence very confusing.  Also, are you asking a serious question or making a rhetorical point?  What are you asking editors to do, precisely?  What text and what image are you trying to elucidate the connection between? 2.31.164.97 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated post sorting machine 

message: When I worked for what was then Post Office IT Services (under the umbrella of the Post Office) in the 1990s there were 16 businesses in the group.   These included Post Office Counters Limited (POCL), Royal Mail (letters), Parcelforce, Subscription Services Ltd (call centres for the group and TV licensing), Cash Co (Secure transportation of cash etc for the Post Office and NatWest Bank), Stamps & Collectables.   There was also RoMEC (Royal Mail Engineering ?) who installed pillar boxes, furbished Post Offices etc.  The article does not tell us anything about these businesses.   Neither does it tell us which businesses went with with Royal Mail when it was sold off.   Can anyone fill in this major omission?  FreeFlow99 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about all the other Royal Mail businesses? 

message: The credit union was established as a joint local project between Royal Mail and the CWU under the name Royal Mail Wolverhampton and District Employees Credit Union. It is based at the North West Midlands Mail Centre, so fair to mention in this article. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit union 

message: I have added crucial information about EU Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament which amended Directive 97/67/EC, to the Privatisation section of this article. Odd this vital information was missing!(Spymo (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Directive 2008/6/EC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Mail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140806020448/http://www.europeanpostalsystems.co.uk/royal-mail-timeline/ to http://www.europeanpostalsystems.co.uk/royal-mail-timeline
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104223803/http://www.cwu.org/romec-cleaning-services-investigation-uncovers-endemic-safety-failures.html to http://www.cwu.org/romec-cleaning-services-investigation-uncovers-endemic-safety-failures.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150703015704/https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/meetings-whole-assembly/motions/postal-services-across-london to https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/meetings-whole-assembly/motions/postal-services-across-london
*Added  tag to http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content3?mediaId=50800692&catId=600103
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116062820/http://basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/B9334D75-2CDD-482E-AB487E7EF4E1528F to http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/B9334D75-2CDD-482E-AB487E7EF4E1528F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227235057/http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2012/07/ofcom-consults-on-royal-mail%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98delivery-to-neighbour%E2%80%99-scheme/ to http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2012/07/ofcom-consults-on-royal-mail%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98delivery-to-neighbour%E2%80%99-scheme/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: #5.1.5 needs revision. The current version's "It is anticipated that around half of these could be closed by 2016." and "In 2013 and 2014, a further eight mail centres were planned to be closed." should be updated. Mcljlm (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  indeed, but do you have any source to verify changes you would make? ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't looked for any {I came across the article by chance} but since this is 2018 the current text isn't acceptable. Someone knowing more about the subject should update it. Until then "It is anticipated" should be "It was anticipated". Mcljlm (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course  you can be bold and change the tense yourself. ww2censor (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closures 

message: i notice that it still says Romec is part owned by Royal Mail   Whilst doing some other researh i saw that RM bought the other shares from its partner on 31st March 2016 and this is not reflected in the RM entrry at present. this is the link to the RM annual report  
http://www.annualreports.co.uk/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/R/LSE_RMG_2017.pdf  
Hope this helps  Matthew Matthew Caldwell-Nichols (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romec ownership by Royal Mail  

message: I've been Googling each mail centre listed (including alternative names) and I found this:
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/end-royal-mail-centre-pennycomequick-1792834  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.93.63 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plymouth Mail Centre Closed? 

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. 
----
Procedural close. This was about the reversal of an undiscussed page move made on 5 Oct 2022 to :International Distributions Services. Treated as a technical request. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: International Distributions Services →  – This article is really all about Royal Mail rather than the holding company. Cloudbound (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Tend to concur with this rational. Think it was changed in haste from Royal Mail therefore I took the liberty to change it back to what I suspect readers would expect to see when they click on the article. Any change/move to International Distributions Services would need a consensus. Schofield GT (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 October 2022 

message: An issue seems to have arisen over the composition of the FTSE 250 (see Template:FTSE 250 Index constituents). Royal Mail is no longer listed in the official FTSE 250 index but International Distributions Services plc is now listed there. I suggest that on that wikipedia page (Template:FTSE 250 Index constituents) we need to refer to the company that is actually in the FTSE 250 Index i.e. International Distributions Services. See https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/IDS/international-distributions-services-plc/company-page see also here https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/stock-market-summary/ftse-250?page=2 Otherwise our list of FTSE 250 companies will no longer be the same and, importantly, no longer appear in the same order as the official listing. 
For the avoidance of doubt I am not proposing that we rename the Royal Mail article; I am merely proposing that we use the name used by the London Stock Exchange (International Distributions Services) in the Template:FTSE 250 Index constituents listing. Dormskirk (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to have been resolved - Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: FTSE 250 Index

message: The company logo has changed - I cannot work out how to upload and comply with image rights? Cameron Scott (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to add correct logo 

message: The purpose of this page is currently confused. Is it intended to be about Royal Mail Group Ltd (aka Royal Mail), a subsidiary of International Distributions Services plc, or is it intended to be about International Distributions Services plc, a holding company which owns both Royal Mail and GLS?
Rather than the clumsy mess which we have at the moment, why not simply have two pages, one for Royal Mail/Royal Mail Group Ltd, and one for International Distributions Services plc? Which one of those two pages should be the heir to the existing page is up for debate and I don't have a strong view on this. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kennethmac2000 I agree. I think this article (currently called "Royal Mail") should be renamed to "International Distributions Services" and reworked to be about this holding company. Whilst the majority of the information in this article is about Royal Mail, I believe the article should be split. Some of the information could be removed from here and put on its own "Royal Mail" article, and then some information from the Parcelforce and GLS Group pages should be added. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a split makes sense: but as the majority of the information in this article is about Royal Mail, I would suggest that this article remains "Royal Mail". A new article entitled "International Distributions Services" could then be started with information on the holding company, and summary paragraphs on Royal Mail, Parcelforce and GLS Group. Dormskirk (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a new article on International Distributions Services. Please feel free to expand as you see fit. It can easily be deleted if there is a consensus to revert to the previous position. Dormskirk (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. We still seem to have some content relating to the privatisation on the Royal Mail page, which I think actually belongs on the International Distributions Services page. In addition, there is no mention anywhere of Royal Mail Holdings plc, which is the legal entity mentioned in the Postal Services Act 2011. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am content that the material on privatisation is moved to the International Distributions Services page, providing there are no objections. Dormskirk (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move/reorganization 17 November 2022 

message: When was the current "Royal Mail" logo adopted?  Was there a Consignia logo? What came before that? 124.187.219.128 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Mail logo? Consignia? 

message: Royal Mail is not in any way a post office it's merely a delegated courier of the post office - 
The post office UK is governed by the treaties of the Universal Postal Union and must abide by these treaties as every member state is obligated to do. 81.106.130.175 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The truth