User talk:Ed g2s/Archive8

MedalTop Template
Regarding your revert to the MedalTop template: I've gone ahead and reverted to two revisions ago, with the way that we've agreed the chart should look, but without the alignment formatting. If you've got any other input, then please let us know on the talk page, thanks! tiZom(2¢) 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that alignment was that difficult, and I'd appreciate your help in trying to resolve this problem (if it's possible).
 * Second, in the talk page, we have discussed at length, the way we want this to look. Namely, with the colors that we've got, we think it looks better when the colored boxes have some white between them.  Also, we've all agreed that it looks better with the darker greys on top, guiding the eyes down the chart.
 * Also, due to space issues, we're trying to keep all the medals from wrapping to a second line, and we've found that the 35% length is very important.

NBA Logos
I heard once that logos shouldn't be used on templates, and that I can understand. But why are using logos on tables and as icons NOT fair use (I could not find it in the official fair use guidelines)? I've always believed that there is a major difference between text and images. Images add so much more to the depth of an article, and logos, which I assumed can be used freely since they ARE logos thus making them fair use images in the first place, is a perfect example of this. Moreover, the use of logo icons is also meant to be a historical guideline, to put the year in perspective in terms of what logo that team was using that particular season. I'm not trying to be impossible, but I honestly don't see why we can't use logos on tables and as icons. It just seems like making a mountain out of a molehill of a Wiki policy from my perspective. Please e-mail me back soon, because I was (and am still) under the impression that there is nothing wrong with this.Dknights411 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sports Team Logos
I am curious as to why you appear to be on a big removal spree of sports team logos for several major city articles (the ones I've noticed in particular are Chicago, Illinois and Washington, D.C.)? These logos have been a part of these articles for quite some time and it is my impression that this completely and totally falls under the guidelines of, "fair use." The guideline on Logos seems to agree with this logic as well. In addition, I feel that the logos on the city articles greatly add to the article and loss of the logos has a detrimental effect on the overall quality. Removed personal attack Dr. Cash 04:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How do logos of teams in a league not qualify for fair use in an article about that league!? --KHill-LTown 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See this response. ed g2s &bull; talk 05:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PUA Awards

 * I added the mouse back in. If you want to remove it, please put your request on the proposal page. evrik 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Francesc Fabregas
Although webpages in Spanish refer to him as Francesc Fábregas (with an acute accent), webpages in Catalan refer to him as Francesc Fàbregas (with a grave accent). As Fabregas was born in Catalonia, and given the autonomy that Catalan people claim w.r.t. Spain, he may wish himself to be referred to in the Catalonian spelling, rather than the Spanish - but I have no way of knowing for sure. Do you reckon there is a way of settling the issue? Maybe the best way is to move his page to the unaccented version for NPOV reasons? Qwghlm 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't move it to the unaccented version automatically (as you have edited the redirect Francesc Fabregas :)) so I've had to request the move. Your contribution at Talk:Francesc Fábregas would be very welcome. Qwghlm 11:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sports Logos
I know that you feel like you have to follow the rules of Wikipedia, but I feel that you have completly missed the point on why logos are used in the first place outside of main team articles. First of all, our ability to use it on Wikipedia in the first place is thanks to fair use, meaning that the image can be used on WIKIPEDIA, not just on one aricle. You said that using sports logos on pages like the NBA or the NFL is not allowed because they are "not necessary" and are merely uneeded "decoration". I strongly disagree. The logo is not only a part of the team, but it's a part of the league, and they help distinguish the team from the rst of the league more than simple words can. I stongy believe that the same principle applies to Wikipedia. It is one thing to look at the name of the team, but it is a completely different story to see exactly what logo is associated with that team. Removing the logos from these sites removes the sense of variety that exists in each league. When you look at a list of the 30 franchises that make up the NHL for example, you're not only looking at 30 sports teams, you're looking at 30 clubs from various backgrounds, each with it's own brand of history, and style. The names of the teams alone doesn't give these aspects justice. Every franchise is unique, and that aspect gets lost when you remove the logos. So the easiest way to convey the uniqueness of the different franchises in one league is the logo. That's the main reason I used logos on the NBA seasons pages I created. In order to best convey the different eras in NBA basketball, I used the logo that the team was using at that time. It was the best, and quite possibly the only, way to visually track the evolution of the league, from season to season, which is how I set up my artivles. So in these aspects, I firmly believe with all my might that the logos use are necessary after all. One last note IMHO, I know you feel like you're doing the "right thing", and I truly respect you for that. However, your campaign on proper logo usage on Wikipedia is just plain rediculous. Wikipedia shouldn't just limit itself by text usage only. We live in a world where we use symbols and images with great frequency in order to make relationships. The logos aren't just copyrighted images. They are symbols of a franchise, of a club, of a team, that can not be ignored, and thus must be recognized on Wikipedia, not only on its team article, but everywhere on Wikipedia. Dknights411 06:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

