Talk:Cotswold sheep

message: I am starting this discussion here by the advice of an admin and by policy of WP:3O.
The user:Saga City believes that the current See also section is nonsense and should be removed.  However, as the editor who added it, I feel that it should stay.  Originally, there were four links.  Two were already mentioned in the article and removed by Wizardman.  That made sense and was explained.  However, the other two links are related to the sheep industry and are there for further reading. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the See also section again today, before reading this talk page (I didn't realise it was contentious). The two links in it are not specific to Cotswolds, and belong in a general article on sheep, not splashed across all breed articles. A reader looking at a breed article is unlikely to have found it without some general knowledge of sheep. --Scott Davis Talk 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the two See Also links are used with Cotswold sheep they don't belong?  But, if you go with your line of reasoning, most See Also links should be removed throughout Wikipedia.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The see also links should be directly related to the topic, and be likely that readers will want to follow them. Many things are "used with Cotswold sheep", but don't belong. We could fill every sheep breed article with loosely related links such as sheep dip, paddock, fence, hoof, wide comb, truck, farm, mulesing, fly strike and so on. I'd accept a sheep navbox template, but a few odd links in a see also section don't cut it. If these two topics are particularly relevant to cotswolds, they can be linked in the prose quite easily. List of sheep breeds would be something that is harder to link in prose, and might fit in "See also". I'm not sure about most, but yes, many see also lists are excessive. --Scott Davis Talk 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sheep nav box is a good idea.  It would provide a solid foundation for loosely related links (as you say) for sheep articles.  It would also allow the See Also section to be more narrow in scope as is intended by other editors.  How do you go about setting up a sheep nav box? --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The See also debate 

message: I think it makes sense to have sheep related interlinks within a sheep breed article.  To know how to protect your flock with guardian animals as well as how to shear the sheep is good, general knowledge.  I'm not sure why this isn't common sense.  But, it appears to have provoked an emotional response from user:Saga City on my talk page after I warned the user about deleting chunks of text without explanation or citation.  See my posts Delete warning and the user's replies Saga City reply  All constructive comments are welcome.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the See also section again today, before reading this talk page (I didn't realise it was contentious). The two links in it are not specific to Cotswolds, and belong in a general article on sheep, not splashed across all breed articles. A reader looking at a breed article is unlikely to have found it without some general knowledge of sheep. --Scott Davis Talk 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the two See Also links are used with Cotswold sheep they don't belong?  But, if you go with your line of reasoning, most See Also links should be removed throughout Wikipedia.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The see also links should be directly related to the topic, and be likely that readers will want to follow them. Many things are "used with Cotswold sheep", but don't belong. We could fill every sheep breed article with loosely related links such as sheep dip, paddock, fence, hoof, wide comb, truck, farm, mulesing, fly strike and so on. I'd accept a sheep navbox template, but a few odd links in a see also section don't cut it. If these two topics are particularly relevant to cotswolds, they can be linked in the prose quite easily. List of sheep breeds would be something that is harder to link in prose, and might fit in "See also". I'm not sure about most, but yes, many see also lists are excessive. --Scott Davis Talk 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A sheep nav box is a good idea.  It would provide a solid foundation for loosely related links (as you say) for sheep articles.  It would also allow the See Also section to be more narrow in scope as is intended by other editors.  How do you go about setting up a sheep nav box? --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cotswold sheep. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124180132/http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/sheep/cotswold to http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/sheep/cotswold
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified