Talk:National Australia Bank

Prose

I think that this article needs to gradually be worked into continuous prose. - Aaron Hill 04:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As the contributor of the bullet point history, I can't say that I agree. My experience with continuous prose is that authors slide over substance for style. Thus one gets "During the 1980s, the NAB started to expand into Asia", and one loses all the detail. Anyone trying to pin down the issue of when it actually went someplace, perhaps to figure out which Australian banks were competing where, is SOL. Acad Ronin

True, but bullet points are only effective when used as part of an article in continous prose, perhaps to highlight a specific point or provide a timeline as in this instance. When used as the basis for the entire article I must agree that this is unencyclopedic, and certainly some other info on NAB apart from the timeline would go a long way to cleaning up this article, which i am on the verge of listing on cleanup. THE KING 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Have attempted to work History into prose and also put recent business issues in this section. Murtoa 13:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete

Aside from the debate over bullet-points versus prose, the content of this article is materially incomplete, somewhat misleading and rather oddly selected. For example, the creation of an intranet in the cards division is gazetted but the $4.6 billion purchase of MLC businesses in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Thailand, Hong Kong and Indonesia does not rate a mention. Listing on clean-up seems warranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.158.42.45 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

so why dont you contribute rather than complain about it ???

formatted sections

This article like all the other Au/NZ banking group articles I've seen in wikipedia needs to have clear cut sections and not just list the recent history of events. If its a corporate profile, then it should clearly have at least the products and services section or Core Business Activities, something along those lines.--Takamaxa 5 Jun 2006

so, do it! what are you waiting for ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.209.189 (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

I agree with the contention that for the most part, the article currently reads, if not like an advertisement, then for the most part like what I would expect to read on the company's website. NAB's recent history (say over the last four years) has been plagued with controversy, yet this is played down, particularly given the relative prominence attached to a lot of frankly unremarkable events earlier in the company's history. Murtoa 07:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Biggest Bank?

This article states NAB as the second largest bank behind the Commonwealth Bank. However, the Commonwealth article states the opposite...that Commonwealth is second behind the NAB. What's the deal? -Nickuss. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.166.3.111 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

NAB is the biggest bank by ASSETS, which is the usual measure of a banks size. CBA is the biggest bank by REVENUES. Note that NAB's larger asset base but smaller revenues is a result of its recent underperformance.

NBA, CBC, NAB

The history listings incorrectly refer to "NAB" for all of the entries leading up to the merger with CBC. Prior to this the entity described was the National Bank of Australia, or just National Bank. National Australia Bank (NAB) only existed following the merger. Murtoa 12:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UBank merger

Per the discussion at AFD the UBank article was merged into this article and redirects created. JodyB _talk 14:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Mlclogo.png

The image File:Mlclogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Clydesdale logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

use of images

there's been various edits and reversals with respect of images in this article. i propose: if images/ logos are not mentioned int he article, then the images have no place. if they are, and if the mentions in the article make all the usual criteria, then the images might add value.

thoughts ? Romanpolanski (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

These are nice, relevant pictures. Their copyright status is clear. I think they are fine. F (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright not at issue. "nice" is a personal taste. Relevant how ? A photo of a building that is occupied by the subject of the article ? How does it relate to the article ? The picture of a historic branch, yes; a picture of the CEO, yes; NAB has hundreds of buildings, do we need pictures of all of them ? please make the relevance argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanpolanski (talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking out the fair-use images there was only three free-use images. These images fit within the article as NAB House, Melbourne was the HQ (Still used by the NAB) and Docklands is now the HQ (Inturn Melbourne is HQ for the NAB) but if we had other images that were free-use then the whole story would be different but you're not the consensus, the images should stay since these images have been in place for sometime with no other editors other then yourself removing them and there is no replacement images for the article (Meaning the article only has one free use image). Bidgee (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider images need to be explicitly referenced in the article to be relevant to the article. I'm comfortable that the images in question represent reasonable content and have stood the test of some time. Murtoa (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