unisouth
Could you please explain a few thing to user:Unisouth: I altered the licence tags on Image:Havant junction.JPG, Image:City link bus.PNG and Image:P86 stock.jpg, I think you will agree, validly. He prompty left an uncivil message on my talk page, put a gobbledegook tag on Image:P86 stock.jpg and re-uploaded it to Image:P86 stock2.jpg with an equally dubious tag. -- RHaworth 09:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi Ed, I think you're doing a good thing in enforcing the fair use policies more tightly than has been done in the past. I've replaced Portal:Computer and video games/Picture with a picture from a GPL game. I was wondering about your opinion on this image, which I added to Portal:StarCraft. It's on commons and is licensed under the GFDL, but is this really an ok image? If it is, then I might start taking photos of my game boxes and uploading them to commons. Cheers,  jaco plane  10:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the response.  jaco plane  12:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Branchlistxx
You wrote: Could you have not picked more suitable names? ed g2s &bull; talk 20:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but the common part is essential for future automated creation, and the number/letter system is simple and quick to type. I would really like the name to be in a parametric form, like 'branchlist|electronics|analog electronics' but I'm not sure whether this is acceptable at present (not sure how to separate the names so as not to conflict with present parametric interpretation). I need software/template experts to help. --Lindosland 11:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, prompted by your message, I have now started a new naming system, and specified it at Root page, in the form Template:Branchlist/Root/Hub (see the Talk page for my reasoning). Is that better? --Lindosland 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

NBA Logos
Hey Ed. About you removing the NBA logos, I've left you a note a few days ago on this page, but I never got a response from you, leaving me to thik that you're not listning to me at all. But anyway, my arguements as to why I feel the NBA logos belong in those articles are there. Also, and this is just the way I am so it can't be helped, I've never been a real big fan of following following the rules to the exact letter, especially on Wikipedia. Doing so discourages creativity, which I feel is one of the most important things we as human beings have as an ability. I understand that Wikipedia has copyright issues they need to consider, and I understand that completly, however, I feel we shouldn't let that hinder our ability to be creative on Wikipedia.

But that's just my opinion. Please shoot me back a line. Dknights411 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I still think that the logos should be allowed, but if the rules really ARE that strict, then I guess I have no choice but to comply.  However, the image rules and what amounts to fair use around here REALLY needs to be emphasized, as in a seperate warning page when uploading such images in the first place, for example.  I believe that images are so important on Wikipedia, so we need to know exactly how to use then to avoid such issues.
 * Oh btw, you came across as kind of cold-hearted in your responses and your comment boxes IMHO, and it actually hurt my feelings for a while. Just saying "You can't use X image because of Y rule" comes across as cold and unfeeling.  Just a little bit of advice for next time, a few kind words could go a long way in establishing the family atmosphere that I like about Wikipedia.  Like "Sorry, but you can't use X because of Y.  Thanks for the contribution anyway".  I'm not trying to tell you you to do your job, but I'm just reminding you to be a bit friendlier.
 * See you around Wikipedia Dknights411 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Storm colour templates
Just a quick courtesy notification regarding your storm colour templates (well.. most of them are yours anyways, heh):



I've nominated them for deletion at WP:TFD; the debate is Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 5. They've been obsoleted by which handles them all via parameter. Let me know if you have any problems with this. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks fine, not that I'm a big fan of conditional template hacks - I'd rather they were implemented properly :) ed g2s &bull; talk 21:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal captains
Not sure about either option you offer. I am fairly sure that most senior players have worn the captain's armband at some point, depending on injuries or substitutions (I remember Rémi Garde wearing the armband in one League Cup match in the late 90s, because there was no other player over 21 on the pitch), so a "has been captain" flag would be fairly meaningless.

The same goes for a list of first choice captains (without dates), as I don't have one to hand and have been unable to find one, despite trawling; the closest I have is my copy of Arsenal Who's Who (ISBN 1899429034) mentions in several entries that the respective player was captain of Arsenal, but there is by no means an exhaustive list of which players were official club captain (the trail vanishes once you go further back than the 60s), and in any case the book is not totally reliable (for example, it has mutually contradicting entries about whether Frank McLintock or George Eastham was captain in the early 60s, ditto John Hollins & David O'Leary for the early 80s).

