Talk:Demutualization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Cooperatives	(Rated C-Class, Top-importance)	CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:Cooperativescooperatives articles
Cooperatives portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cooperatives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated C-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.7 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.
Additional information: C This article has been rated as C-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Mutual Holding Companies 2 Mutualization 3 Surprise 4 Version 0.7

[edit] Mutual Holding Companies

Should there be a separate article covering Mutual Holding Companies? It is an issue primarily of interest in the USA, and is a subtopic of demutualization in general. I'm just throwing out the idea; for now I believe the demutualization article is small enough that it probably does not need to be parsed into smaller pieces. 2*6 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutualization

I added mention of mutualization, but this is another possible article. Does anyone feel it should exist? Another possibility is to expand the current article to cover both concepts, possibly renaming the article to "Demutualization and mutualization", with redirects (American English and British English) for both individual terms. 2*6 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surprise

I don't know enough about this to edit the page, but I don't think that Wikipedia should be surprised by any treatment, as in the end of paragraph 3. LRTrekkie 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.7

I think this topic is not important enough to be included as a C-Class with cleanup tags. I think this would need to be GA/A or FA to be in the running for this offline release, though once it reaches B please renominate. Walkerma (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)