continued removal against the consensus

It is quite clear one anon editor (who tried to use another IP and ISP but failed) for some odd reason is against this photograph, this building is significant not just to Melbourne's history but also NAB's history. Why? Well NAB House (500 Bourke St) is still the HQ for NAB, even though the Docklands building was built to be the HQ, and has been since 1978. The NAB also owned the building after purchasing it from Abbey Capital in 1977 but sold it to ISPT in 1998. In 2008 the NAB signed a 12 year lease on NAB House (500 Bourke St) [Source: Nab Stays Put At No. 500 Chris Vedelago and Marc Pallisco (2 July 2008) The Age]. Not significant? Well the photograph and the building are. Bidgee (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about whether the image in question remains (and I'm not the one who has been deleting it!) - it may be somewhat significant in NAB's history, but I don't believe it remains definitively NAB's "HQ". ASIC records show the Docklands building is now the registered office for NAB. Certainly the overwhelming majority of what would be considered "head office" staff reside at Docklands these days. I don't believe NAB has occupied all of 500 Bourke St for many years. Its designation as "NAB House" isn't significant - the Sydney office at 255 George St has the same name. NAB also retains substantial Melbourne CBD offices in King St and Victoria St. The status of 500 Bourke as head office for 25 years is significant, but the former head office at 271 Collins St may be more notable in NAB's history. Murtoa (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

271 Collins St would is more notable for National Bank of Australasia Limited (as the merger of the other banks didn't happen until 1981) but I can't see why both can't be added into its history. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Cameron Clyne merged the Australian and global leadership, this building is no longer NAB's headquarters, it is the building at Docklands. The building is now only a common building. If it's relevant to Melbourne, it should be in that article. NAB has long term leases in many dozen's of buildings around Australia and the article would not benefit from those pictures either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.182.129 (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It whether it is just an office building is it is notable in it history of the NAB as is its new HQ. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee, do you want to keep this picture on wikipedia because you took it yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.182.129 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you assume some good faith as even if it wasn't I would still support it being added. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the context of this article I would consider the photo of low relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.218.31 (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well thats your opinion but why would it be? Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to assist in the ongoing dispute regarding this image. Notwithstanding my comments above, on balance I would support the retention of the photo of 500 Bourke Street. Although NAB does own a number of buildings, I would argue that it is among the three most notable sites in NAB's history, the other two being 271 Collins Street and the Docklands building. These three have all served as NAB's head office and 500 Bourke Street was head office for a significant part of NAB's history as detailed in the article. Murtoa (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the image should be maintained. NAB is actually consolidating all of its Melb CBD office space except 500 Bourke into a new building currently under construction next to Etihad Stadium. The fact that 500 Bourke is remaining is pretty clear evidence to its significance to the group. Furthermore, like the other big 4 bank buildings in the Melb CBD it is a clear landmark, and hence notable. Mitsuhirato (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

3rd party source

Warning: this is a vent!! I am sooo frustrated with user "Bidgee" who insists that the financial results of NAB, one of the largest public companies in this country, are not source-worthy, but that a 3rd party source (what, the Sun-Herald perhaps ???) is more authoritative. Get a grip, my man !!!! The entire country's economy runs on audited public company results!!!! Please please please please do not comment on things you don't seem to understand !!!! It's not value add.... Please please please retire as you promised on your "talk" page (hence my post here).... Wikipedia is meant to be about the "wisdom of crowds" not the "ignorance of few"... Sorry, all others, you have been warned ... this is a vent, I know, and I'm sure the full-time Wikipedia people who spend most of their lives editing other people's work will take some form of offence and cite some form of Wikipedia "rule" or other, but hey, this is meant to be open source, so consider... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.189.107 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove the template without addressing the issue. It's not really the financial reports but other sources for an example Ubank, NAB, NAB Group ect (EG, cites 22, 24, 30, 36, 37). also assume good faith, remain civil and no personal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

why dont you provide a good reason for putting the template in in the first place instead of - wait - none ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.189.107 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

PS reference 36 is MSN. References 22,24,30,37 are either NAB's official website or press releases. Surely they are more than "claims" ? Do you understand that these official communications are subject to so much more scrutiny than any of the 3rd party sources you so desire ?? You are missing the point of trying to be authoritative in an encyclopedic medium like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.189.107 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given you a reason but you've choose to ignore it. Well doesn't matter if I accidentally added 36 but two more examples are (43, 45) which surely 3rd party sources would be available (Even if its not online). Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

