Beer: Pubs B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub related articles 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.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Pub task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

	Pub is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 14, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Archives
/Archive 1 - 2003-2007
/Archive 2 - 2008

"Some" and "often" are sort of doubling up here to give the phrase the following meaning:

There are some pubs which usually have "hotel" in their name, but on some occasions do not.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would suspect that the total number of pubs in the world which regularly alternate their names between something with "Hotel" and something without it is probably zero. 72.23.224.5 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, so I have dropped the word 'often' from that sentence. -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a {{Inappropriate tone|date=December 2007}} lable on there, but I can't actually see anything wrong with tone. At least not in the first few paragraphs. All seems fairly encyclopedic to me. -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that has to do with the "Irish Pubs" section (way at the bottom) which, with all due respect an' all, is way too long and mostly irrelevant. Ossicle (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that there seems to be no mention of Britain's historical Beer Houses, the third tier of Licencing introduced by the 1830 Beer Act. See Beer Houses. Is this an oversight? or was it decided to omit beer houses from the Public House entry? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is your chance. Feel free to add a section on beer houses. You obviously know a lot about it and we would appreciate your contributions. Thanks Dieter Simon (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, stand by your beds, I will see what I can rustle up 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the article it claims that pub's originated in England, is there any actual proof to back this up? 86.10.97.187 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Moustan[reply]

Not sure, do you mean Scotland, Wales or Ireland as opposed to England? Other countries would have their own words for what we call a pub. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I am quite sure that the Romans and Ancient Greeks, even the Chinese, had public drinking and eating establishments thousands of years before the Celts and Anglic tribes crawled out of their caves and huts to start them, but this article is about establishments called "Public Houses" or "Pubs" and I doubt that the ancient races used those words. In fact it is quite likely that it was the Roman invasion that brought the concept to England in the first place, with them springing up all along the roman roads and near the marching forts. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if you Google "origins of English pub" or similar you'll find a number of sources all essentially saying that it was the Roman occupation of Britain that brought about the first pubs - their roads facilitated longer journeys and hence the demand for pubs developed. Unfortunately I have yet to find a source that looks authoritative enough to be cited as a reference here. Barnabypage (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, it depends what they were drinking in those establishments. Can we really talk about ale her, or was it wine which presumably the Romans knew more about than about ale, or are we indeed taking about mead? If it was the latter the Rigveda and some Proto-Indo-European sources refer to it. So it is all very relative. If it's ale you'd be going back to Celtic times most likely. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of that, ale, wine and mead, anything they could make or get their greedy hands on to sell for a few groats. The importation of amphorai of wines from the Mediterranian to Britain is well documented. Ale and mead would have been brewed locally. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that leaves us indeed with the tabernae[1]as they would have been called, the first Roman establishments in Britain. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undergoing a major revamp of all the pub articles. Any assistance is welcomed. It would be great to form a Pub Task Force to discuss best ways forward. If at any point I do an edit or merge that looks daft, please get in touch so we can talk about it and perhaps put it back the way it was. All input is very welcome! SilkTork *^YES! 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally included under the "Name" section of article "Public house" because it no longer exists and is therefore part of our pub heritage. To remove this would be tantamount to vandalising this heritage. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! ;-) SilkTork *^YES! 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Silkforce, yes, but since there is a section referring to quaint pub names, it does make sense. Unless you are intent on removing the whole of the heritage sources of pub names, surely there must be article space for this. No, it does actually tie in with the text of pubs with "amusing" names - in this case that was and no longer is! We are always concerned with substantiating and sourcing facts in Wikipedia, sometimes more worriedly than need be, but in this case, where there is no longer any tangible proof of a pub existing with such names, a photograph is the only source. And what I said about pub heritage is still valid, and if this sounds quaint, a pub called "Nowhere Inn Particular" is indeed quaint, but exist it did.Dieter Simon (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the image to the Pub names article where it seems to sit more comfortably. I also moved a chunk of text on pub names from here to the talkpage of that article as we had too much here for comfort. SilkTork *^YES! 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interesting in working for a while on improving the pub articles? Sorting out the stubs. Organising the categories. Creating a Pub InfoBox. Drawing up some kind of notability guideline, and checking that pub articles are meeting the guidelines. Drawing up a Style guideline. Working on the editing of the main articles - Public house,List of public houses in the United Kingdom, Bar (establishment), etc. Considering how to integrate all the drinking establishments around the globe. Perhaps create a new parent article: Drinking establishment. I've started working on the pub articles, but I would really like to work with other people to bounce ideas and keep within consensus. Check in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Pub_Task_Force, or respond here or drop a message on my talkpage. Cheers! SilkTork *^YES! 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently merging small articles I am finding which relate to this main article - such as lock-in, country pub, etc. That I am merging the material doesn't mean it should stay here - some material, like country pub, may be reduced to a single sentence in a more developed Types of pub section. Or it may be expanded enough to be sent back as a stand-alone article in summary style. This is a transition phase. SilkTork *^YES! 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not tested. SilkTork *^YES! 14:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Pub Hub website - guide to 'lost' and country pubs

