Jump to content

Talk:Bocage Plantation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Dhtwiki & I have been discussing external links on my talk page. I have moved the auction link into the main text as a reference. I have also removed the YouTube link *{{cite web |last=Lukens |first=Reed |title=Bocage Plantation, a wonderful place |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_JpSKoP5hk |date=March 20, 2014 |website=YouTube}} Video (17:41), which is somewhat promotional, giving extensive look at present-day house interior and grounds, as well as some history read from ''Ghosts along the Mississippi'' . I don't think it adds enough to recommend it as an external link, what do others think? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can others think about it, Jodi.a.schneider, when the link has been removed? You have not referred to a particular section of Wikipedia: External Links policy in voicing your objections to the video (I would have people look at the conflicts of interest section), nor to any other discussions that would indicate a consensus, yet you go ahead and radically alter something that is in dispute. The YouTube video, although promotional, rambling and sometimes inaudible, shows the interior space, tells how a house without halls could be thought of (as a house with wide halls), and gives a tour of the grounds, including the back of the house, showing and explaining the disconnected drinking water cistern, and showing the (inter-)cabinet-loggia.Dhtwiki (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I mentioned the removal on the talk page, with the whole link above. :) You can add it back if you like, Dhtwiki. Marked as "somewhat promotional", suggests it's not a good source. "If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source." per WP:VIDEOLINK. See also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube if it helps. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References out of numerical order

[edit]

Some references given for later paragraphs may appear out of numerical order. That is because the material with the higher number (numbers being assigned arbitrarily, in order that the references are introduced) is considered more specifically relevant to that paragraph, and the lower ordered references considered more generally, or peripherally, relevant. However, the out of order sequence has bothered people and has been corrected on two occasions, without explanation. I have left comments, in hope that they won't be corrected again, unless for good reason. If anyone knows of a good reason, other than a need to have an increasing sequence -- or a settled Wikipedia policy -- they can discuss it here.Dhtwiki (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]