43 refers to Lisa Gray's position as CEO of NAB's Retail Bank. Are you disputing that NAB's official home page is not an authoritative source? 45 refers to Gerd Schenkel's position as General Manager of UBank. Again, are you disputing the official UBank website as source ? OK, I'm sure we can find may media pages that refer to these people and their position. I will now go and replace these references and then remove your template. But, I am 100% certain that you are simply wasting everyone's time without actually improving the article's quality. You must have a lot of spare time on your hands .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.189.107 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 September 2009

a good soul supported existing references based on "all material from NAB meets WP:SELFPUB" - thanks ! i can now move on to more productive stuff.... pooh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.189.107 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

People, there's an inconsistency: this article is about the NAB group. There are other, linked articles for MLC, Clydesdale Yorkshire Banks. N attempt to provide some consistency by splittin out "ubank" was reverted. I suggest we either merge all NAB group companies into this or split all of them out. But the current situation makes no sense. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.140.91 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

History

I've consolidated the history section - which was previously about 5 secitons into one. All i've done is increased each header by one lever (eg.e, all level 3 to level 4). I've also changed some of them I thought were a bit weasely, such as "Challenges" and "Turnaround". Cheers, --Amaher (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Small Loans Pilot

Is the following worth mentioning? (under Corporate responsibility initiatives)

In May 2008 NAB launched a pilot with alternate credit provider, Mobile Finance Pty Ltd (trading as Money Fast), who offer small personal loans of between AU$1,000 and AU$5,000 on a break even basis. NAB claims that the NAB Small Loans Pilot is not a commercial venture for NAB, but an extension of their microfinance programs and NAB's commitment to helping Australians access fair and affordable banking services. The Pilot aims to explore viability of a low rate lending model operating within the fringe credit market, better understand the industry and expose predatory practices.

I don't think this is particularly unique or notable among financial service providers in Australia, rather a variation on a theme, so would be leaning against inclusion. Murtoa (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors

The last edit has introduced some errors to infobox. Eg, NAB doesn't serve "worldwide", it doesn't have "investment banking" or "private equity".

As soon as the protect phase is over, someone should correct these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerdschenkel (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While NAB is not present in every country, the number of countries it does business in and has offices is enough to make the info box too cluttered, therefore the best solution is to put worldwide. It is true that NAB doesn't have a private equity business, however it does engage in 'investment banking' activities, through its Wholesale Division. Mitsuhirato (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a different opinion. NAB operates in abt. 10 countries, so "worldwide" is simply incorrect. Simplicity is good, but accuracy is more important. 124.168.130.169 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Rmarsden I do not appreciate you blatantly reverting good edits for no reason. Significant time and effort is expended - if you have a problem, don't just revert, bring it up on the talk page and have a chat. Mitsuhirato (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Rmarsden, it seems you have a limited understanding of both investment banking and what NAB's capabilities are. I suggest you read up a little before making some of your changes. Mitsuhirato (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many different names for the 'division' of NAB that undertakes investment banking activities, and have been over the years. If you actually look at the various businesses within the Wholesale and Institutional Banking divisions of NAB and compare them to Wikipedia's own article on the subject, there really isn't any doubt about what it is. Mitsuhirato (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

noone but you refers to nAb's activities as investment banking. Especially not nab itself. So why do insist on using the term? Pls provide a good reason. Rmarsden (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. "Corporate & Institutional Banking" may be a term used by NAB, but it is reasonable to attempt to classify this activity in terms that have already been defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. It appears that Mitsuhirato has attempted to do that using the term investment banking. If that is a poor fit, then I'd encourage you to find terms that better define that activity in banking terms already understood by Wikipedia, if that's possible. Just trying to avoid a NAB-specific term (if that's what it is). Cheers Murtoa (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

