Talk:McCoy (pottery)

message: * 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed two links for the following reasons:
# 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
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of 2 links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed links

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two Qs: lead-free & hull