Talk:TD Bank (United States)/Archive 1

Images for article

There are two free images of Mr. C available. ~ BigrTex 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi there. Seems like we have a good bit of back and forth reverts going on here today. Let's stop for a minute and disuss this rather than violating the Three-revert rule.

Information has been being added to the article without reliable sources having been cited as is required by the verifiability policy. To quote from that policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Wikipedia also has a strict neutral point of view policy and I would tend to agree that some of the language in the new information needs to be toned down to conform to it.

Right now, the only citations in the entire article are in the *Robbery incidents* section. There really need to be more for ALL of the information in the article, not just the new information. I have tagged the article with {{moresources}} to give editors a chance to add some and establish the firm's notability firmly.

So, now that I have given my thoughts; based admittedly on my first impressions of what's going on, what are all of your thoughts? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. My main concern regarding the recent edits was the use of non-NPOV terms like "political pawn." However, if cited sources can be found using these actual terms and phrases in the mainstream media or elsewhere, I will drop my objections.

I re-added the information about COmmerce Bank Harrisburg, an independently owned franchise. I cited sources (their website) for the article. If I did not cite the sources properly, please fix them or tell me. PanzaM22 23:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Mike

Questions about Business Model section

I'm curious about the sentence "Much of Commerce Bank's sucess is the ability of the company to get no-bid government contracts for their insurance business as well as lucrative government deposits." Not that I actively dis-believe it or find such a notion offensive, I am just curious what if any sources are there for this statement. Doregasm 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not alone in noting the lack of sources to support recent edits. PansaM22 seems to be doing a good job keeping unsourced POV edits (mostly made by CAMDENBEER) out. Wl219 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

this section seems like it was written by employees of this company.

Scandals

Not one portion of this section is cited...added a dubie. --DodgerOfZion 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of it was reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer or Courier-Post newspapers over the last few years Bunnygod888 11:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs citing, or I'm liable to 86 it. DodgerOfZion —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:09:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the citations on the first two items, Flavious27. Also thanks for correcting the dates of Wow celebrations at the Tweeter. I used dates that were there, and added an additional one (that I attended), but had not read that 2003 was already noted for NYC Bunnygod888 01:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear more on this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoftheisland (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cycle Service Charge

Has anyone else been hit with one of these? So much for "No stupid fees; no stupid hours"... --Scottandrewhutchins 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It might help to tell us what cycle service charge means. PanzaM22 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Mike

A cycle service charge is incurred when a customer drops below the $100 minimum for that statement cycle... Commerce thought it was a great idea to use that name to confuse people : )

I know it's almost a year after the fact...but the fact is most banks do that. Happened to me when I was at another bank. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

TD Banknorth and TD Bank

See also discussion at Talk:Commerce Bancorp#Separate articles.

someone added a citation to a comment stating that the sale fell through, but the link is to purchase an article. TD Banknorth's article does not mention this... Bunnygod888 (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WHOA WHOA WHOA I'm confused. Since TD Banknorth was the larger company, why is it that the page refers almost entirely to the history of Commerce Bancorp? This page needs heavy revision. I'll work on it as best I can but other help would be appreciated. User:AsukaSeagull 23:53 1 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.73.160 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain. Currently, Commerce Bank's legal name is TD Bank, N.A.

As of right now, Commerce Bank is merely a trade name of TD Bank, N.A. This is displayed on signs at every teller window in every branch.

As of right now, TD Bank, N.A. and TD Banknorth are separate subsidiaries of TD Bank. Sometime in 2009, TD Banknorth will be merged into TD Bank, N.A. Until then, they are separate subsidiaries and that's why the Wiki pages for each bank are separate. Once TD Banknorth is merged into TD Bank, N.A., then we can make one Wiki page that covers the history of both companies.

If you have any questions, leave them here on the talk page, and I will answer them for you.

PanzaM22 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

For the record, TD Banknorth's website says that TD Banknorth is also a trade name of TD Bank, N.A. I took that to mean that the (legal) merger of the two banks had already been completed, even though it may not currently be reflected at the organizational / branding level. If that is not the case then obviously some of my earlier edits were in error.