so its corporate banking then. it's widely used etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmarsden (talk • contribs) 14:24, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I have given you both a 3RR warning, the flip-flop of a product over the last few days needs to stop as both of you will be blocked from editing or the page will be protected. Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the arguments/ reasons or did you just use your "power" ?? It's content over process in my book! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmarsden (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Power? I was telling the both of you to stop edit warring! Bidgee (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rmarsden, you are the only one claiming that the activities should not be regarded as Investment Banking. These are the facts: NAB's Wholesale Banking Division conducts these activities. They constitute the full spectrum of activities which would be regarded as 'investment banking', ie sales and trading of credit, equities, fx, rates, and commodities; M&A advisory and equity raising (currently only for the property sector); structured finance; debt capital markets; project finance; investment products; financial institutions advisory. If you want to call this 'Wholesale Banking' I don't really care, however, Wholesale Banking is really just a stub article, and IMO is synonymous with Investment Banking. If you are a bit confused about which area of NAB does all these things that is understandable, as the area has recently gone through a restructure. Up until 2009, the 'Wholesale' and Institutional banking areas were combined in a separate entity called 'nabCapital' which no longer exists. Corporate and Institutional Banking is now a part of the business bank, and conducts Commercial Bank activities. That division does not undertake the Investment Banking activities that Wholesale does. Hopefully this clears it all up. Mitsuhirato (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

area served vs office location in infobox

In my mind, area served is where the clients/deals are, not where the NAB offices are located. Thus to say that the 'area served' in Asia (for example) is only Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Osaka is actually incorrect. Nab has done deals in various asian countries including Vietnam, Indonesia etc. Just because these deals may be run out of the Hong Kong or Singapore offices, doesn't mean that those areas aren't 'served'. Same with the US: NAB has a subsidiary bank (great western) who service the midwest region, however NAB's NY office does not just service NY clients, that is simply the base where any US client activity, or other client who wants to undertake business in the US is taken care of.

If there is another category called 'offices', I would agree that this is a better place to actually list the offices. Cheer Mitsuhirato (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale provided by Mitsuhirato. I'm not sure the actual location of the offices is particularly notable but should be referred to as such, not trading areas. Murtoa (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This rationale makes that category worthless as any bank that does corporate deals of any kind in theory serves "the world". NAB has licenses in Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan in Asia, so these are the countries served. The current entry is misleading as NAB simply doesnt operate worldwide across the majority of its businesses. Rmarsden (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

NAB is not licensed to operate in most of "Asia", so the "areas served" entry in the infobox should not say so. It's simply incorrect. Rmarsden (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But now you are opening up a definitional debate even more. Does areas served have to be the majority of the business? By what metric? Headcount, revenue, profit? In that case, you should just put Australia. Does it have to be each business unit? NAB has done heaps of business through many asian countries, not just japan, hong kong and singapore. This is why office location vs area served is misleading. As for you point about it being worthless, that is not correct. The interpretation is simply 'where the deals/clients' are. Thus, it is NOT the world, because NAB hasn't done business in South America or Africa for example. Mitsuhirato (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If a bank doesn't have a license, no office and no staff in a particular country, then it doesn't "serve" it by any reasonable stretch of the imagination! And "no", NAB hasn't done "heaps of business" in those other countries ... if it has, please provide a verifiable reference as per wikipedia rules. Rmarsden (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Corporate responsibility initiatives

A number of NAB's corporate responsibility achievements in 2010 had been added to the article. My view is that some of these were expressed in a more advertorial fashion than necessary, and some were unnotable:

- on the Fairtrade initiative, it is not necessary to note the amount of coffee NAB staff drink. That it is a large amount is only because NAB is a large employer. The statement "So by introducing Fairtrade, NAB helps improve the lives of tea workers in Sri Lanka and coffee farmers in Colombia" is a statement about Fairtrade, not NAB

- the equal opportunity gong gained by NAB was in the context of 94 other Australia companies receiving similar gongs, therefore in my view not notable

- I could not find a source (not even from NAB's corporate pages) to support the claim "NAB was also announced as the highest scoring Australian company in the Carbon Disclosure Project's Global 500 Disclosure & Performance Leadership Indices 2010." I therefore restricted the claim to what could be sourced. Similarly for its efforts in procurement I edited to reflect a source which commented on the achievement. I welcome any improvements based on sourced statements - ideally from sources external to NAB, rather than what NAB PR wants to publish.

- I did not keep the reference to the Money magazine award. Although it could be sourced, in my view the awards given to the top 4 banks every year are not particularly notable. There is more than one entity providing the awards, and to a large extent, they tend to be revolving awards. If NAB received it in 2010, should we be noting on the other bank sites who won it in 2009, 2008 etc? What about all the other awards? So I've defaulted to the view that the recipients of the annual awards are by and large not particularly notable.

