User talk:G-Man/Archive 7, Feb-Oct 2007

Banbury
Hello, i was wondering why in the past you have denied Banbury having a new estimate of the population figure on its page even though it was included in a newspaper article and also Coventry and your home town Rugby, Warwickshire have one ? i wish for Banbury to have this right. best wishes :) Noface1 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What estimate is this exactly?. The population estimates on Rugby and Coventry are from official sources, would you like to provide a new official population estimate for Banbury?. Heresay from a local newspaper hardly counts. This has been discussed already. G-Man  * 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

what official sources are these may I ask ? Noface1 12:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple hello
(V-Man nods to G-Man) V-Man737 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

UK Fire Services
I have a complete list of the 1938 brigades and have complied it into a form that shows the changes since then with losses and gains and where that brigade finally ended up after the mergers into the 1974 brigades and in fact beyond.

Question is how to tie it in with the main UKFRS page as obviosly that name can't be used twice

Geotek 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could make a List of historic fire brigades in the United Kingdom article. It might be a good addition to the individual fire service articles. Where is your list BTW?. G-Man  * 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Have put up the formatted listing on my sandbox. if you want to have a look and make your comments. Thinking about a name... how about just "Historic Fire Brigades of the United Kindom" ?

Geotek 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks good, the name sounds ok. Perhaps you should ask for opinions at Talk: Fire service in the United Kingdom. G-Man  * 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanctimonia non grata
It seems there is a brand new and amazingly good cause with which you can donate your money to - The Historic Counties Trust (!).

Although external to the site, it might be one to watch so that it NOT used as a legitimate source for compromising text on Wikipedia. It's interesting that I suggesting renaming this system to the Historic counties of England (from traditional), and this approach has been adopted by several other webspaces. This trust also lifts material from the ABC gazzetter and is probably (covertly) affiliated. Jhamez84 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for the suggestion. However, this map is going to be presented in a thumbnail style - in an infobox - rather like that found on London Borough, or Paris district maps. Any words or keys therfore are going to be unreadable.


 * I'll keep your idea in mind however, as this kind of map will almost certainly be useful for the Greater Manchester article itself. You've also inspired me to create a more detailed map like yours for this very purpose. Jhamez84 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An article regarding the topic has appeared; the Historic Counties Trust. I've nominated it for deletion, and would be grateful if you could air your views. Feel free to let others know as I suspect the page is seldom visited. Jhamez84 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Boston RFD
The discussion for the Boston redirect is still up for discussion and will remain so until it is closed by an admin. It's not up to a participant to decide the resolution of the discussion as an RFD is not a vote. It should be closed in a few days, so nothing to worry about. --Bobblehead 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rugby
The article is in bad shape. You reverted some quality contributions of mine. Why? It may have needed ammending, but not reverting.

The Claims to fame section broadly acts as a trivia section, the lead needed the standardistion. And there are pictures in the lead conflicting with contents causing white space. Jhamez84 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I realise it isn't perfect, but I wish you would have said something on the talk page first. Which standardisation are you refering to? I havn't come across any plan for standardised headings. I don't see how the invention of rugby football and the jet engine is trivia. G-Man  * 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been "standard" (I use the term loosely as it is not a convention), heading guidelines for a long time per the UK geography WikiProject. I admit contributing significantly to the revised version (WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements), but by including them we get the least amount of forking and localisation of settlement articles.


 * I agree rugby and jet engines are not trivia, but the way in which they are presented is like a trivia section; it needs to be looked at should we want to move the article forwards towards say WP:GA.


 * The units in the lead were also reverted. It is convention to spell out the distance in letters then provide a conversion in numbers, with each having a synop code between them.


 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead was required to be three to four paragraphs.


 * - This is a better editting style as it reduces article size.


 * These, in addition to stopping the item conflict in the lead, were actually quite minor, cosmetic copyedits in the scheme of things. I was about to format the references properly too. Jhamez84 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The trouble is it's kind of grown up in the way it has organically over the last four years, I realise it's a bit unnusual. I've thought about it before but to be honest I can't think of a better way of arranging it. I don't agree with your putting the politics section at the top above more general information. I'm not sure that that works. G-Man  * 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no real skin off my nose if it doesn't have these changes. But it is in breach of several style guides and won't develop correctly should this kind of formatting not be adopted. Jhamez84 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands WikiProject improvement drive
I wouldn't do this normally but the improvement drive nominations page has gone quiet all of a sudden. So, could you please add a nomination or support/object the current nomination on there. Thanks and happy editting! - Erebus555 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Merseyside
Hello. Thanks for the contact. Placing the History section first in a county article makes good writing sense to me, personally. However, UK WikiProject guidelines also state it should placed first. Furthermore, every other county of England appears to adopt this - which is good, we're finally getting some kind of national consistency. I don't see how or why the Identity should take preference for the first section, both due to the short content, but also the factors aforementioned.

