Talk:Red box (government)

[Untitled][edit]

With all these descriptions, is it not possible to find a noncopyrighted photo of a modern red box? The image of Gladstone's box is both unclear (too dark) and not very informative. --Michael K Smith^Talk 23:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red box (government). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/03/20/the-budget-red-boxes-and-booze/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stripey[edit]

The section called it Black with stripe when the referenced doco specifically mentions, and shows it to be blue. youtube vid and timestamp w55A9o9AGiY?t=2293 Have edited accordingly.

118.211.45.229 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bomb-proof"?![edit]

Under the heading "Ministerial box: Design", it states "Also bomb-proof, they are designed to survive any catastrophe that may befall their owner." This claim is referenced by a citation that leads to the home page of PoliticsHome.com, which does nothing to support the claim -- a claim that clearly is untrue. A box with a pine frame and leather covering can hardly be "bomb-proof", or capable of "surviv(ing) any catastrophe that may befall their owner". This claim needs to be properly referenced (if possible) or more likely, removed. Bricology (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

handles[edit]

Is there a mistake here?

the location of the handles on the bottom, opposite the hinges and the handle

79.176.39.69 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote doesn't support the "fact" for which it is used[edit]

Footnote 7 does nothing to explain how having the handle on the hinged edge ensures that the box isn't carried unlocked. Judging by the photos, that claim is false. There's just no mechanical linkage between the handle on the hinged edge and the locks, and nothing about having the locks on the edge opposite the handle, just of itself, will ensure that the lid isn't locked down before the box is lifted by the handle. In fact the lid can be just loosely shut, with nothing (not even latches) securing it at all, and the handle is still perfectly useful for lifting the box. Of course a second handle on the box's upper face (visible in some photos) can't be used for lifting the box if the lid is not securely down, but it could still be used if the lid is merely latched and not locked.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]