Talk:ACC Loan Management

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on ACC Loan Management. 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/20140121065314/http://www.accbank.ie:80/products-services/accbank-restructuring-customer-qa to http://www.accbank.ie/products-services/accbank-restructuring-customer-qa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121065314/http://www.accbank.ie:80/products-services/accbank-restructuring-customer-qa to http://www.accbank.ie/products-services/accbank-restructuring-customer-qa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to press archives folder
Hi I had added an external link

which you removed as "irrelevant". The folder contains annual reports for the first years of the company (1928 - 1939), their loan scheme for farmers and the company handbook of 1931, together with a newspaper report about their formation and other clippings up to 1938. That period of time is very briefly covered in the article. Why do you think the content of this press folder is not relevant for the readers article (when they are interested in the history of the company)? Should the article link hint more clearly to the time period covered? Cheers, Caroca2 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Links to the sources can be relevant. A link to a collection of clippings is not. The Banner talk 20:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I've tried to understand the rationale behind your brief statement: It would be ok to link to single documents or articles, but not to a collection of articles - did I get this right? -- I've tried to find according rules or policies. External_links seems to have no statement pro or con that particular issue. However, I found several templates which seem to prominently link to collections of newspaper clippings - normally just of one particular newspaper (see, e.g., Mikhail_Gorbachev, with links to collections of New York Times and Guardian articles about Gorbatchev). And I've found links to library catalogs (e.g. ), which link to all books by and about a person, not to just one selected source (with the additional downside  that the books are normally not available online). So I cannot see a consensus that links to collections of sources are not appropriate in general.
 * In the folders of a general press archive you normally find articles from many sources. In the case of the 20th Century Press Archives, they often are from different countries and conflicting political points of view, and these articles and documents are browsable online. In my opinion, this is the value of linking to the whole folder of articles, not to a particular one. For the Agricultural Credit Corporation, in my eyes it would not make sence to link, e.g., to a particular annual report, because the history of the company is repesentend in all availalbe reports. Linking to the whole folder not only may help filling a large gap in the article, but it also provides rich additional material to readers who are interested in the detailed officially stated development of the company over these years. Caroca2 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Just a kind reminder - I understand that in protecting wikipedia from vandalism or advertising and promotion, you have to make quick descisions to get through the tremendous amount of work. However, I'd really ask you to take a deeper look into this. Since I learned from your user page that you understand German, may I hint you to a similar discussion which evolved when I started adding links to press archives' folders to the German wikipedia? I am aware that the rules of the English wikipedia may differ here, and I'm happy to learn. But it's hard to accept a statement which, to me, seems not to reflect a commonly agreed-upon community consensus. (Other users of the English wikipedia thanked me for the insertion of the very same type of links.) Kind regards, Caroca2 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)