Jump to content

Talk:British co-operative movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yorkshire Co-op

[edit]

As the Yorkshire society is now part of Unitied Co-operatives and uses the United website I have delted it from the list of external links Penrithguy 21:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

[edit]

I've tagged this article with a generalize tag because it proports to be about the UK Movement, but mistakes the Co-operative Group and its affiliates as being the entire movement, with a few mention of other consumer co-ops. The movement doesn't largely operate under the Group's logo, and nor are there only around 50 societies remaining in operation - the Co-operatives UK article has a verifiable source showing that organisation alone has 470+ members. The operation of a dividend is also not a standard feature of co-operatives in the UK, and there's no mention of the wide variety of forms and functions within the UK movement that aren't supermarkets - the Phone Coop gets a mention, but Baywind Energy, the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative, Football Supporter's Trusts and the very large Agricultural Co-operative sector get no mention.

Will rewrite when I get a chance, although I'm unsure at the moment whether this should just be a redirect to the Co-op Group as an article about their logo and its use, or a move to something like Co-operative Movement (UK) as an article about the whole movement. JonStrines 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a complete rewrite of the article to address the concerns raised by JonStrines. It is now more about the wider UK Co-op movement but, at the moment, is drastically in need of further information about types of Co-ops other than Consumers' and Credit Unions. I've reduced much of the information about The Co-operative Group as this has its own article and tried to balance out what is said TCG with other Consumers' Co-ops.
Richard ( T | C ) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good start - cheers for looking at it. I'll take the context tag off and replace it with a references tag. As I get round to it, I will help with the expanding of the article to include more information about the co-ops listed, but I don't think you've missed any types off that I can think of. Good work. JonStrines (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title - move to UK co-operative movement ?

[edit]

The title of this article does not seem to fit well with Wikipedia style. If the purpose is to summarise and signpost the UK co-operative movement, perhaps it should be called UK co-operative movement instead of Co-op UK. Shall we move it? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly support that. JonStrines (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is not helpful and a more general overview of the UK movement is welcome. My only issue is that many of the pages that point here are doing so as 'the Co-op', a catch-all for the consumer retail sector. Many of those links could be more specific, but it would be wrong for them to point to the Group if they are actually referring to the store of a regional society, or the brand in general. Perhaps a Co-operative Retail Trading Group article would be a more appropriate page for general Co-op supermarket issues?? Martín (saying/doing) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page needs to redirect to a CRTG article that explains how the psuedo-organisation everyone thinks is "The Co-op" actually works and then if they wanted something else they can use a relevant links section. I did try starting a CRTG article on my sandbox, but there aren't that many online resources to quote. If you want to use it as a start point, feel free. JonStrines (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself, I'd forgotten I'd started a The Co-operative (brand) article on my sandbox to try and explain what "the Co-op" actually is. I've made the article live for expansion - perhaps Co-op (UK) should redirect there? JonStrines (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great new article, Jon! I am doing the move and redirect now. I picked British co-operative movement. Please add it to your watchlists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a standard: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). It is not universally followed, and I regret to admit that I was not aware of it before I made the earlier move.

Having read it, I propose another move: from British co-operative movement to Co-operatives of the United Kingdom (keeping the redirects).

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if it maybe shouldn't be Co-operation in the United Kingdom - both are similar, but it might keep the focus on the Movement as a whole rather that the individual co-ops. Is that too pedantic? JonStrines (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure there is a movement as a whole, just national and local expressions of an international movement. Anyway, it is a good point, but I plumped for co-operatives as being the better known word for the enterprises that the movement is about, rather than the multi-faceted word 'co-operation' which is just waiting for the fatuous opening sentence 'co-operation in its broadest sense is working together ...'. With my pedantic hat on, Co-operatives UK, the Co-op Party and the Co-op College are themselves co-operatives, so they are in the scope of the title I proposed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are: I'll agree with you then. JonStrines (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the intervening months, I have become quite attached to the current title of British co-operative movement, as it has fitted naturally into numerous incoming links. I am also aware that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are British and participate in the movement, but are not in the United Kingdom, so I withdraw my suggestion of a move to Co-operatives of the United Kingdom. Everyone else happy to keep this article where it is? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lewis Partnership?