In the grand scheme of things, whether and when a player was "club captain" is not the most relevant or by any means defining detail of their career, especially when you go back in time beyond the point when the captaincy was not a permanent season-by-season appointment, but a match-by-match one. Given that no-one else has successfully managed to produce an authoritative or at least near-complete list of captains, perhaps it's a good indicator that trying to do so on Wikipedia would be futile. I've plenty else to get on with, rather than worry about adding (and maintaining) a contentious and unverifiable list on WP. Qwghlm 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Claiming Fair Use on the NBA Logos page
Hey, Ed. I was wondering if I did claim fair use for EVERY logo on the NBA seasons page, would it then be OK to use them? I'm willing to do this, since I still feel that the logos are not violating Fair Use outside of the fact that Fair Use hasn't been claimed yet. Would that help? Dknights411 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You could, but the main reason the images shouldn't be used is because our fair use policy is not just based on what we can legally get away with, but on keeping fair use images to a minimum. Freeness is, afterall, one of our founding principles. I imagine you would be better off spending your time making other useful, free, contributions to the project. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use and templates
I have reverted your edits that removed the corprate logos from a variety of automobile templates. First, you need to define why you are removing the image, simply leaving FU isn't courteous because it takes on some very rude meanings. Secondly, there is nothing in fair use that precludes the usage of the registered coporate logos in this manner under US law; this is especially true because the entities are no longer in business and no longer use these logos. While I fully understand that fair use precludes the use of images in a manner which goes against their intended public use, attaching them to a template specifically dealing with models of automobiles made by the company that owned and used the logos themselves on the vehicles in question simply doesn't make sense. Stude62 20:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you should assume good faith, and not revert my edits until you've left a message. Secondly, read WP:FUC. Our fair use policy isn't based solely on law, and it specifically bans the use of fair use images on templates (#9). ed g2s &bull; talk 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you should assume good faith as well by clearly commenting on your edits, which you did not. Secondly, I have gone through the policy and it doesn't speak to logos of defunct corporations. So I would ask before you remove these that the matter be put up for discussion. In several of the templates, your removal of the logo also removed the text for which the logo is for.  I understand that policies need to be enforce, but I feel that the manner in which you did it, without discussion was the wrong approach. Stude62 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Defunct corporations' logos are still fair use, the policy talks about how to treat fair use images, not what a fair use image is. Brief edit comments have nothing to do with bad faith. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Defunct corpoartions have no leagal standing. As for bad faith in editing comments, let me put it this way, while you understood what you were doing, you didn't take into consideration that everyone knows what FU stands for, you simply assumed that it made sense to you.  You know, this could have been a great chance for you to insert some boilerplate text onto the Templates talk page and explained what and why it was being done.  Perhaps that is something that would require too much time.  Perhaps you never thought about it. But to those of use work hard at making things look good only to pop in and see an edit made with a shorthand note is disturbing. There is a difference between being efficient and being effective, in this case, I feel that you over looked the good faith opportunity to explain your actions and instead felt that everyone else should be able to decode your actions. In my book, you blew not only the opportunity to educate someone, but also the chance to make a friend in the process. Stude62 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to provide you with the courtesy, I have placed a generic graphic in the Packard template and I have placed a Studebaker graphic that is in the public domain in that template. Both are allowable under Wikipedia. There also is an on going discussion on the matter actual logo use in the WP:FUP talk page. Stude62 02:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Types of learning
From youm response on the Wikipedia talk:Fair use "People who can't read can use screen-reading software to have an article read to them. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not a teaching aid for people with learning difficulties. For anyone else, an article about the Ford Ka, which starts "... a car from the Ford Motor Company", one has to assume the logo is redundant. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)"
 * Rather than address this to you in person on that page, allow me to address here. As a teacher of children with learning disabilities and aspergers and autism, I really take exception to this comment as you posted it. This comment about kids who can't read is crass, cruel and demonstrates a lack of depth regarding other people and their needs. They may not have acquired your reading skills, but I can assure you that they are not unable to learn. The disconnect isn't that they need to be led by others, but that others learn to adapt to their skills. That they may learn in a manner that is different from you, makes them no less human than you, nor does it make them less intellegent. Stude62 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stude62, I think you might be reading too much into Ed's comment. Ed isn't saying that we shouldn't consider the needs of the disabled, he's saying that facilitating the disabled is not a primary goal of the project and that we can't sacrifice the primary goals of the project to accomplish a secondary goal no matter how laudable that goal. It's obvious that you care a lot about your efforts, please understand the others feel the same about their own efforts and that we all must work towards fulfilling the goals of the project if we are to be successful. --Gmaxwell 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In all due respect, how I took the comment was based on how it was written, and based on my "conversations" with Ed. Suffice it to say, we disagree.  Good manners prevents me from going further with my feelings and opinion inthis about the topic. I hope you can respect that. Stude62 23:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Gmaxwell, I have to agree that Stude62 was very emotional in his comment, but I understand that this is because Ed, most probably inadvertently, offended a group of people important for Stude62, and I must say I felt it was quite inappropriate too.
 * Nevertheless, this wasn't the general matter of discussion before. What is really important here is that a human being acquires information in a way very different than simply analyzing written text, but also by means of various, mostly visual, stimuli. Taking that into account is not making Wikipedia suitable for people with disabilities, it is making Wikipedia more suitable for all human beings (except for the ones that had their vision impaired).
 * Thank you for considering this as a topic or discussion. --Bravada 23:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand this point perfectly well, but this is not a luxury we can afford given the copyright status of the images. ed g2s &bull; talk 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work
I just saw your recent commentary on Wikipedia talk:Fair use and I wanted to come by and thank you for you work. Your concerns about the freeness of our content being lost as a matter of convenience and expedience is completely on the mark. Thank you for putting the time and effort into this sort of matter. Without editors constantly promoting our goals and values as the waves on new users join, we would fail. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Otheruses4 et al
I noticed you just removed the "redundant information" from Otheruses4 and some similar templates, citing the justification that they had "already been deleted". But back when it was deleted, it was very different to what it is now. Personally I agree with your opinion that "This article is about..." is redundant, but I can see no basis in consensus for your actions. Wide-ranging changes such as these (they are very popular templates, especially Otheruses4) should be discussed before being carried out, and I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation is the best place in this case. If there is consensus, would you please bring it to my attention? Hairy Dude 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure they were deleted for this reason, I'll have to find the discussion though. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005, it is logged in "not deleted" as I think it was redirected or something, but the consensus was that any special case that required further explanation shouldn't be using a template anyway. ed g2s &bull; talk 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the template change. Please see its talk page.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Chris_the_speller (talk • contribs) 00:46, April 16, 2006 UTC

