Template talk:2005 London bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject British crime (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is part of WikiProject British crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on crime in Great Britain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject London (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

please correct list under similar attacks. 1993 WTC along with attack in Spain should be added.

Too Many Links[edit]

Why are there links to pages that don't exist? You can't just expect that people will create them. joturner 04:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    • A few people have asked about that and someone VfD'd it on that point; but the answer is simple: it's based on the 9/11 template. CanadianCaesar 01:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As it looks like there are too many "keep" votes, I'm assuming the VfD has failed. On that basis I'm going to edit the template to reflect extant articles. The template just looks bad with so many red links, and it invites creating poorly attended stubs that aren't integrated with the main article. In general I think it makes mroe sense to wait until we're sure that specific sub-articles are needed before putting them in the template. I propose suggestions be discussed here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Future editors: I put the original in Template:Jul7Bom/Temp. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Template expansion[edit]

My thinking on future splits for the article runs to these: a "before" events article; an "after" events article; possibly a split-off of the investigation article; an "effects" article; and eventually, I suppose, a "rumors & misinfo" article. At this time I think that will cover what people are interested (by what I see being added to the main article). --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


The table version is:

  • Easier to read and understand regarding bombing location details
  • Avoids the ugly hierarchical bullets
  • Smaller
  • Generally better looking

violet/riga (t) 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I mildly disagree:
The table version is:
  • Easier to read, harder to understand
  • Better looking
  • Avoids the highly understandable hierarchical bullets
Either way, children, stop reverting each other.
James F. (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
As the table cells have no borders (which is a good thing) it is not apparent that the four locations have been split into four cells arranged in a grid, so the top line reads "Liverpool Street Kings Cross / to Aldgate to Russell Square". The list version can be compacted by using a smaller font size on the line. Also these are lists of things, not tables. This is exactly what <ul>s are for. ed g2stalk 12:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Violet/riga that the table layout is better, primarily for its compactness and organisation of information, meaning you can read it at a glance and it doesn't overwhelm the articles. To me it is clear that the layout is in a grid, partly because the contents doesn't make sense otherwise, and it doesn't imply that there is a heirachy of article importance. The grouping of the links in the areas of the table also express the grouping of the articles. Thryduulf 13:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, "organisation of information"? Surely you jest? The table is much prettier, but it has no organisational flow. It's very hard to see what it's talking about without being aware of the events anyway, and not immediately apparent even when you are. The list is logical, if ugly, but our primary purpose is to convey information. We're not Lawrence Llewellyn-Bowens here, people. :-)
James F. (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
If information is not presented well it is not is useful as it can be. The table layout presents everything in a much more organised fashion without giving rise to hierarchy or simple lists. We have the ability to make the template look good so we shouldn't restrict it to plain bullets. It also stands out from the article much better, without looking out of place. violet/riga (t) 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


John, if someone objects to an edit, the usual thing is to take it to talk, not to keep on reverting to the new version. The image is clearly relevant and powerful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Powerfull? It's embarrassing, imagine if there was one for the 9/11 attacks with a picture of some guy with a rag on his mouth. (w/ poor quality and lighting) It summing up every 9/11 article... John Cengiz talk 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lighting was poor because the person taking the image foolishly didn't think to take a professional camera and lighting with him in advance. But there you are, it's all we have. If you want to remove it, please seek consensus for that, but don't keep edit warring over an objection. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Time magazine used it as one of their images of the year in 2005, by the way, which further suggests that very few would agree with your assessment of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In 2005 the image brought some sight of the aftermath of the terror to the public, it really isn't a harrowing image though - has nothing on that 7/7 photo with the guy holding the cloth over the burning women's face. It is really only suited to the main bombings article in an appropriate section with the caption, "stuck 7/7 victims in broken down carraige." John Cengiz talk 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
John, please stop removing this. Someone proposed it for deletion because you'd orphaned it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It's somewhat rude of you to keep on reverting, John, and without discussion. BRD doesn't mean you keep reverting over objections. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the image to the "7 July 2005 London bombings" article, where it has some purpose and context. John Cengiz talk 15:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)