Madhatter1uk
.jpg)
External links Rossendale edit
Why have they all been removed?
- They were links to a forum, which are listed as links to normally avoid at Wikipedia:External links. --Cherry blossom tree 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Links to NORMALLY avoid. not always but normally.
forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself,
The article is about Rawtenstall, the website is about Rawtenstall life. If It was an harry potter forum, then I'd agree, but A town forum link is a under those guidelines allowed and I know of many town pages that have them, Including blackburn which has had a link for many months.
- But only one person has ever posted on that forum, so it's not really doing much good and certainly doesn't qualify as particularly high standard. --Cherry blossom tree 05:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.
thats two seperate exceptions, it does not say that it has to be closely related AND of high standard. If the article is closely related to the site, which in this case it is, then it's an exception to the rule. High quality would be if a site is only related slightly such as a forum for the ski slope, rather rather than Rawtenstall in general.
Not that members or quality comes in to it but Amount of members does not matter , anyone can see that forum, and therefore if someone want to post a question on it, everyone visiting it via wikipedia can join to answer it. It's a good quality well laid out forum structured in to categories and boards that tell the user what the topics are for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhatter1uk (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 August 2006
- According to your interpretation of that policy we would be obligated to link to any website on the topic, regardless of the quality of it. This is obviously a ridiculous situation to get into. We provide a small number of external links when they provide information beyond what is available in the article. We do not under any circumstances link to barely used forums. I should point out that WP:EL actually says that forums should not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself - ie if the article is about a particular forum, which this article patently isn't. --Cherry blossom tree 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You'll be removing the link that has appeared for rossendale forum during a major edit then CBT ? No doubt on the rossendale ramsbottom and bacup pages too. edit- just checked...whitworth, bacup, hasslingdon, rossendale valley, rawtenstall and rossendale I haven't re added the link I added because I do see your point, I have also looked into the discussion on the forum links subject after adding the above and will discuss it further there. I believe a forum can provide information beyond what is available in the article. However I have suggested to the owner that they get a site with information and images to link the forum to. Would that be more agreable?. Sorry I didn't know how to sign I'm just learning. Madhatter1uk 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I presume you're referring to rossendaleonline.co.uk/? While this does include a forum it also includes information beyond that - news, a directory and so on. I have no problem with links that supply further information beyond what is in the article but links that are just to a forum shouldn't be included. --Cherry blossom tree 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
what do you mean 'includes a forum' it is 'just' a forum and as such under your rules it should be removed so why hasn't it been? There is no difference between that forum and the one that I added other than the owner adds news from a feeder, it is still a forum, it has no site pages other than news threads. either thats a forum and should be removed or it's not and I'm adding the links that I added back on. Madhatter1uk 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, the fact that you think good practice is being violated in one instance never gives you the right to do so in another. Secondly, it is demonstrably false that that site is just a forum - there are also news stories, a business directory and a calendar of events. Having said that, there isn't much content and if I were writing the article from scratch I would not include it but it is enough of an edge case for me to remove it either. If you feel so strongly that it shouldn't be in the article, then remove it - it is enough of an edge case for me not to revert such an edit. --Cherry blossom tree 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is demonstarbly false that that site is just a forum, then it is demonstrably false that http://rossendaleforum.proboards101.com is just a forum, because it too contains news stories, a business directory, free unlike the other forum, which charges and is therefore a business, and a calendar.It also has images games and quizes. Madhatter1uk 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Forum links edit
Links to formums are to be avoided. This is not the first comment about this here. 62.173.88.59 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
If a link is usefull and the site is more than a discussion forum, which this is then it shouldn't be removed. see Wikipedia:External links What should be linked to 4 Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. The gallery is relevant. The fact that a site contains a discussion forum does not mean that it should automaticaly be removed. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN COMMENTED ABOUT HERE SEE CHERRY BLOSSOMS LAST COMMENT.Madhatter1uk 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)