This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink: Pubs B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Related taskforces: /  This article is within the scope of the Pub Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Beer WikiProject task list: This list is transcluded from the tasks list page, to edit, click here This is a list of single time tasks that need action. Once you have completed them, please remove them from the list. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Stubs : Beer and brewery stub articles Other : Add {{Portal|Beer}} to the See also section of high-relevance articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	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

I'm wondering about the subject of the "Pub & Grill." Would you consider it a subject worth looking into for WP, and if so, would it be a sub-category under Pubs, or would it be it's own entity. I've been looking around for proof of usage of the words Pub and Grill together, and haven't found anything as of yet, but it's a very common term. I would not consider it slang. Any thoughts?Blackanguskhan (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have never heard the phrase Pub and Grill. I only mention this, not because this should be relevant to whether it should be an entry in Wikipedia, but to add one single vote (albeit against 6.5 billion abstentions), that this isn't 'a very common term'.217.171.129.70 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term used by the Harvester chain for their pubs. I think it's also used in Canada as a marketing term for a restaurant in the style of a British pub serving hearty, value for money food. SilkTork *^YES! 10:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackanguskhan - I think you need to find more than proof of usage of the words together (which should be easy enough - Google gives 2m hits on the phrase), but proof that it is a distinct concept. We wouldn't cover phrases such as hotel and restaurant or nightclub and bar or carpenter and joiner just because the words are frequently used in conjunction, after all. Barnabypage (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British native of several decades here saying that, while I accede that "pub and grill" may be an accepted collocation of words (although, having said that, I can count on one hand how many times I remember hearing it in my lifetime), I agree with Barnabypage that this isn't, in any way, a different concept to a mere "pub". It just denotes a pub that happens to serve grilled meat - which is, in fairness, a common feature of pub fayre. 86.168.88.20 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be made plain that a lock-in need not be illegal; the premises essentially revert to being a private house after licensing hours, and providing no consideration (money) is made for any alcoholic drinks, those remaining are simply guests of the householder.

Similarly, I've heard it argued that smoking in his house was perfectly legal after licensing hours, since the property was de jure no longer premises open to the public on whatever definition that is in the appropriate act or acts (and that they may be inconsistent or contradictory). That, I believe, has yet to be tested in law. Si Trew (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a better English and more wikipedia experience might write about ruin pubs, which came into fashion in Hungary. Just a few words, and later maybe a new article. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.110.102.159 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209600/A-pub-parlour-Flossies-pub-room-cottage-You-let-pulled-pint-left-money-jam-jar-Now-orders-locals-crying-beer.html I saw this on countryfile on Sunday. The article does not mention Parlour Pubs, I only know from this newspaper article, can anyone else expand?Halbared (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

97.118.115.25 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I just deleted a link to this URL which was entitled 'Advice for international students going to pubs'

• Advice for international students going to pubs

The URL was to an insurance advice web site.

Should this be moved to just "pub." Public house isn't the most commonly used name. It is "pub." Public house seems too professional and strict. Just wondering. Simple pub seems simple. 24.9.97.169 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been debated at length (see archive 3 above) and the decision was not to move. It is not a problem because 'Pub' redirects here anyway so nobody will get lost in wiki cyberspace. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was years ago. It's not a navigational problem since searchers for "pub" are redirected here, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. There are other problems associated with titles that are inconsistent with the naming criteria at WP:TITLE, including wrongly conveying what the most common name is for a given subject. The current title is arguably overly precise. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly 'overly precise'. Overly precise would be more along the lines of 'Public drinking establishment where alcoholic beverages are sold to the public for consumption on the premises'. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be overly price to an absurd degree, but we're not supposed to be overly precise to any degree in our titles. If "pub" is used just as commonly if not more commonly than "public house" to refer to this topic, then the more succinct "pub" should be the title. If "pub" is most commonly used to refer to a different topic, then it should be a separate article about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "pub" and "public house" are necessarily the same thing. When you see something with the title "PUB" on the outside, you can almost guarantee that it's not a pub in the traditional sense of the word - it's usually some kind of gimmicky tourist bar. Deb (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, however, Pub redirects to Public house. If they're distinct topics then they should have distinct articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to include the separate statement about Northern Ireland (even without citation): it has not been disputed in the Pubs in Ireland article and is relevant to this article as Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly seems enough to introduce readers (who in many cases will not be familiar with the countries where public houses are prevalent) to this complex subject. "In many places the pub is the focal point of the community." hardly provides any information at all since "community" is a term of many different meanings, and many communities exist with no public houses at all.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Why was the perfectly adequate lead decimated in May this year. WP:LEAD says:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

What we have now does not achieve that in any shape or form. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any objection to bringing back the undecimated version? It looks like a bold move to apply a guideline to something that was created by discussion and consensus in the first place.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present the contents of the lead and the "Overview" do not follow what the Manual of style recommends. There is a limit on number of paragraphs in the lead to four but short paragraphs are deprecated so no real problem there. articles like this are going to be used as the basis for article stubs in other languages so having a properly encyclopedic lead would be much much better. Any further comments?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a reference to CAMRA and British Isles as the term "British Isles" can be considered controversial. From what I can see this is a solely UK based organisation and if anyone wants to include the whole of the British Isles they should include a reference to that fact. Bjmullan (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's solely UK-based, then British Isles isn't required. Note though: "...can be considered controversial" is poor excuse for deleting. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. However, it isn't solely UK based, as this reference [1] demonstrates (this is just about the same reference that was removed). In fact CAMRA has branches in Northern Ireland, and incidentally in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as well (see reference). Given that "British Isles" is purely a geographic term the fact that CAMRA is present on the island of Ireland is, I would contend, good enough reason to use the term British Isles to describe the extent of their operation. I also agree with your comment about consideration of the term being controversial not being a good reason for deleting; actually it's a bloody bad reason for deleting. Van Speijk (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word divisive rather than controversial, in the context at least of Wikipedia, might have been more accurate. RashersTierney (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think devisive is much more accurate. It's debatable as to whether or not the term is controversial, but it's clearly devisive. Maybe some work could be done on this point at British Isles? Van Speijk (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Cork nor Kirkwall are included in CAMRA, therefore using the the term British Isles is just British POV at it's worst/best* (delete as appropriate). Bjmullan (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK (which includes Northern Ireland) is more accurate, in this case. RashersTierney (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bjmullan, what point are you trying to make? Am I right in thinking that you will only (grugingly) countenance use of "British Isles" if locations in the RoI are included togther with locations on every other island in the group? Rashers, CAMRA has branches in Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, so UK is incorrect. Van Speijk (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what grugingly is supposed to mean in this (or any other context) but if it's not the British Isles (i.e. Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, St Anne, Orkney, Rousay, Westray, Mull, Jura and the rest) then it is NOT the British Isles. It's just an POV excuse for them. If you think the UK is incorrect then SURELY you must also think that using the British Isles is also incorrect, or am I missing something? Bjmullan (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're definitely missing something. Van Speijk (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least two others agree that the UK is the best option. Move on, nothing to see here... Bjmullan (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, if it's not limited to the island of Great Britain? then British Isles usage is acceptable. So what's it gonna be - geographic or political? GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]