[edit]

I was surprised to see the John Lewis Partnership listed here as a worker co-operative, though I knew it is owned by its employees. So I did some reading, then asked about it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Why (and when) did Britain's John Lewis Partnership start calling itself a co-operative?. No responses yet, so if you have any suggestions, please post. Maybe we can include it in the article! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JLP is not a co-op. I do sometimes myself say it is, and Co-ops UK have started to include it in publicity materials, for the purposes of outlining the movement's breadth, success and position in a wider group of mutual and engaging organisational forms. But in terms of Rochdale/ICA definitions, John Lewis is not a co-op, does not claim to be and this should not say so.
What we could say however is that in recent years, co-operatives have begun to work more closely together, redoubled with the merger between the Co-op Union and ICOM. Moreover the movement has started closer relations with other forms of mutuals and mutual-like organisations, such as building societies, mutual insurers, friendly societies and employee-owned businesses like JLP. Organisations like Mutuo and the Co-operative Union and been able to forge links and work on common issues in legislation and lobbying. A Co-op Party MP is the chair of the Parliamentary APPG for employee ownership. The Welsh Co-operative Centre has been at the forefront of creating many new employee-owned businesses, not least Tower Colliery. Finally, it's worth mentioning that the co-op movement has been more flexible about its own basic tenets in terms of embracing new organisations based on co-op principles. Football supporters trusts are IPSs but arose separately. NHS Foundation Hospital Trusts are based on mutual principles, drawn up by people within the traditional co-op movement and some even have Rochdale principles in their constitutions. The Co-op College and Group are supporting co-op schools, with the first in Reddish Vale, which themselves have co-op constitutions. And while Greenwich Leisure, as a BenCom, might not see itself as a co-op, the co-op movement embraces and champions it and other democratic trust forms.
I haven't written the above encyclopaedically, it's just a stream of consciousness for a new section in due course. Martín (saying/doing) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the JLP doesn't style itself as a co-operative, but it does have a number of the key features of one. The problem is there isn't a perfect definition of what a co-operative is in the UK, mostly because there's no central registrar or registration legislation. The ICA Statement of Identity is a good starting point, but its a rare co-op that meets all of the 7 points without wiggling a little. I'd personally take the Co-opsUK line about the JLP: they're clearly a relative, but it should be made clear that "co-operative" is not a term that they use about themselves, and there are significant differences with the classic co-op model. JonStrines (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good proposal, Martín. Your paragraph also answers the 'meta' question behind the one I posed at WP:RD/H
To respond to JonStrines:
"co-operative" is not a term that they use about themselves
probably should be:
"co-operative" is a term they occasionally use about themselves
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes - with inclusion of new article

[edit]

Users, whom I believe to be the same person, User:86.148.210.99 and User:Berk2 have made wholesale changes to this article and moved a great deal of the contents to a new page, Societies of The Co-operative Group.

I have reverted all edits to this page until discussion has taken place and consensus reached. I believe the new article should be put up for speedy deletion but, again, we shall wait for a consensus.

We have a number of articles for Co-ops in the UK (The Co-operative (brand), British co-operative movement, The Co-operative Group). The addition of a further article makes matters confusing further for those who do not have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. This article is aimed to be a general overview of the whole movement. The section on Consumer Co-operatives was adequate as it was (IMHO). While expanding the information given in this section would be useful, the new article seems to be somewhat contradictory in that it states "Many of these are now part of the larger The Co-operative Group". This has not and is not the case. Some of the societies mentioned in the article are corporate members of TCG but they are in no sense subsidiaries. The inclusion of The Phone Co-op is incorrect in this article]]. The former title of the article Members of the Co-Operative Group is also incorrect as we shall have then provide information on the 3,000,000+ individual members of TCG.

The new article has been created with wholesale 'copy and pasting' and contains many errors including:

  • The external links provides links to obsolete societies (NCC, Ilkeston, Lincoln - pedantic of me perhaps, M&F, CWS North Eastern, Shoefayre)
  • Addition of Manx Co-op as a separate society (ironically, this is the only one that is part of TCG!)

I am grateful to Berk2 for devoting over three hours' of work to the subject and it's obvious intentions were well meant. However, please check your facts and discuss before make such fundamental changes to the articles. A few editors have spent much time researching and expanding information in these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.carroll (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, this is related to an earlier discussion which I wasn't aware of at the time, about the scope, and tone of the article, and whether it should be broadened to encompass all co-operatives based in the UK, not just retail, or consumer ones, as noted below.

