Defunct pubs: a discussion (aka Britannia - pub or bank?)

[Mobyduck]

Well argued Quinno,I agree that if your (and Soupy's) idea of an archive category is technically feasible it would satisfy all parties and improve the site.From my point of view the definition of "archive" would be when the building in question can no longer be brought back into use as a pub.

That is my view as well.

[Aqualung]

Well argued Quinno,I agree that if your (and Soupy's) idea of an archive category is technically feasible it would satisfy all parties and improve the site.From my point of view the definition of "archive" would be when the building in question can no longer be brought back into use as a pub.

It sounds good to me as well. If it gets implemented The Gorphwysfa Hotel may yet make an appearance.

[rpadam]

I think you're somewhat missing the point some of us are trying to make here:

With respect, I think I do understand the points being made (and you can probably put me in the 'assiduous traveller' category too).

We are all entitled to express an opinion, and mine is that the most important distinction is between pubs that are open and those which are not. Thus the 'closed pubs' filter works for me. That's all (but, of course, I do understand that others may take a different view).

PS - Having said that, I am - albeit to a lesser extent - interested in 'lost' pubs where the building is still extant so what does annoy me a bit is a pub being marked as closed without an explanation being given in the 'Notification' box so you don't know what its current status is. I have previously asked (several years ago, probably) whether it is possible to add or amend an explanation, but the answer at that time was that the pub would have to be marked as open again and then re-closed with a new / improved explanation. This was hardly a viable approach time-wise for either users or admins, so anything that enabled that functionality in a more streamlined manner would be beneficial.

[sheffield hatter]

I am - albeit to a lesser extent - interested in 'lost' pubs where the building is still extant so what does annoy me a bit is a pub being marked as closed without an explanation being given in the 'Notification' box so you don't know what its current status is. I have previously asked (several years ago, probably) whether it is possible to add or amend an explanation, but the answer at that time was that the pub would have to be marked as open again and then re-closed with a new / improved explanation. This was hardly a viable approach time-wise for either users or admins, so anything that enabled that functionality in a more streamlined manner would be beneficial.

Can we not use the review box for this? I know it's not strictly speaking a review, but if someone has some information about a pub that is not apparent from the summary page, such as "now demolished", surely the review box is the ideal location for it?

[Mobyduck]

I'm getting a touch of Deja_vu about this thread,
http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/showt...this-all-about

[rpadam]

Can we not use the review box for this? I know it's not strictly speaking a review, but if someone has some information about a pub that is not apparent from the summary page, such as "now demolished", surely the review box is the ideal location for it?

Yes one can (although I thought we were encouraged at one stage not to do this and use the 'Notification' box instead), but that is often not done either.

[Lady Grey]

I'm getting a touch of Deja_vu about this thread,
http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/showt...this-all-about

I'm glad someone else has remembered this thread!

[sheffield hatter]

New photos submitted this weekend of closed pubs in Ipswich. Unfortunately I approved one for the Queens Hotel before realising that the building is the replacement for the pub, and not the pub itself. We now have three photos of this building, which to a casual user of the site makes it look as though we think it's a former pub!

Another example is the Royal Oak, Tavern Street, where there are already two photos of the HMV shop by Graham Mason and now two more submitted by John McGraw, which I have referred to Dave.

One of the good things about this site is that users can submit photos of pubs that already have photos. This not only gives scope for people to exercise their photographic talents and increase their feeling of belonging to the site, but also allows different aspects of the pubs to be shown, and changes in appearance and names over the years. None of this applies, in my opinion, to photos of an HMV shop that now occupies the site of a pub which, according to the local Camra branch, was no longer in existence as early as 1883.

[Mobyduck]

New photos submitted this weekend of closed pubs in Ipswich. Unfortunately I approved one for the Queens Hotel before realising that the building is the replacement for the pub, and not the pub itself. We now have three photos of this building, which to a casual user of the site makes it look as though we think it's a former pub!

Another example is the Royal Oak, Tavern Street, where there are already two photos of the HMV shop by Graham Mason and now two more submitted by John McGraw, which I have referred to Dave.

One of the good things about this site is that users can submit photos of pubs that already have photos. This not only gives scope for people to exercise their photographic talents and increase their feeling of belonging to the site, but also allows different aspects of the pubs to be shown, and changes in appearance and names over the years. None of this applies, in my opinion, to photos of an HMV shop that now occupies the site of a pub which, according to the local Camra branch, was no longer in existence as early as 1883.

All the above are absolutely pointless in context to the pubs galore site as I understand it, this is only in my opinion of course.

[Bucking Fastard]

New photos submitted this weekend of closed pubs in Ipswich. Unfortunately I approved one for the Queens Hotel before realising that the building is the replacement for the pub, and not the pub itself. We now have three photos of this building, which to a casual user of the site makes it look as though we think it's a former pub!

Another example is the Royal Oak, Tavern Street, where there are already two photos of the HMV shop by Graham Mason and now two more submitted by John McGraw, which I have referred to Dave.

One of the good things about this site is that users can submit photos of pubs that already have photos. This not only gives scope for people to exercise their photographic talents and increase their feeling of belonging to the site, but also allows different aspects of the pubs to be shown, and changes in appearance and names over the years. None of this applies, in my opinion, to photos of an HMV shop that now occupies the site of a pub which, according to the local Camra branch, was no longer in existence as early as 1883.

In this discussion thread,I fully support the sentiments above from sheffield hatter.I can see no reason why ,once a pub is demolished,there should be any photographs on this site of a successor building.Such photos detract from the very nature of this excellent website and, in my opinion,add nothing.