Talk:Moel Famau
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Index links
Could this self styled "ministryofinformation", which seems to have none of the official status that its name implies, please show some credentials?
The index links have been up for some time now. They were not intended to and have not produced any additional business whatsoever. The guys at Wikipedia are aware of them and if they consider that they should be removed, they will be removed. Anyone else who takes that view should make a formal complaint. Shady, self styled "ministries of information" are, to say the least, undesirable.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewfinder (talk • contribs) 16:31, November 17, 2005
--
No especial credentials, and none claimed. The name's just a name, and irrelevant here. Remember, anyone can edit wiki pages.
I am the second person to regard the index link as advertising. The other removed the Moel Famau link too, but I thought it relevant, so let that stand. What relevance does the overall index have to this specific entry? Can we have proof that the link is authorised by Wikipedia senior editors, please? --Ministry 17:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The credentials are implicitly claimed in your name and so with all due respect I do not consider it to be irrelevant. The overall index page (i) contains general information about the panoramas, (ii) has not increased sales by a penny, and (iii) contains further general information about the panoramas that is useful and relevant to anyone viewing any one of them.
If every link had to be authorised by senior editors, they would be authorising links 24 hours a day, but in this case, I agree that a ruling from senior editors would be in order. So would a ruling re the use of dishonest names like "ministry of information". Who are you?
As I see it, what is useful and relevant should stay. If every link with the potential to give someone a commercial benefit had to be removed, then very many links that are useful and relevant would have to go. Viewfinder 18:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (operating in the open and above board, unlike some people...).
A further point: there are similar links on the pages of other summits, so it is very unlikely that the senior editors of Wikipedia are unaware of them. If they wish to discuss this matter with me they are welcome to do so at any time. Viewfinder 19:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
