Talk:Rugby, Warwickshire

message: I have heard that either the spark plug itself or something in the spark plug was invented in Rugby - info can be found in the museum, and Alice in wonderland was written in Rugby, perhaps these two should get a mention.  Also the time signal used to be transmitted in Rugby until a few years ago (now transmitted from the lake district) and during the war communication with submarines transmitted from radio masts in hillmorton/crick area 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.75.223 (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it "TheNose | Talk" 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not mentioned anywhere because it's not true 81.145.241.131 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention

message: I removed some links yesterday which have been put back twice.  I don't see why they should be included, and not any single other site that comes up when you google "Rugby".  The ones I removed have practically no information of any use - I've looked through them and learnt nothing about the town.  Should we also include any other local website with Rugby in the title?  Why does a website called Virtual X-ton or Xtononline.com have an unimpeachable right to get free advertising on the X-ton page on Wikipedia, even if it has little useful info?  I think the sites benefit far more from the advertising on Wikipedia than any reader benefits by reading them for research purposes. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.  What does anyone else think?
V1459 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I thought we were following set guidelines on towns, lead in then geography, history, economy, politics etc. The reorganise seems significantly better than what the present layout which looks a mess, and will provide a basis for future improvements. Im lost as to were the trivia section is and why there is a trivia template. 
I think the article should be reverted to the reorganised page and built on from there. Madhatter1uk 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Regarding the recent fuss about image sizing on the :Image:Rugby town centre.jpg. It has come to my attention that there was substatial agreement that 'lead images' are considered to be a special case when it comes to sizing (see Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8). 
Now I consider the town centre image to be such a lead image, it was certainly intended to be such. Therefore I propose that the tiny thumbnail which it has been reduced to is entirely innapropriate, and deserving of a larger size. Thus if there are no reasonable objections to this I shall resize it. G-Man * 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still think you know better than individual readers, what works best on their systems? Andy Mabbett 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely regard 180px (which is the set standard for the vast majority of users) to be absurdly small and illegible for a headline image. Especially one with a rectangular shape. G-Man * 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I refer you to my previous comments on this issue, and those of other editors, which still pertain. Andy Mabbett 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding lead image

message: I'm not convinced that the latest edits by User:SilkTork are an improvement on what was there before. G-Man * 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the infobox should be at the top not the picture. May be the picture could be in the infobox but not above it. Keith D 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement?

message: What was the reason for [this revert ? Andy Mabbett 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted again, with the bizarre edit summary "rv removal of sizing for lead image and illegible upright images". Why? Andy Mabbett 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well because A) having a size for lead images is acceptable (which we have already been over) and B) The 'upright' command makes the images even more illegible. I can see nothing in the MOS about it. G-Man * 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define "illegible", in this context. Andy Mabbett 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that you have again reverted my changes, with no reply here. Please explain. Andy Mabbett 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already explained about the lead image. I see nothing which says that the 'upright' command must be used. It certainly shrinks the images to postage stamp size. G-Man ! 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, once again, you want to impose your preferred sizes, as viewed on your own system, instead of letting Wikipedia's millions of users select their own preferences. Andy Mabbett 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images, again

message: The image sizes on this article are (still) a mess; portrait-format images should be marked up with |upright, per the MOS. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had no objections or comments here in several days, I applied MoS formatting standards; within 24 hours, this was reverted, with the edit summary "rv, MOS is a guideline not a tramline" and no comment here; thereby imposing one user's preferences based, presumably on his own local settings. The reverting editors preceding edit, immediately prior to that revert, was to change the MOS Guidelines. It appears that this may be part of an ongoing edit war. I have therefore asked for a third opinion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't comment because I wasn't here. thereby imposing one user's preferences based, presumably on his own local settings. no, my setting are the same as those of unregistered readers (ie the vast majority of wikipedia readers). "ongoing edit war" I merely re-added text which had been agreed on ages ago and inexplicably removed. Before realising that someone had already included it in a modified form. I have already given my resons for my actions before, I see no particular reason to repeat them. Do you not have anything better to do? G-Man ? 21:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Third Opinion This is such a trivial thing to ask a third opinion on. It really doesnt matter one way or another, the page looks fine and that's all that matters. --neon white talk 10:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. How many systems did you view it on? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have viewed it on XP and Vista and in IE, Opera, Netscape Nav, and FireFox; all look fine. fr33kman t - c 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I didn't ask about OSes or browsers: what size monitors/windows and what screen resolutions did you use? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! I used a Compaq 17inch monitor at 1280x1024 for both OSes. fr33kman t - c 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: I notice in this article http://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/census-2011-reveals-rugby-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-warwickshire-1-4074238 that the borough population is now a bit higher than mentioned in the article. Would that article be considered sufficient evidence to update the numbers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarral (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know where the paper got that figure from as the ONS figure is even higher than that at 100,100. I suggest using the  template with a district GSS code of E07000220 as that will give that figure and  will give the appropriate cite. Then in future as ONS releases new data the central templates can be updated and the article automatically updated. Keith D (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rugby, Warwickshire. 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/20110722073326/http://www.seafish.org/plate/fishandchips.asp?p=gf184 to http://www.seafish.org/plate/fishandchips.asp?p=gf184
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929011830/http://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=973 to http://www.rugby.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=973
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It has been called Drugby before. Should this be mentioned? SourceChamp (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without suitable sources. Keith D (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname