Talk:Rugby, Warwickshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Rugby, Warwickshire is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

i think somewhere it should be mentioned that rugby has appalling crime rates.

Has it "TheNose | Talk" 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Contents

[edit] External links

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)

[edit] Rewrite

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)

[edit] Regarding lead image

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)

You still think you know better than individual readers, what works best on their systems? Andy Mabbett 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Improvement?

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)

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)

[edit] Images, again

What was the reason for [this revert ? Andy Mabbett 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
Please define "illegible", in this context. Andy Mabbett 19:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have again reverted my changes, with no reply here. Please explain. Andy Mabbett 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] The structure of this article

I note that a recent edit attempting to align this article with other UK geography articles was reverted, apparently on the grounds that the WP:UKCITIES guidelines don't fit Rugby. But they seem to fit other cities, towns and villages in the UK, so I'm left wondering what's so very different about Rugby.

To take one very specific example at random, there's a Notable inhabitants section, as opposed to Notable people, as recommended by the guidelines. In what sense is someone born in the town, but who never spent any significant time living there, an inhabitant?

More importantly though, I believe that this present idiosyncratic layout is doing a disservice to the readers of wikipedia, who have a right to expect a consistent presentation style. And surely the only point of writing any article is for the benefit of its readers? The UK guidelines are considered, plainly workable, and have achieved a consensus in favour of their use. If anyone believes that they can be improved—and after all, anything can be improved—then the place for that discussion is on the WP:UKCITIES talk page.

The editors' ownership of this article is doing the article itself no favours at all. And neither is it doing the readers any favours, as is plain to see from the above discussion about setting image sizes. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. There are probably many things each of doesn't agree with, but the end result is infinitely better than any one of us could have done alone. So I would very strongly argue in favour of reorganising this article along the currently accepted guidelines, even if there are one or two sticking points to be ironed out. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I renamed the notable people section as someone objected to it being named 'famous people' I can't win can I. G-Man ? 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I must concur. I tried to apply UKCITIES to improve and standardise the content of this article. The structure worked very well in my opinion and was purely cosmetic (the somewhat substandard prose and referencing is another matter). There's no validation as to why this article should be treated as a special case excempt from a consensual layout. Jza84 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you both. The oversize images should be rectified, also. I have been concerned that ownership might be at play, for some time Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
for the record I am not tryin to "own" this article and never have done. I have merely reverted some well meaning but badly thought through attempts at re-formatting it. I have no disagreement per-se with it being reformatted, as long as it is done properly and coherently.
What no-body has resolved is how much of the information here is surposed to be fitted into subsections that it has not been designed to fit into. ths was the point I was making on by talk page about a structure being imposed upon an article retrospectively. Which I must add is IMO a very bad idea unless the article is substantially rewritten.
Most town or city articles have a famous residents section and a 'nearby places' section, which doesn't properly fit at all into 'Geography' as you tried to do. And the claims to fame section is IMO the best way of formatting that information which is special and specific to the subject. I can't personally think of a better way to present it, which is what I mean by local variations.

Now some specific points which I am talking about here:

  1. Firstly no-one has properly integrsted some of the existing sections such as 'rugby today' into the 'reformatted' version, and I'm not sure that they can be without loosing all coherence, as none of the 'standardised' sections are designed for it. Kind of confirming my point about the current guidelines being far too prescriptive and rigid.
  2. Economy politics etc were put above 'Rugby today'. I can't see much sense to that, surely these things are current and therefore belong below. Seem as the present information in the RT section does not fit easilly into and of the standardised sections, this is sort of what I mean about organic page formulation.
  3. 'Nearby places' a specific title moved into the rather vague and badly fitting 'Geography' which is too wide and vague to be meaningful.
  4. I'm not sure why 'politics' was renamed 'governance' as the said section includes information about the local MP and constituency, which have nothing to do with the governance of the town per-se. yet another example of a badly fitting 'standardised' heading. Also much of the information about Rugby's civic history and governance is already covered at the Rugby (borough) articles Also I'm not sure why this section should be near the top of the article.
Also I have a philisophical objection to having to fit every article into a commitee designed straight jacket, which overides all individual editorial judgements. This seems to be a highly Stalinist approach to writing an encyclopedia, and is likely to produce a number of highly sterile and mediocre articles. G-Man ? 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to your philosophical objection, every quality publication has style guides that contributors are expected to adhere to. That's not Stalinism, and neither does it impede the flow of brilliant prose. Rather, it provides it with a channel. What distinguishes the good, the bad and the ugly is not what sections are used, but what's written in those sections. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Making accusations of facism is a breach of WP:CIVIL, and isn't terribly helpful. I still see no valid reason why this article should be treated as a special case on layout, image sizing and prose. I can hardly see this article reach GA or FA (or even B or A class) in its current shape. Jza84 10:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Stalinism has to do with Facism, I am merely expressing an opinion. Secondly I am not against re-organising it per-se I am merely asking that it is better integrated with what is already there and done well. Which no-one appears able to do, thus rather confirming my point about retrospectively trying to impose an order. I see that nobody has attempted to answer my specific points. G-Man ? 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The reorganisation was done reasonably well before, and could have been polished, but you objected to it on some arbitrary or perhaps philosophical grounds. All of your points have been answered so far as I can see, but your ownership of this article, and your apparent unwillingness to cooperate in reaching a consensus on its structure, continues to hold this article back. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to tell me where my points have been answered? G-Man ? 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to summarise:
"Firstly no-one has properly integrsted some of the existing sections such as 'rugby today' into the 'reformatted' version".
Define "properly". Does it mean to your satisfaction?
"Economy politics etc were put above Rugby today".
If you have a problem with the guidelines for writing about UK settlements then they ought to be discussed in the appropriate place. Every quality publication has guidelines that editors are expected to adhere to.
"'Nearby places' a specific title moved into the rather vague and badly fitting 'Geography' which is too wide and vague to be meaningful."
Nearby places is indeed a part of an area's geography. Geography is not too wide a term to be meaningful.
"I'm not sure why 'politics' was renamed 'governance'".
Perhaps because there was a consensus that "governance" was a more appropriate section name than "politics", a term that to most people, I'd suggest, implies nothing about how a town or city is run. But once again, if you disagree then the place for that discussion is WP:UKCITIES.
--Malleus Fatuarum 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
How does this look as a compromise? G-Man ? 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me like a very substantial improvement in the structure.
The "Rugby today" section seems a little unfocused, and there will be inevitable criticism for the "listy" nature of some of the content. But a big improvement nonetheless. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The image sizing still needs fixing. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's an improvement for sure, but still in bad shape - lot's of lists and some unusual presentation. Not entirely sure what harm will be done if the titles were made a little more "choppy" as suggested by UKCITIES (Historical claims to fame > Invention and discovery? Rugby today > Built environment? Politics and Governance > Governance?) My opinion of course, but it is moving forwards - maybe a Warwickshire map should be drawn and bestowed to celebrate?... Jza84 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this comment of User talk:G-Man's might not be at the heart of this discussion.
"Economy politics etc were put above 'Rugby today'. I can't see much sense to that, surely these things are current and therefore belong below." I interpret that to mean that recent history ought to take precedence over established history. Which would likely be true if we were trying to write a guide book to Rugby, as opposed to an encyclopedia article about Rugby. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement. Though, thinking of a solution, much of that "Rugby today" section's (unreferenced) content really discusses the built environment (which I would imagine is more suitable under "Geography", whilst there is some mention of local commerce (which may be suitable for an "Economy" section), which I think is a logical and helpful approach for the writer and reader alike. Again, I think applying the suggested structure a little more tightly would move this article forwards greatly. Jza84 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well at least my version is a start. I was trying to better integrate the old structure and new. G-Man ? 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a good start too, so I think you ought to consider promoting it from your sandbox asap, before the current article drifts away. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hope the Warwickshire map is also well recieved. Jza84 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)