• The Guardian article on 'the perfect country pub'
• Southern Life - the Country Pub

*BBC Norfolk : Story of a Country Pub

Tested. One OK resource. SilkTork *^YES! 14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is almost entirely about British pubs, with virtually no reference to the history or current practice of pubs in other countries. Which is fine, but it should be renamed in that case to "British pub" or similar, along the lines of Australian pubs or public houses in Ireland. Either way, the scope of the article should be clarified, then a name chosen to match. Stevage 04:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point. However, I think the parent article is Drinking establishment, and from that we have the sub-pages of Public house, Bar, Tavern, Inn, etc, with some focus on the history and culture associated with those places. Public house is the British variation of a drinking establishment, so it would be appropriate for the focus to be on British pubs, with sub pages from here going to Australian pubs and public houses in Ireland, etc. But it's open for debate. And anyway, the structure I outlined needs attention to make it clearer than it is now. SilkTork *^YES! 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess there are several different topics all included in the one article here, like the history of British alcohol laws, architecture of pubs etc. Details about gin houses vs beer houses are really too obscure for an article on "public houses", but would be welcome elsewhere. It's really hard to know what to include in a topic like "public house", when there are obviously big differences in culture, style etc across countries. Stevage 12:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is why it is at 'public house'. According to WP:UCN it should be at 'pub'. Is there any specific reason it is here? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be at PUB? That is only an abbreviation of its full proper name. Public House is absolutely correct in every possible way. The pub abbreviation should be on a redirect, as I believe it already is. There is no need to get sloppy here is there? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pub is by far the more common term. I was caught off guard when I stumbled here, I wasn't even aware 'pub' was short for anything. Maybe it's just Australia (though I assume Britain would be similar), but as far as I know 'pub' is much more widespread. WP:UCN is clear on what to do in these cases. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a need for a separate sub sub article called "Pub (Australia)". It can be and is shortened to pub in Britain, but everybody is well aware that it is an abbreviation. If I was directing a stranger who asked for directions I would say "Turn left at the public house on the corner" and I suspect most Brits would be the same, except possibly some of the younger sloppy 'txtspk' generation. Pub currently redirects here, the correct name of a British establishment is Public House so my feeling is still that we have all the bases covered....except possibly for the sub sub articles on Australian, Irish and American drinking holes if there are that many differences of note Strike that, they already exist, I have added links in the Pubs outside Britain paragraph. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I cannot speak for Britons. But the current policy is common name, which is why we have Bill Clinton (but not William Clinton), East Timor (not Timor-Leste), United Kingdom (not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). These are also a number of things called their 'layman' name as opposed to their technical/correct name. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can't speak for the UK/Britain, saying the current policy is "pub". Where do think the word "pub" comes from? Public house, of course. The sheer fact that most people shorten it to "pub" is neither here nor there, officially even now it is still "public house". There is no such thing as an official policy to call it "pub". If a court of law were to decide on an incident in a pub, they would pull you up short and make you call it a "public house". Dieter Simon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what is completely irrelevant. Have you even read WP:UCN? In a nutshell, if there is a prevalent common name, we use that instead of any 'official' name. Contrary to what you seem to be claiming, there is no official policy dealing with pub nomenclature exclusively for the UK. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - this discussion was closed literally mid-discussion - I had an edit conflict with the person closing the discussion!)