was never deleted. In fact, I voted against that here. There was no consensus. –Unint 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Soccer-europe.com
Hey - Thanks for going ahead and deleting some of the images. I have taken care of the rest from the list on his talk page. I am concerned, however, that the copyright status of all the remaining images in the category is far too vague. Right now the category says that "only images uploaded by User:Soccer-europe.com can be tagged for this category." However, when I started to clear out all the other images (which appears to be about 90% of them) he said that actually some of the images uploaded by other users are OK. Add to that the ambiguity of which images are being referred to in the letter, and I think you will agree something different needs to be done as far as licensing them.

I think that User:Soccer-europe.com should go through the remaining images in the category and replace SocEur with and his signature. This release could not be revoked in the future. Then the category should be empty and it can be deleted to avoid any further confusion. If you have another solution I'd be open to hearing it, but what I think should not continue is his apparent ability to decide on whim which photos are or are not released for free use.

Let me know what you think - SCEhard T 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the remaining images need to be signed (or at least touched) by him for future reference. And getting rid of the template would help too. Although if he claims he didn't intend to release the images, it is his right to have the images removed, which we should respect. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly if he didn't intend to release some of them we should respect that. I'll put instructions on his talk page on how to tag the rest of the images. - SCEhard T 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should remove the text © http://www.soccer-europe.com from beneath the soccer-europe images. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Album infobox
That latest edit has caused some pages to not display properly. As things stand, if the "Cover" field is not typed into the infobox, then no_cover.png appears properly; if the "Cover" field is typed in but left blank, however, no image is displayed (see a random example).