With these edits, I also note that they are all sourced, and not all from NAB's PR pages. The previous edits which an editor choose to reinstate in whole, bore no references whatsoever. I suggest that to start with sourced information and progressively improve on it with other sourced notable statements is a more sound approach. Murtoa (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're mixing up two potential issues: notability and lack of references.

- On references: there are several articles on Wikipiedia with unsourced statements. I believe that they should be marked so and given an opportunity to be sourced.

- On notability: From a Corporate CSR perspective, some of these are quite notable, especially in the finance industry. Also, on the whole, they are quite important to the company and are therefore a relevant part of the article. Yes, one can argue about specific wording etc. but that's just subjective opinion, not an enforcement of Wikipedia policy.

- On the whole, I believe the article is worse without the edits which you reverted, so they should be reinstated, maybe with some improvements in wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.8.108 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

POV edits

Recently someone removed a number of properly cited and relevant items seemingly with a bias towards removing negative statements. Please dont. --124.171.43.176 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

More Recent Edits coming from NAB IP address 164.53.218.28. NAB employees please do not edit your own page. Follow the POV rules set by Wikipedia 110.148.128.223 (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 22 Aug 2012

The section Key People appears to need updating. Certainly Lynne Peacock of the Executive Committee left in 2011 (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-12747451 , http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/About_Us/8/5/11/15/ , http://www.dowjones.de/site/2011/03/nab-outgoing-uk-ceo-peacock-says-focus-on-organic-growth.html as examples of evidence). There may well be other changes and I think other editors may be better placed to make them (failing which I will use http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/About_Us/6/1/ and http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/about_us/6/2 as source material). Many thanks. ¬¬¬¬

Done Used details from NAB's own website. Changed or removed some links as well.LenF54 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement (Revisited)

Not for the first time it appears that NAB employees are using this page to launch new product announcements. They should be made aware of the neutral POV requirements. Please use this talk page to request changes and let the community do their part. 122.248.156.9 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What are examples of content that leads you to this conclusion? without some facts, your statement remains just your opinion and whoever posts this stuff won't be able to learn. thanks. New but motivated (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The two sections below detail a number of obscure facts that can't be substantiated without reference to archived links. If these minor milestones in the bank's operations are not worthy of current mention anywhere I suggest that they be removed completely.Brycewhite (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on National Australia Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070618190404/http://www.bankcheck.net.au:80/nab_bank.html to http://www.bankcheck.net.au/nab_bank.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208233033/http://www.ifslearning.com:80/events/financial_innovation_awards/fia_winners_2006.cfm to http://www.ifslearning.com/events/financial_innovation_awards/fia_winners_2006.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215113927/http://nab2008annualreports.textpacific.com.au:80/shareholder_review/corporate_responsibility_highlights.asp to http://nab2008annualreports.textpacific.com.au/shareholder_review/corporate_responsibility_highlights.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091024134248/http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/about_us/4/1/1/7/6 to http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/About_Us/4/1/1/7/6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060112235037/http://home.eircom.net:80/content/irelandcom/topstories/6599623?view=Eircomnet to http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/6599623?view=Eircomnet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on National Australia Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071006215134/http://www.national.com.au/About_Us/0,,39413,00.htm to http://www.national.com.au/About_Us/0,,39413,00.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613114145/http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?symbol=US:TDC&feed=BW&date=20081217&id=9458691 to http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?symbol=US:TDC&feed=BW&date=20081217&id=9458691
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706110814/http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/about_us/7/4/1/3/10/1 to http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/about_us/7/4/1/3/10/1#11E5799154CCB4C9
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070703164140/http://www.odce.ie/_fileupload/new/NIB_Disqualification_Applications_Hearing50728.doc to http://www.odce.ie/_fileupload/new/NIB_Disqualification_Applications_Hearing50728.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Australia Bank. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100502012621/http://www.nabgroup.com/0%2C%2C41693%2C00.html to http://www.nabgroup.com/0%2C%2C41693%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127105958/http://www.nabgroup.com/0%2C%2C34695%2C00.html to http://www.nabgroup.com/0%2C%2C34695%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009074526/https://nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/About_Us/8/5/29/23/ to http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/about_us/8/5/29/23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

I have just modified one external link on National Australia Bank. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070928000543/http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/06-221+Former+NAB+foreign+currency+options+traders+sentenced?openDocument to http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/06-221+Former+NAB+foreign+currency+options+traders+sentenced?openDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)