I should add that articles should never have lead sections longer than four paragraphs - this is policy (WP:LEAD) hence why I made ammendments. Hope that helps a little. Jhamez84 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I overlooked your comment you left yesterday!... Perhaps we could draw up a revised version of the how to write about counties guidelines; Geography makes sence to me, as I pushed for this for the settlement guidelines.


 * Any thoughts? Jhamez84 12:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Still keen on standardising county articles? Just thought I'd best bring your attention to this proposed deletion. Jhamez84 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

census date
I think that linking "2001" to the "2001 census", does not make it clear what this link is directed too. "2001" look like a link to the "2001 census". Snowman 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're refering to my shortening of '2001 Census' to '2001' I did that to make the boxes less cluttered, as they often overun into the next line. G-Man  * 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Map
I didn't want to use that map per the reasons I outlined on the template talk page. Semiotically, it doesn't work; the enlarged red is way too overbearing. Also, it is difficult to reproduce in that style for each and every county. The current version more than serves its purpose (the location of Greater Manchester is easily identifiable).

On the template talk page, now including yourself, there was an extra request to use the unused version, however privately I've had several messages stating the current one is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wigan Population
The total population figure of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan stands at 301,429 (in 2001). If you look at the 'official' census results which the council have provided, and I have shown on the article, you will note that the sum total is the 'official' population figure of 301,429. 80.193.161.89 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
 * To get the true figures for the population of Wigan I consulted the Wigan Metropolitan Councils Planning office. THEY provided the 2001 census results which I HAVE PROVIDED. They informed me that NO census has ever been taken for the town of Wigan 'alone' and that the ONS census only gives a population figure for 'their' Wigan Urban Area, which includes many towns including the large West Lancashire town, Skelmersdale. The only census nearest to the town of Wigan was done, in 2001, by Wigan MBC and the area covered, which includes Wigan, they called Wigan North. Wigan North (census area, not council ward) included Ince, Wigan and Aspull. The result for Wigan North was 35932. Ince was included in this figure and Ince is more densely populated than Wigan (larger area, no shops/office accom.) so a conservatively 'estimated' population figure for Wigan is approximately half of the total figure.


 * Sorry you've rather lost me. What relevance does the population of the Met borough have? You say They informed me that NO census has ever been taken for the town of Wigan 'alone'  This is simply not true. If you look at the ONS urban area figures it breaks the urban area down into constituent parts. Including 'Wigan' which has a population of c 81,000. Whether the ONS definitions are right or not is not our problem. It is not for us to invent our own definitions as that would consitiute original research. Secondly your link provides no context or explanation whatsoever it is practically meaningless. G-Man  * 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are talking WIGAN population here, not the population of the area within a five miles radius of it. 80.193.161.89 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
 * What relevance does the population of the large town of Skelmersdale, in West Lancashire, have, when the ARTICLE is about WIGAN. I've got the OFFICIAL census results for WIGAN (the title of the article) and displayed them. Have you ever been to Wigan? It's a small town and, as pointed out by an American editor, if the population of WIGAN (alone) was 81000, it would be more densely populated than Hong Kong (one of the most densely populated places in the world). The link I have provided gives the names of the areas counted and the figure for that area. It is an 'officially accepted document', what don't you understand about it? Wigan is contained in the Wigan North area. But, lets say Wigan is MASSIVE, and it is the whole of the two areas, Wigan North and Wigan South, (for record, Ince/Aspull/WIGAN/Pemberton), even then the total figure would only be 73,184!


 * Please don't insult me. You have completely failed to answer any of my points. Now lets go over this again.


 * 1) The ONS figures are based upon urban areas only ignoring any administrative boundaries, hence the inclusion of Skelmersdale.
 * 2) The urban area figures (which you obviously havn't seen) are broken down into constituent parts of which Wigan is one. (I have recently added this to the Wigan Urban Area article, if you would like to look) And according to these definitions Wigan has a population of 81,000.
 * 3) The link you provided gives absolutely no context or explanation as to what it is measuring. It is a meaningless set of numbers.