Also, it appears that no_cover.png does not have an image page or file history. What causes this? –Unint 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Football club
i reverted your move, reason: (moved Template:Infobox football club to Template:Infobox Football club: standard is uppercase! Infobox Something not Infobox something) -- kind regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Failing to follow Tfd process for otheruses4 template
It's getting harder and harder for me to assume good faith when you quietly walked away from the discussion about this template on its talk page and surreptitiously filed for a Tfd, with no notice to me, no notice to users of the template, and no notice to the people who watch WP:D (the guidelines for hatnote usage), who are the editors who would be most affected. Perhaps the discussion on the template's talk page was going against you. You have not responded to my comments on Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 18. The most honorable thing you could do now is to withdraw the Tfd nomination. Chris the speller 05:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup hosts
Why did you remove the logo for the hosts of the 2002 World Cup ([found here])? Could you provide your reasoning? Thanks! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

BBC football template
Hi,

I have reverted your changes that you made to this template Template:BBC Football Info. I wasn't quite sure what you were trying to amend but all the parameter names were changed and so all the calls to it from each football club page broke. I noticed you changed the arsenal calling page but the template is also used from lots of other pages as well (press "what links here" for a flavour"). I changed  the arsenal entry back to how it was before.

I think it is a good idea to put a usage box. I will put one one but I will use the existing parameter names.

ChrisUK 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yellow card.svg
Nice. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gaelicfootball.jpg
Why did you flag this image Image:Gaelicfootball.jpg. This image has been released into the pd. (Gnevin 15:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
 * That may be the case, but you have to provided evidence of this. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How am i supposed to do that ? I asked a friend from http://www.gaaboard.com/ezboard/index.html for  images and i got this and others. Is he now suppose to write a public statement? (Gnevin 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Yes, the copyright holder (in this case - the photographer, or the photography agency) must explicity release it into the public domain. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where on his web site or wiki? (Gnevin 15:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Either, but preferrably here, if he has an account. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well its seems to me that the tag pd|release is pointless then . If the creator has to come to wiki himself to release the image it would be better too only allow the image creator too upload their work and remove this tag altogether. And since he doesnt have a wiki account himself wouldnt it be unbeliviable if a account is created just to relase an image ?? I'll will post a message on the gaa board too seem if he will create a wiki account but this whole systems seems flawed to me  (Gnevin 15:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
 * He doesn't have to. It's just preferrable, as a posting on another site can't be trusted to still be there a year from now. It is always going to be impossible to prove these things absolutely, but one must try to provide sufficient evidence, so others can use the image without having to worry. A copy of the correspondence would probably suffice here. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use on user page
I see that you joined the chorus of those who try to intimidate me on Wikipedia_talk:Fair use. I would like to see a little more respect to one of the most prolific wikipedia authors ever. It would be nice if you responded to my concerns raised there. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Errors in semiautomated image replacements
Hello Ed g2s. Please note that I've reverted a few edits where you accidentally replaced Image:Info-pictogram.png with Image:Image:Exquisite-khelpcenter.png. In particular, see oldIDs [ 24925547], [ 24930157] [ 39429433], [ 41716990]. If this is a problem with your patterns, you might want to tweak them to correct the problem. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Conservative userboxes
You're quite right abour my user page (User: Lofty) - A very amusing modification you made! :-). The offending box has been removed. Thanks.

Lofty 12:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if that was supposed to be a parody or what - Whatever it's gone now - I thought you put the word "con" as you thought it was a con as in that you were being "conned" - taken for a ride. Thanks

Lofty 12:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I see - that's quite an unusual habit you have there! Changing images for abbriviatiosn - never seen that one before! Anyway, they weren't realy suitable, so you were right to bring it up! Thanks again.

Lofty 12:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Station templates
Do you mind me asking about what was wrong with the colour scheme and style of the UK stations and London stations templates? Why were they "reverted to a normal style"? Perhaps this should have been discussed on the talk pages first: any change to any template involving UK railways generally causes at best arguing and at worst edit wars, so you may have put various people's backs up here. --RFBailey 12:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of any "standard" infobox style: they seem to come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, colours, etc. There wasn't a discussion as such: there was a debate on Template talk:UK stations (which somehow made it to AfD) about what template we should use on station articles.  I proposed the colour scheme (see here) while that discussion was going on, basically lifting it from |this.  I had hoped that there would be more discussion than there was (before User:Mrsteviec implemented it, and also used it on related templates), but no-one had objected to it.  --RFBailey 14:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with those infobox and they are widely in line with others on Wikipedia. Things need to be consistent but everything doesn't have to look exactly the same for the sake of it. Mrsteviec 15:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which looks nothing like either version of template!! Mrsteviec 15:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When you have finished with what you are doing can you please ensure you leave the PTE, London and UK templates consistent with each other as at the moment they are not. Mrsteviec 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Waterloo & City Line link
Template:Waterloo & City Line link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. DannyM 14:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)