Talk:Payzone (Ireland)

Untitled

After discussion with [Nyttend] I have resurrected this page and added further references, I hope this is okay. I will change any wording that breaches copyright immedaitely. Either leave a message here or on my talk page RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Payzonelogo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Payzonelogo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 23 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Payzonelogo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Advertisment Flag

I have removed the "corporate" text and taken the flag off, I hope this is okay. I will expand the history section once I find a decent timeline. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Payzone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121118044323/http://news.yahoo.com:80/payment-processing-specialist-payzone-awarded-outstanding-elavon-070643853.html to http://news.yahoo.com/payment-processing-specialist-payzone-awarded-outstanding-elavon-070643853.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

other meaning in geologic exploration

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/p/pay.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itu (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

This article holds incorrect information about Payzone as a group. Payzone UK no longer part of the Payzone group which covers Ireland, Germany, etc. We'd like to remove reference to Payzone UK as part of the Payzone Group. Payzone UK Ltd is not a subsidiary of Duke Street Capitol. It now has different owners, therefore the key people for Payzone UK are incorrect.

Edit request

The information in this article is incorrect. The website link doesn't work. Please can it be updated. The post should refer to Payzone Ireland. Payzone UK is a totally separate business, has different owners and website address - www.payzone.co.uk

All references to Payzone UK need to be removed from this post. Vanessalittler11 (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split Sargdub (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

---

This article is about two different companies and previous edits and references reflect the ambiguity and messiness of trying to keep this in one article. The article is difficult to fix as it stands and needs to separate out the two companies. I suggest we split this into two articles one for each company. I did a draft of each of these based on previous edits as draft:Payzone (United Kingdom) and draft:Payzone (Ireland) as a base for further edits and added a disambiguation page. There was some resistance to this as the change was reversed but the article is still a mess. Sargdub (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. @Sargdub: Given that this thread is open quite a while, I was hoping to weigh in and help progress the proposal. I note, however, that the two drafts (which seem to form a basis and to provide context for the proposal) have since been deleted. As expired drafts. Are you still proposing the split? (If this title is covering two different, distinct and separate companies [with no connection other than a similar name], then - as you note - they shouldn't be covered under the same title. But I'm not sure if that's the case...) Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bump. @Sargdub. A further 9 months or so have passed since my note above. And it's been more than 18 months since your own note/proposal/tag. Given that, per WP:SPLITCLOSE, a discussion like this might be closed "if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion" I think we're at (and possibly passed) a point where this thread and the related tag can be closed. Certainly I'm not sure what point there is in having a tag (on the article) that draws attention to an inactive thread. Especially when the drafts (that seem to form the basis of the proposal) have long since been deleted. Unless you feel strongly, I'm inclined to remove the tag and close this thread. Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Guliolopez, I agree its been a while and I have been resolving other outstanding split articles in the last few weeks, but this one has been frustrating me for a long time. I still believe it should be split and the existing article is a mess and outdated. I created two new pages, but these were moved to draft by another user and then deleted as not meeting notability. I actually took information from the original article and its history and updated it but they were deleted when the original remains. I am happy to request to have the deleted pages restored if you are happy to contribute and we can make the current page a disambiguation page. Sargdub (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Sargdub. If you want to request the restoration, then - yes - I'll help expand them. Guliolopez (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, they have been restored. I have not looked at them yet but will review them when I can, but please go ahead and expand them. Sargdub (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have reviewed and updated the split pages and added updated references and history. These pages should not have been moved to the draft space as they were the content of the split. The main Payzone page was moved to Payzone (Ireland) and the split UK content has been moved to Payzone (United Kingdom). Sargdub (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.