Talk:Working men's club

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Suggest merging with Working Men's Club and Institute Union

i suggest that there is sufficient overlap between that article and this article for the two to be combined

--Peternkirk111 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Working Men's Clubs are not formally linked to the Labour Party (UK), but couldn't prove it. Anyone?

--Peternkirk111 16:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of Labour Clubs. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is their point?

I've always wondered what is the point of working men's clubs, in most towns and villages outside the north pubs are usually the center of the community, and seem to serve the same purpose, why is it that in northern industrial towns they have working men's clubs instead of pubs? MattUK (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Applying the snowball clause; bad grammar is never going to fly. (non-admin closure) Schwede 66 19:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working men's club → Working mens' clubs – In the case of supposed ownership being my many 'men', the appostrophe is better placed at the end. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Fixed this just-discovered malformed request. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Since men is already plural the correct way to form a possessive is to add an apostrophe followed by an 's'. Calidum T|C 13:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose bad grammar; "men" is already pluralized -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on grammatical grounds. Thefamouseccles (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What a shoddy article

This is unfortunately full of errors and sloppiness. Just a few: backrest sofas - don't you mean banquettes?

why the ridiculous Northern England, Midlands.....'parts of the Welsh Valleys' whats that supposed to mean? why not just Wales or Welsh valleys because the English North and Midlands does not just encompass wall to wall WMC's.

this rubbish about computer 'hackerspaces' how is this even tenuously connected to workingmens clubs?

many clubs now let the general public visit without being signed in

although there are more in the North and Midlands most towns throughout England have a workingmen's/trades club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.80.38 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Working men's club. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100322220527/http://www.wmciu.org.uk/html/branches.html to http://www.wmciu.org.uk/html/branches.html

When 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]