Regardless, given the recommendations on article lengths, it may be better to keep the two separate articles (as histories of the separate defunct entities), and possibly create a new TD Bank, N.A. article in addition.— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PanzaM22 is incorrect; stickguy is correct. In the United States, the Canadian Toronto-Dominion Bank operates under the TD Bank, N.A. name. Both TD Banknorth and Commerce Bancorp are subsidiaries of the same singular bank. (see tdbanknorth.com or commerceonline.com for more information about trade names). So, of course, my question is once again. Why is Commerce Bancorp not one page, TD Banknorth another, and TD Bank, N.A., the combined new bank, a third? User:AsukaSeagull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.73.160 (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You can also just check out the TD Bank, N.A. website. And just throwing this out there - a lot of this article is really not important. I'm not completely up to date on notability, but I think that having "Commerce Bank's unique features" is sort of not what Wikipedia is all about. In particular, it confuses this section. People who may be looking at this page are looking to see what TD Bank, N.A. is and will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.73.160 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

According to their webpage, Commerce Bank will be rebranded as TD Bank, N.A. next month, while TD Banknorth will not be re-branded until sometime on 2009. I did not realize that TD Banknorth is already a trade name of TD Bank, N.A. however, since they are using different brand names currently, I'm thinking maybe we should leave each one to their own page for now. Once both brands are re-branded in 2009, we could take the jist of the data from both pages and merge them into one. This is what appears to have eben done on other banks pages, like Bank of America, etc. Anyone else have thoughts or ideas?

PanzaM22 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Mike

I think it is better left as 3 separate articles. We have articles on defunct banks, and since this is more a merger of 2 banks than a simple re-branding of one bank, they should be left as two. MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The company is no longer in existence. That plus it's not more of a merger than it is both a merger and a complete rebranding. The page should not be split. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As I state at the RFC, Banknorth and Commerce Bank are entities with lengthy histories in their own right. TD Bank is a new entity with a totally different brand, management, and scope. Per past practice at Category:Defunct banks of the United States and the fact that TD Bank is a new bank that will generate new information and fill out the already good sized article, I believe we should leave Banknorth and Commerce as historic articles and continue with current practices at TD Bank. Also, Banknorth is already at 20K as an article and Commerce is at 8K, smashing those two different articles together into TD does not make sense since the histories would overlap so much. MBisanz ^talk 09:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it makes perfect sense. The name of Commerce and Banknorth is changing to TD Bank. The articles should, and must, be merged. TD Bank is not a totally different brand, management, or scope. It is basically what Commerce was + what TD wants it to be. There is absolutely no good reason why there should be separate pages. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they "must" be merged, each of the three entities is notable in its own right and we have separate articles for many other defunct banking entities. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the name is being changed. Commerce is not defunct, it is operating under a new name. The company is not folding, therefore your "defunct" theory does not apply here. I repeat, there is no good reason why there should be separate pages. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The legal entity "Commerce Bancorp" no longer exists, the entity "Banknorth" no longer exists, how is that not "defunct"? MBisanz ^talk 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with MBisanz, for reasons stated in this post. I'll elaborate further if necessary. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree these articles should be kept separate due to their unique history. A summary of their connection with a link in each article to the other article is fine too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. The entities still exist, so they cannot be "defunct." They are just doing business under one name now. Both pages should be merged with this page and the pertinent information surrounding both should come with the mergers. I repeat, there is no legitimate reason why there needs to be three separate pages for the same thing. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I like "You're wrong". Smooth. Please note that both Commerce Bank and TD Banknorth are trade names of T.D. Bank, N.A. From an accountancy point of view, this means that Commerce Bancorp and TD Banknorth are no longer distinct companies, but instead units within another, third company called "TD Bank". Legally speaking, the entites do not still exist.

