This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article, up to today, read like a rather dry advert for Punch Taverns. Now it isn't. Rikstar 409 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Punch Taverns —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tk420 ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the stub Two for one pubs be merged into Punch Taverns. I think that the content in the Two for one article can easily be explained in the context of Punch Taverns, and the Punch Taverns article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Two for one will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. As there is current no mention of Two For One, although Two For One redirects to Punch Taverns, in the history section of this article it ought to be mentioned to prevent more duplicate articles emerging Tk420 ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Punch Taverns' annual reports for the years 2007 to 2009 refer to Two for One as being part of their 'Value Pub Restaurants', a portfolio rising in numbers to 223 pubs in 2009. That included 74 'Wacky Warehouse' pubs, so on the face of it no more than 150 Two for One. By 2010 Punch don't bother to mention Two for One in their annual report and in 2011 they sold their managed pubs to Spirit Pub Co. Spirit Pub Co is now part of Greene King. I think Two for One was transitory branding and I'd suggest deleting the page altogether. [3]/ Swinnow16 ( talk) 11:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Also: I have noticed there is no disambiguation page for Two For One. Does anyone think having one would help to prevent further duplicates for Two For One? Tk420 ( talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have created a disambiguation page Two for one (disambiguation) to help readers find what they are looking for. Tk420 ( talk) 14:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Punch Taverns. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2006/8/11/101701.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article, up to today, read like a rather dry advert for Punch Taverns. Now it isn't. Rikstar 409 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Punch Taverns —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tk420 ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the stub Two for one pubs be merged into Punch Taverns. I think that the content in the Two for one article can easily be explained in the context of Punch Taverns, and the Punch Taverns article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Two for one will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. As there is current no mention of Two For One, although Two For One redirects to Punch Taverns, in the history section of this article it ought to be mentioned to prevent more duplicate articles emerging Tk420 ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Punch Taverns' annual reports for the years 2007 to 2009 refer to Two for One as being part of their 'Value Pub Restaurants', a portfolio rising in numbers to 223 pubs in 2009. That included 74 'Wacky Warehouse' pubs, so on the face of it no more than 150 Two for One. By 2010 Punch don't bother to mention Two for One in their annual report and in 2011 they sold their managed pubs to Spirit Pub Co. Spirit Pub Co is now part of Greene King. I think Two for One was transitory branding and I'd suggest deleting the page altogether. [3]/ Swinnow16 ( talk) 11:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Also: I have noticed there is no disambiguation page for Two For One. Does anyone think having one would help to prevent further duplicates for Two For One? Tk420 ( talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have created a disambiguation page Two for one (disambiguation) to help readers find what they are looking for. Tk420 ( talk) 14:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Punch Taverns. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2006/8/11/101701.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)