G-Man * 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be patronising. YOU are the one who cannot understand what's shown. The link YOU provided gives a figure for a much LARGER area than what the ARTICLE is covering. The ARTICLE is titled WIGAN, and the WIGAN population is not the population of Winstanley, Pemberton AND Wigan. Do you get it now? The council have carried out a census using far more accurate areas. They have named the settlements included in their Wigan areas, the ONS have not. 80.193.161.89 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS ... YOU have completely failed to read and absorb the information given to you above. Please read it all again.


 * Lets try this again shall we.


 * 1) The Wigan Urban Area is broken down into constituent parts. Of which Wigan is one. Please try to understand the difference between WIGAN and the WIGAN URBAN AREA. Nobody is saying that the WIGAN URBAN AREA is WIGAN.
 * 2) Secondly it is not for you to invent your own definitions of what constitutes Wigan please read about original research.

G-Man * 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Wigan
I'm sure you already know about it, but please remember WP:3RR with respect to this article. Something is wrong with the article, either in the population or the area, and I ask that you, 80.193.161.89, and Man2 discuss this at Talk:Wigan rather than edit warring. Thank you. Michaelbusch 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wigan
Hi, I apologise for the use of your talk page, but could I direct you to the Wigan discussion page, regarding an important point about the old 'Wigan Borough'. Thank you Man2 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham Snow Hill
Regarding your "correction" to Birmingham Snow Hill station, please note that the majority of Central Trains' services on the line to Leamington Spa terminate at Dorridge nowadays, with only occasional early morning/late evening trains to/from Leamington. This was the reason behind my change to that section. Sorry! --RFBailey 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes
The authors of WikiMedia software very thoughtfully provided the facility for users to specify their preferred size for "thumb" images on articles. An image of 280px looks stupidly tiny on my high-res monitor, and may be overwhelming on somebody else's small or low-res screen. Please stop trying to fix the size of images so that they look good on your screen, to the detriment of how they appear on othwr people's, as you have been doing on Andy Mabbett 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all images are surposed to be the same size. It's called layout editing. G-Man  * 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's up to the user, not you. It's called choice. Andy Mabbett 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No its called editing. G-Man  * 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally, it is better to not specify an image size. As Andy Mabbett said, the MediaWiki software lets users define the default thumbnail size (its in your Preferences). It it best to layout a page so it is viewable for somebody on an 800x600 monitor. But if you set an image to 300px, it could be too big for somebody on that monitor. Then again, it might also be too small for somebody with a 1900x1200 monitor. Again, its best to leave a thumbnail at the default size and let the readers' preferences determine the best size.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Andy and Nmajdan. Since you have no idea how many pixels the user is devoting to the content, or the DPI of the user's monitor, you have no meaningful way of choosing a size for the image. In general, images such as Image:Rugby_town_centre.jpg should not be given a fixed size in the article source. CMummert · talk 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That suggests that we can't alter the size of images on wiki articles, which is a basic function of layout editing, and is patently absurd. I have looked at the said article at several different resolutions. And it looks reasonable in all the ones I've seen. So, no. G-Man  * 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The 350px sizing starts to cause wrapping in the TOC before the default sizing would, on browsers of limited width. I agree with Andy and Nmajdan. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * I have looked at the said article at several different resolutions - have you used different devices to view the page? Someone with a cell phone will have a very different experience to someone with a monitor.  Manual_of_Style gives some good reasons why thumb sizes should not be specified.  Dan Beale  21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That said I find the 'lets not size images' argument to be rather unsatisfactory for the following reasons:


 * 1) All images are not the same shape. It works fine when all images are square. Having all images the same size makes long thin horizontal images look tiny (AKA the rugby town centre image) and long thin vertical images look enormous. It is silly to have all images at the same width regardless of their shape. In other words it is flawed.
 * 2) You say that we should adjust our settings if we don't like it. Well appart from the above objections. Anonymous users (i.e the vast majority of wikipedia readers) do not have this facillity, so the let people choose argument doesn't really apply.

G-Man * 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Clock Towers
Are you sure this is really notable? Every time one of these shopping centre articles comes to AfD it gets deleted. Much as I'm a proud Rugbeian, I reckon this article doesn't help the town at all as when anyone clicks on it they just get an article with "it's a shopping centre like thousands of others ... with a clock" :). I can't really see how it can be improved, either.  Eliminator JR  Talk  17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can put it up at the Afd if you like but there are loads of other articles about shopping centres (se the Ropewalk Shopping Centre in Nuneaton for example) So if this gets deleted it would effect loads of others. G-Man  * 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Link error
Just a quick note to let you know that the link on your main page to Curzon Street Station is wrong, (I think you've put an 's' on station). Would have changed it for you but some people take it offensively. Hope I don't sound picky. --Fuelboy 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Network WestMids logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Network WestMids logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

GCR
Do you have a source for the existence of Braunston and Willoughby station? It's not at http://www.joyce.whitchurch.btinternet.co.uk/maps/LMR1961c.jpg so it was closed by 1961?


