Talk:Rugby, Warwickshire: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:48, 23 March 2007

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 [[User:V1459|V1459]] 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
+==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. [[User:Madhatter1uk|Madhatter1uk]] 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)