As to what that means on Wikipedia, I can only tell you that this article remains, as it was months ago when I first mentioned it, not accurate: TD Bank is a successor to both Commerce Bancorp and TD Banknorth, and the article should reflect both the banks' histories and not just that of Commerce Bancorp. However that could best be done. User:AsukaSeagull 08 November 2008

Really? Do the branches not do business any more? Is the bank completely closed? The answer to both questions is no. There should be one unifying page (this one) with most of the pertinent information on TD Banknorth and Commerce on it. If anything, we could have two history pages. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Commerce Bancorp was not a bank, it was a holding company. It is no longer in operation. --User:AsukaSeagull 25 November 2008

The easiest way to reflect the the changeover is to have 2 historical articles on the 2 historic banks and have a third current article referencing the unification of the 2 banks. The allows for the best balance of history without any overlaps from when they were separate. MBisanz ^talk 06:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the easiest way to reflect the changeover is to have one page, this one, and a history page with each bank's history included in it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The precedent (excuse my spelling) appears to be to do as MBisanz suggests; defunct notable companies generally get to keep their Wikipedia question. --User:AsukaSeagull 25 November 2008

there is a trace left

http://invest.tdbank.com/investview_demo/custom/iag/cbam_logo.gif so you can't say they left no trace of Commerce on their site. Pale2hall (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Slanted

This article is written as if TD Bank is a continuation of Commerce Bank, which it certainly is not. Commerce Bank has its own article as does TD Banknorth with whom it merged with. The history of Commerce Bank is irrelevant on this page because it is about the merged bank which is equally TD Banknorth as it is Commerce Bank. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and cut the scandals section, which had nothing to do with TD Bank, any other sections that need pruning? MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The history section is about Commerce Bank, not TD Bank and information in the infobox is all about Commerce Bank as well. This bank was formed last year, not in 1973. Like I said, the article needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that it is not Commerce Bank just with a name change, but rather the merger of it with another bank, creating a completely new company. I went through and made some changes to reflect this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

TD Bank is definitely not to be treated just as Commerce Bank with a new name. It is a popular misconception as TD adopted most of Commerce's philosphies, and kept their branch design. TD Banknorth was a larger US bank with several hundred more locations than Commerce at the time of the merger. Joe8609 17:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe8609 (talk • contribs)

Past tense needed if changes took place

I tagged the article because the changes have supposedly taken place but are not reflected in the article. My only interest in this article is that a couple of banks down south are merging with this one.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Started in 1852 as Portland Sav Bk

The TD Bank website says the bank started in 1852. The website's Company History webpage says:

"Company History

"TD Bank, America's Most Convenient Bank®, has proudly provided unparalleled convenience and legendary WOW! Customer service for more than 150 years.

"The company first opened its doors as Portland Savings Bank in Portland, Maine, in 1852, and later grew through a series of mergers and became Peoples Heritage Bank in 1983. At the turn of the millennium, the opportunity for growth presented itself again as Peoples Heritage Bank, through several acquisitions, expanded deeper into New England and took the name Banknorth.

"Meanwhile, Cherry Hill, New Jersey-based Commerce Bank was turning Customers into Fans as America’s Most Convenient Bank. Founded in 1973, Commerce Bank expanded rapidly over the next 30 years into metro New York and Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and South Florida, winning new Customers with WOW! service and convenience.

"In 2004, Banknorth caught the eye of TD Bank Financial Group of Toronto, Canada, a top 10 financial services company in North America. TD Bank Financial Group soon became Banknorth’s majority shareholder and the company became known as TD Banknorth. TD Bank Financial Group completed its purchase of TD Banknorth in 2007.

"Looking to expand further in the U.S., TD Bank Financial Group acquired Commerce Bank on March 31, 2008, and the company rebranded as TD Bank, America's Most Convenient Bank. TD Banknorth locations followed suit in September 2009, completing the merger of the two companies and uniting them under the TD Bank brand name.

"Today, TD Bank, America’s Most Convenient Bank, remains focused on delivering award-winning Customer service and hassle-free products to Customers from Maine to Florida."

Thus, if we accept the bank's version, the Wiki article's history section should go back to 1852. Eagle4000 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it their "version". We have the TD Banknorth article that has an indepth history of the company before it became part of TD. I think it is separated for convenience. We could always add a small overview and then a main article link. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Class action law suit settlement?

They got hand-smacked pretty hard for predatory practices, $62m paid out. Shouldn't that be part of this article? In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/3749-court-approves-62m-td-bank-overdraft-class-action-settlement

About the Mascot Section

The mascot idea is not cool, better be removed from here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.41.129.105 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)