Talk:Skipton Building Society

message: :Image:Skipton Building Society logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skipton Building Society logo.gif

message: This distinction: "Its merger with the Chesham Building Society, founded in 1845, gains it the distinction of being the world's oldest (surviving) building society." doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The BSA website lists societies in order of date founded, here: http://www.bsa.org.uk/consumer/factsheets/100004.htm and Skipton is not shown as the oldest.
Simply acquiring an older society, doesn't make Skipton older than it was already.  That's because the "merger" of two societies is in fact no such thing.  Legally, the engagements of one (Chesham in this case) are transferred to the other (Skipton in this case).  Chesham no longer exists.
I propose to delete this comment unless anyone responds alternately. WPArgentarius (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. It was my edit you're discussing. Who'd have thought that when the Chesham and the Skipton described it as a merger they'd both be lying? What's the world coming to when you can't trust British financial institutions to tell the truth any more? Bazj (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Building society "mergers" are always described as such, but it's misleading.  They don't want to admit that it's almost always one taking over another in practice, and always one taking over another legally!WPArgentarius (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest building society 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Skipton Building Society. 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/20070926225600/http://www.skipton.co.uk/about_us/pdfs/report_accounts_2006.pdf to http://www.skipton.co.uk/about_us/pdfs/report_accounts_2006.pdf
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) 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Having worked my way through many of the building society entries, inserting or adding to, their history, I eventually came to the Skipton.  The introduction includes figures that need to be kept up to date and therefore not suitable for an introduction. The three citations are all out of date, one referring back to the 2006 accounts.
The History section is just a list of events, some minor, with no cohesion. There is no source given. There are two citations (4 and 5):  number 4 no longer works and number 5 merely refers to a mortgage award. The data must have come from somewhere but I cannot find it. I do have the centenary brochure which, though brief, does provide an acceptable source for the main facts in the first 100 years of Skipton’s history, so that can be rewritten. What I cannot find is any reference to the Society being first established as The Co-Operative Steelworkers' Society of Skipton – not in the Centenary Brochure, the Skipton website, or the Skipton charitable website of the failed link.
The Mergers section is almost entirely The Scarborough; this could be merged in to the history section. There are two citations, neither of which connect.
The Controversy section has clearly attracted its own controversies. I may be wrong but I think that there is only citation that actually links with anything. Personally, I would get rid of the whole section unless someone can write it with a sense of perspective and with sources.
I can do a limited rewrite of the Skipton entry but I do not want to get embroiled in arguments.
Bebington (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Rewrite