 * It's certainly listed in the books I have about the GCR. It closed in 1957 apparently. G-Man  * 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall settlement infobox
Hello G-Man, would you be kind enough to pass comment at this TfD entry? Hope all is well, Jza84 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Jhamez84)


 * Hello again (sorry!),


 * I'm hoping to start some initial work on a new standardised Template:Infobox UK district, as currently we have a great many UK district/borough articles using the "pink" tables as fake infoboxes. I know you have quite exensive knowledge and interest in this topic so would be more than happy to facilitate some of your ideas etc...? Let me know what you think please!


 * On a sadder note, I think User:MRSC has left Wikipedia. I found him one of the most diplomatic and knowledgable contributors I've witnessed here; his user page has been deleted and he's not contributing anymore. I know he was studying, and perhaps his academic qualification has ended now. Hope all is well with yourself, Jza84 00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will leave a message of encouragement. I think he's been a truly seminal contributor. I hope he can return soon.


 * On the potential Template:Infobox England district or Template:Infobox UK district (probably England, at least to begin with), I'm not especially technically minded in terms of templates, like yourself it seems, but I know from your efforts at the UK place infobox talk page, you'll be a great body in the discussions on content and layout etc. User:DDStretch has also expressed interest. I'm hoping User:Keith D can create a prototype to at least begin discussions about. Jza84 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Draycote
It is my opinion that you should be disabled from editing the Draycote page. I read earlier today some very interesting and factual information regarding the TDDM, I have now come back to the page to find that you have edited it, removing part of the article. By chance do you spend all day on Wikipedia ? Some might argue that you need to get a life. By the way, I live in Draycote and have done for 18 years. If you feel like you would to respond to my critisim feel free.

Regards 'A-man'

Draycote Village
My name is Dr Burgenthorpe and am an inhabitant of said village. I have lived there all my life (as not to embarass yourself i shall not be printing my age) and i been brought to the attention of an insulting deletion of a passage of Draycote history. In the opinion of the parish of Draycote we all have come to the conclusion that you, sir, are violating our rights to publish the historical and highly memorable era. Now, you shall leave this detail on the page, if you consider yourself a respectable gentleman. The matter is closed.Good day sir.

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rugby again
Hello G-Man,

I had a feeling you'd revert that change. As much as I respect your opinions and input accross a great many articles and topics, I don't think your opinion here is valid; there is no such guideline on "organic" article formatting, and I think looking at the article edit history, you're edits are pretty much in breach of WP:OWN.

I think the "organic" article is terrible and in major breach of MOS and various other guidelines ("Famous people" "Claims to Fame" are way too POV and poorly formatted).

There are two issues:
 * On what grounds should we treat Rugby as a special case?
 * On what specific grounds do you object to the application of WP:UKCITIES other than personal preference?

We could put this to a straw poll. Jza84 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I must respectfully disagree. The point I was making was that many articles have grown up in a certain way over time, and it is often very difficult to fundementally change their structure without almost totally re-writing them. Trying to retrospectively fit information into standardised subsections which often dont often fit properly. Is IMO a recipe for a very bad article.


 * 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.


 * I personally think that the present guidelines are far too prescriptive and rigid, to encompass vast variety of all the towns and cities in Britain. I'm especially dubious about putting the politics section near the top. To my mind this is a more specialist topic that probably should sit nearer the bottom.


 * From what I've seen, most articles about towns don't fit into the WP:UKCITIES looking at List of towns in England. It seems to me that you're trying to fit everything into the image of your own article Shaw and Crompton.


 * Now I am not trying to own the article, I have only reverted things because I genuinely don't believe that they are an improvement. Among my specific objections to the changes you made are:


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 'Nearby places' a specific title moved into the rather vague and badly fitting 'Geography' which is too wide and vague to be meaningful.
 * 3) I'm not sure why politics belongs near the top of the page.