::The current title is not helpful and a more general overview of the UK movement is welcome. My only issue is that many of the pages that point here are doing so as 'the Co-op', a catch-all for the consumer retail sector. Many of those links could be more specific, but it would be wrong for them to point to the Group if they are actually referring to the store of a regional society, or the brand in general. Perhaps a Co-operative Retail Trading Group article would be a more appropriate page for general Co-op supermarket issues?? Martín (saying/doing) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this page needs to redirect to a CRTG article that explains how the psuedo-organisation everyone thinks is "The Co-op" actually works and then if they wanted something else they can use a relevant links section. I did try starting a CRTG article on my sandbox, but there aren't that many online resources to quote. If you want to use it as a start point, feel free. JonStrines (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Replying to myself, I'd forgotten I'd started a The Co-operative (brand) article on my sandbox to try and explain what "the Co-op" actually is. I've made the article live for expansion - perhaps Co-op (UK) should redirect there? JonStrines (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
— as above
I remember thinking at the time that, whilst the new article was welcome, it had failed to address the points noted by the users above. Thus my article was an attempt to address that. I still think it should remain for this reason.(Berk2 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • However, I had not intended the new article to be complete, or authoritative - although I'd hoped to eliminate obvious mistakes; I had also hoped that users would attempt to make additional edits as required. Hence, I moved the article to (what I hoped was) a more appropriate title. Would United Kingdom Co-operative Societies be better?? That would allow the article to be transformed into a list-type format.
As far as providing out-of-date information is concerned, I had temporarily added some information from an older edit. That was simply to ensure that nothing relevant had been left out. Although, as you pointed out, some of this information has become superseded. Likewise, the point about whether societies are autonomous, or part of the Co-operative Group.
The information table should now mirror the preceding edit on this page. Perhaps you could check if you are viewing the latest page edit, and purge your cache??
I'm also puzzled as to why the Phone Co-Op is an inappropriate candidate?? It provides services to consumers (and businesses as well). Doesn't that conform to the definition?? (Berk2 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Thus the main issues are:
What type of article is needed??
How should the information be presented??

(Berk2 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Here is my 2p for how the information should be presented:

(1) a list of all notable consumer co-operatives that are currently trading be in British co-operative movement (more or less as now)

(2) add an extra column to (1) indicating if a shareholder of Co-operative Group Ltd.)

(3) a current list of 'corporate member customers' (to use a recent term) of the Co-operative Group be a new section of The Co-operative Group article. This puts the list where it belongs, right in the heart of the description of the group, its owners and customers. The Group article is quite short, so I would contend that there is plenty of room for such a list there, as long as it only has a handful of columns. I think this was what Berk2 was trying to address.

(4) Phone Co-op has been in the list of consumer societies in British co-operative movement for a long time, and should stay there as a bona fide and notable consumer co-op.

Please comment on the value of each of my suggestions.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evening and thanks for the response. I have difficulty in understanding how an article 'Societies of The Co-operative Group' broadens the scope of the subject. The discussion you quote was seeking to avoid the 'single national co-op' thinking. The new article is simply referring to a group of organisations that are members of TCG. Consequently, for inclusion in the article, they should be a member of TCG. This is where The Phone Co-op falls foul of that arrangement. It is a consumers co-operative but its industry means it has little to do with TCG so it's not AFAIK a member. Some other points in need of clarification:
  • Wordings "are now part of the larger The Co-operative Group" do not make sense to me other than suggesting that "part of" means "owned by".
  • Promoting internal TCG trading regions to 'society' status. This is where the discrepancies occur between the two tables. For instance, IOM, like the North Eastern Region or Scottish Co-op, is an old region used by the Group for trading, management and membership administration. While there is a degree of autonomy among the regions they are all truly 'part of' TCG. These regions themselves are now out-of-date (IOM being now in the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man region).
  • I recognise how a United Kingdom Co-operative Societies could be beneficial and I encourage further separate discussion on this but, in my opinion, a list-style article would not be as informative as this article along with present Category:Consumer Co-operatives of the United Kingdom. We also risk of reverting to the unhappy arrangement of the Co-op (UK) article that formed the basis of this article.
  • Fundamentally, I cannot grasp what information the article provides with its title or variant thereof. The information currently provided is what's been adequately provided elsewhere. The Societies of TCG can be explained in a few sentences in the Co-operative Group's article along the lines of "many of the UK's retail consumer co-ops have representation in the democratic processes of TCG as they are Corporate Members of TCG". Alternatively, and less favoured personally, by the use of a category Category:Corporate Members of The Co-operative Group.
Richard ( T | C ) 20:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Richard has been too harsh on Berk2's early attempts at drafting the new article now at Societies of The Co-operative Group. Clarity of wording for these articles is hard to come by. But, ultimately, I agree with Richard that the explanation of the structure belongs in the existing articles, for the sake of this holy grail of clear presentation. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, with the (obviously better) merge proposals you're making, I'd be happy to go with that (which was more-or-less the type of article I was aiming for). As Hroðulf suggests, a new section can fit within the Co-operative Group. Merge (Berk2 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Resolved

Merge completed --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midcounties activities

[edit]

I've updated the list of activities for the Midcounties Co-op based on info from the following link. I was tempted to add it as a reference, but I'm not sure if it counts as one. Any guidance? http://www.midcounties.coop/What-We-Do/Store-Locator/ 82.4.203.224 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British co-operative movement. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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) 05:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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) 22:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British co-operative movement. 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:

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) 07:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_co-operative_movement&oldid=1206438346"