Talk:McCoy (pottery)

Untitled

Request for Comment: External Links in McCoy (pottery) (CLOSED)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not edit it. You may provide additional comments in the main talk page body.
This is a dispute about what external links may be included in the external links section. 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Statements by editors previously involved in dispute There is no policy which explicitly states that links to external websites which include some commercial content (items for sale, or advertisements) are prohibited. Links to external websites which provide a unique collection of information pertinent to the subject of the article, including copyrighted material (such as photographs, drawings, and diagrams), and media unsuitable to inclusion in wikipedia (such as video clips) are of interest to the reader of the article, and may be considered necessary to provide the depth of encyclopedic content that the reader desires on the subject. Where a link is provided to a specific page of a website, it does not implicity endorse the entire website and/or all pages that can be viewed by clicking on hypertext links on the page. On many personal websites, people provide a gallery of personal copyrighted photographs, some of which are absolutely irreplaceable, but the same webpage may have a link to another page all about their cat. The link to the cat page in no way diminishes the value of the linked content. Specific to this article, when I wrote the article, I used a wealth of information on the TJBailey web page. Where the information was also available on other websites, I used the context and re-wrote the information in a manner which did not violate the copyright of the text. Some text was not includable, however. The person who wrote the website personally knew the founder of the McCoy Pottery, and has many photographs on the site that can not be found elsewhere, as well as information about the personal side of the McCoy business that I can not find anywhere else. The fact that on this site it is possible to browse away from the linked page to a page that offers some items for sale is not a violation of spam policy. The browse link clearly identifies the destination as having items for sale; if someone clicks on it, that means they choose to go there. Also the page is a simple listing of a very small number of items, with great descriptions of them, and photographs. It is by no means a stricly commercial website, as I do not see evidence of many of these items being sold. It is just a hobby of the person who owns the website. Jerry 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The external link under discussion is http://www.tjbailey.com/chiquita/index.html I consider very strongly that inclusion would be in violation of the policy of "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." Its commercial aspects far outweigh useful information with: Less information on McCoy Pottery than on collector herself, her career and even her cat. Over 100 items for sale. A whole page of "wants" Surely Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not something more akin to the classified section of a newspaper? A link on the opening page to eBay auctions, which have included neck ties, gloves and books. Wikipedia is not here to promote someone's yard sale! In addition to being counter to Wikipedia's stated policies it would set a precedent for other personal pages, dealers and commercial activities. Another contributor has already agreed on my discussion page that this page should not be listed. ThankxTheriac 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Comments by others

Spam lınks

I remove spam lınks. Why use Wıkıpedıa to sell theır own sıtes and hobbys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.135.119 (talk • contribs)

Please read the above RFC and the referenced lengthy user talk page discussions on the subject. Conscensus has already been arrived at that these links contribute to the article and should not be removed. Jerry 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jerry. Please excuse me ın late reply to you. My englısh to not good so I took many tıme to understand you. I now understand <<concensus>> thıs agree of many people. Yes? I read the dıscussıon but see two peoples. How two peoples who say other people ıs wrong be <<concensus>>. I thınk the websıtes can not be here. There are sellıng and not gıve ınformatıon. Wıkıpedıa ıs ınformatıon and not sellıng! Thank you. Hurrıyet

Obviosly you have not reviewed the RFC and talk pages as I have asked. Policy does allow and encourage these links, and if you do the homework I asked you to, this will become obvious to you. I do not wish to retype it all here. Read-up and then get back to me if you still object. Jerry 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jerry. I believe you are being unkind to Hurriyet. It is clear that English is not her primary language (not mine also but maybe a good second!). To give her a reply with an obscure expression such as RFC is not helping. Please also allow me to say you sound arrogant to her. I also agree with her that no concensus was made and the external web sites are not correct for Wikipedia. To claim a policy encourages these is naughty. Mit freundlichen grüßen, Jonas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.56.94 (talk • contribs)

RFC is not a strange term, it is linked right above where I said it, you would have me avoid all abbreviations on the chance that someone might not know English? This user is editing the English wikipedia, English competency is required for that! Jerry 04:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say the external links do not look to be suitable. Kev.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.30.192 (talk • contribs) (18AUG2007)

Fully agree guys and so have deleted. The links were blatant link spam. The colletics.com was particularly bad cos it was just selling the stuff and many other unrelated items. If it gets reverted I suggest an administrator be contacted who could protect the page from this type of abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.226 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to concensus. Of your 4 total edits with this account, (1 of which was the above unsigned comment) all 3 were external link removals, and all 3 were subsequently reverted. That's 3 different people who directly disagree with you.... concensus concensus concensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 2 links

I have removed two links for the following reasons:

1. www.collectics.com/education_mccoy.html - This page contains only a brief description of the history of McCoy -- much less than is already incorporated into the article. It also contains and extreme amount of advertising. Both of these fall under "links to be avoided" in the external link guidelines WP:EL
2. www.mccoypotterycollectorssociety.org/fakes.htm - This is a redundant link to a website that is already linked at a more general url (www.mccoypotterycollectorssociety.org). The more general link should be maintained. Websites should be linked only one time in the external link section.

As for the previous discussion, I see no clear consensus for what links should be kept or removed. Keep in mind, websites that are used as sources of information for the content of an article should be link as references (see WP:CITE) not as external links. Nposs (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing more of the edit history, it appears that the first link I removed might have been considered a source for the information in the article. If it was a source for the content, it should be linked as a reference, not in the external link section. However, I would suggest that the website does not constitute a reliable source (see WP:RS) and should not be linked as a reference. If a reference is needed for the information, it appears that the mccoypotterycollectorssociety.org has more extensive information and a distinct lack of excessive advertising and should be preferred. Nposs (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed links

I have just removed some external links. They have been agreed to be unsuitably commercial for many and only wanted by one. Therefore this is what Wikipedia is based on: consensus. I can only imagine that placing them here is either promoting the websites themselves or the market for McCoy pieces. If the later then it's akin to emails pumping junk shares.Mannistar (talk)

Manistar, you can imagine alot of other things, do not limit yourself, so. You can imagine the links are a big yellow dragon trying to eat the center of the earth if you want. Imagination is an amazing thing, if you really use it. Along those lines, you can imagine that I am the original creator of this article, and that I actually used those websites as the primary sources for the information in the article, and that the objectors are all IP/anons who have only edited here on this talk page, or sockpuppet accounts of a banned user. Nobody has provided a valid argument to remove them. The relevant policy is WP:EL, and it does not prohibit these links in any way. I am tired of going over and over these same discussions. If you are ANDYANDYANDY or THERIAC, then please just stop now, as you undoubtedly know you will lose again. If you are just a good faith editor who did not know the background on this issue, then please read-up, then start a new discussion irrespective to the comments made by these single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And you have made a whopping total of 6 edits to Wikipedia, the very first of which was to revert my edit on this article, and the second was the above comment, the third and fourth were creating a user page, then two that were article edits, one a contention of American English versus British English (see Theriac's talkpage), and the other a valid vandalism "correction". Well, your edits are certainly consistent with the sockpuppets described above. Perhaps a coincidence... but for your very first edit under this new account to be a revert of an admin with 12000+ edits, seems a little out of the ordinary, don't you think? JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO THIS ARTICLE. I WILL NEVER EDIT IT AGAIN. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Qs: lead-free & hull

First, does anyone have any verifiable information on whether McCoy brown drip ware is lead-free? Also, the article might include how to distinguish McCoy drip ware from Hull - its doppleganger. 108.176.11.163 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) R.E.D.