G-Man ? 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that answered my questions. The WP:UKCITIES were suggested by a number of editors, and draw upon the Wiki-wide WP:CITIES guidelines on settlements. Also, the edit by it's nature isn't retrospective. But let's not get into this here; I'm keen on improving the article - let's take this to the Rugby talk page and see if theres a way forwards. Jza84 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This article does now seem to be&mdash;admittedly very slowly&mdash;edging towards convergence with WP:UKCITIES. I can see no plausible reason why that convergence ought not to end up with compliance. So why the resistance? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Election
Why did you remove Infobox Election from the pages of UK elections? In your edit summaries you said that it was an "extraordinarily large", "badly fitting" and "duplicating infobox". To answer these points I've looked at this edit of Election 2001. On your first point, "extraordinarily large", it is the length of the opening and about twice the width of Infobox British Political Party, which isn't bad considering it shows three parties, leaders and results. To my eyes at least, the Infobox doesn't dominate the page and certainly isn't 'extraordinarily' large. On your second point, "badly fitting", I'm not sure what this means but I'll guess it refers to the white spaces which I accept is more than most infoboxes, but there isn't excessive amounts. Compare the white spaces to a similar infobox that appears on Australian federal election, 2007. On your last point "duplicating infobox", the information in a infobox is not there to give unique information that can not be found anywhere else on the page, it is there to collect together the raw facts that can be found on the page and instantly tell the reader of them. Look at the infoboxes on George W. Bush or Tony Blair, every piece of information in these boxes can be found somewhere else on the page.

I think it would be a good idea to return the infobox to a past election (United Kingdom general election, 2005) and leave the infobox on a future election (Next United Kingdom general election) as a test of the opinion of other editors. If another user removes the template or raises a concern on the talk page then I think a redesign would be necessary. If however, the template is kept on the page and no major problems raised, then I think the infoboxes should be returned to the other election pages. --Philip Stevens 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it takes up more than half the page, squeezing the text to one side. It overlapped the existing results table on several articles. And duplicates much of what is already there. G-Man  ? 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Bennett and CountyWatch
Hello G-Man,

Just thought I'd best bring your attention to User:Tony Bennett (who is of course Tony Bennett of CountyWatch fame). I'm keeping a close eye on his edits as he's made alot of bad input, and some discouraging propositions on talk pages.

I've outlined to him that it is unacceptable to politicise articles towards his (or his group's) point of view (per Conflict of interest), but something tells me he intends to go ahead regardless, and so community support may be needed in the near future.

On another topic, I'm currently in the middle of drawing a Warwickshire county map (post 74 of course!), which hopefully, you will be pleased about. Jza84 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for redireicting rugby to Rugby football
A link at the top of Rugby Football to the Rugby disambiguation page redirects anyone who wants other usages so there is no problem there. Rgds Rexparry sydney 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Views expressed on talk pages of rugby articles suggest that this is best
 * 2) The fact is that rugby football (a joint article on league and union) is the most prevalent meaning of the word 'rugby' worldwide, far outweighing other uses combined
 * 3) This set-up is used by many other articles where one usage dominates the rest
 * 4) links in other Wikipedia articles written as Rugby refer to the sport not the town or other uses.


 * Actually a similar proposal was made some time ago and rejected (see Talk:Rugby_football). So I don't think so. G-Man  ? 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Pictures
Hello G-Man, I have a few qs 4 u:
 * 1) Could I possibly use some of your pictures within my website ? They would be accredited to you, and if you wanted, I could make you an admin, and you could upload them yourself.
 * 2) I am notifiing you that one of your pictures is the selected picture of the UK Trams Portal
 * 3) Would it be possible for me to rename/ move your pictures of two old trams, to their correct name/number? Cheers,   Bluegoblin  7   14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah do what you like. G-Man  ? 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham 2
Is there anything you can say about this?Geni 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Commons
It seems to me that it would be much better if you would upload your photos to the Wiki Commons which is especially for media, such as images. All the images are then immediately linkable to the different wiki language projects. You can log on to Wiki Commons like this wiki and choose a password and a username. I have put an template box at the bottom of the of "Gallary of Warwickshire images" so you can link directly on to wiki commons Category:Warwickshire. Take note of he Category structure. Usually, you just add the Category to the image and it will appear in the category page, but quite often you have to start new Categories. It will be obvious to you that there is no need for gallery pages on this wiki as the Wiki Commons can be easily linkable. Snowman 11:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone else told me off about this. I have put a lot of pictures on the commons (My Contributions) I reloaded the Warwickshire thingy because someone had deleted it without copying the contents to the commons. Also I generally upload things to wikipedia rather than the commons because either A) The links on the image description usually become broken when they're loaded onto the commons, if someone can fix that I'll be glad to download there. Or B) I'm not completely sure about the copyright issues etc, especially surrounding the US Gov images I've downloaded recently, e.g. whether they are in the public domain outside the US. I'll leave someone else who knows what they're doing to sort that one out. G-Man  ? 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A. Write image descriptions without any links. Why do image descriptions need links?
 * B. Only applies to US Gov images and not to Warwickshire images. Snowman 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)