Dieter, if I'm understanding you, you are essentially arguing that a dictionary citation overrides a Wikipedia naming convention in deciding what the title of this article should be. So far as I know, no Wikipedia policy or convention agrees with that, so, unless you can find one that does, that's making up your own rules.

No one is disputing your dictionary citations. I'm disputing their relevance in overriding Wikipedia naming conventions. You say there is no basis in fact in my assertions. Are you seriously questioning the assertion that "pub", informal or not, is the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article... pubs? And the basis in fact for adopting the most common name is here. Have you read it yet? This is Wikipedia and that reference is official Wikipedia policy. That's not only basis in fact, but it's relevant basis in fact. What you have, again, is nothing more than unchallenged irrelevant (to naming Wikipedia articles) dictionary citations. Your argument that adopting the current actual most common name PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY used to refer to the subject of the article in question is "creating a new basic term" (just because it's "informal") is patently absurd. That's the basis of your position for naming this article Public house rather than Pub? That doing so makes pub a "new basic term"? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. --Serge (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Serge or Borne2cycle, whoever you are, I am not arguing that any old dictionary usage is overriding Wikipedia usage, far from doing so, I am talking about citing sources which has been one of the important things impressed upon us since Wikipedia came into being. I have given you sources as to the formal (and informal) uses of "pub" and "public house", you have given me nothing, no sources as to what you base your assumption on. All you are saying is "look at "Wikipedia Policy". I am fully aware of the "Policy". But what is the basis of your assumption that more people in the UK use the word "pub"? Can you cite sources that say "so many percent of the population use the word "pub""? Or "by far the greater number of the people in the UK go to pubs rather than public houses"? What about formal discussions about public houses or pubs, what would a serious commentator use about the habits of British public in a serious discussion, call it scientifically, or not? Would he/she necessarily say "pub" or "public house".

Just one example of the policy you love quoting at me: I, myself, wanted to find out all about "cash machines", you know what I came up with in Wikipedia? Automatic teller machine. Now I wonder how many people are saying in the course of the day, "I must pop down to the Automatic teller machine to get some money out"? You see, it's all relative, really.

In order to make any decisions (or changes) as to "pub" or "public house", you will have to cite sources to that effect. Perhaps I can refer to one of Wikipedia's policy pages in my turn, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources. And it will be no good just saying, "it is so obvious that so many people use the word "pub". This is about a possible rename of an article. Bear in mind this is an article that we would like to be consulted by all people, officially and unofficially, and it's no good saying "everybody is saying "pub" even in serious discussions. We are striving to be a serious publication. I am not trying to impose anything on anybody. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask again. Are you seriously questioning the assertion that "pub", informal or not, is the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article? Seriously? There is no need to source the blatantly obvious, and I thought that fact certainly qualified. I mean, I suspect any English speaking person can find scores of English speaking adult friends, family and colleagues who have never heard of the term "public house", but none that have not heard of "pub". So, are you seriously questioning the assertion that "pub" is the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article? If so, that was the point of the google test results above, which you dismissed. By the way, google test results are a bonafide method for determining usage. Have you read WP:UCN yet? --Serge (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Naming Conventions Policy page contain a section called "Use the most easily recognized name". This section contains wording that is little altered since it was introduced back on 6 May 2002 as such it is a very old policy. This year we have introduced an important qualification to the policy, namely to tie it in more closely to the more recent content policies such as WP:V. To this end we have introduced an important qualification to the old statement: "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

Usually this does not cause a problem because reliable sources and unreliable sources use the same name, but sometimes there can be a divergence between the two. It is up to the editors of pages like this to decide whether in reliable sources "pub" or "public house" is most common and to consider the quality of the sources that use the term. For example does the The Law Times Reports: Containing All the Cases Argued and Determined in the ... of 1899 carry more weight than the Evening Standard London Pub Bar Guide 1999?

Also don't believe the raw numbers returned by a Google search. For example a Google book search appears to return "26,071 on "pub" Bar." but go to the 40th page (the last returned) it say "391 of 391 on "pub" Bar.". The last page returned by public-house bar gives "326 of 366 on public-house bar" so a simple search of books (using "bar" to remove many of the false positives) does not show such a large discrepancy between the two.

One last point "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."(Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]