Talk:Brynbach

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Brynbach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110809104620/http://www.mediastorehouse.com/brynbach_scout_camp_tredegar_monmouthshire_wales_1920s/print/4087435.html to http://www.mediastorehouse.com/brynbach_scout_camp_tredegar_monmouthshire_wales_1920s/print/4087435.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The first one is OK, but the second one does not go anywhere. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with the links?
They are links to images of Brynbach from the 1930s. Plenty of other articles have them so what's the issue with these ones?81.129.127.139 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we do not link to web pages that are just a photograph. We include photographs, but only if they meet the requirements to go on Wiki Commons. I do not think that the photos you linked to do meet those requirements. The one of de Gaulle however does. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere you *believe* there is a policy so the images were removed. Right? Well I'll get to that in sec, but have you ever heard the expression "a picture speaks a thousand words"? Besides there are thousands of links across this site that link to images for illustrative purposes. But not this page, hey!? Which begs the question do know what an encyclopedia does? It is about providing/conveying information. Therefore a few images that demonstrate amenities and how big and popular the site was during its heyday would surely, using you know common sense, be better. Aaah but wait this wikipedia, the site that any one can edit, so *deep breath* common sense is somewhere deep up Jimbo's arse. Which leads me on to your one-man crusade, I checked [|links normally to be avoided] and guess what there is no policy!!! I'll post the banned list here:


 * 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
 * 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
 * 3) Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Spam blacklist.
 * 4) Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See.
 * 5) Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
 * 6) Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. See.
 * 7) Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country.
 * 8) Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See  for more details.
 * 9) Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.
 * 10) Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.
 * 11) Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
 * 12) Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * 13) Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
 * 14) Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
 * 15) Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
 * 16) Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.
 * 17) Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.
 * 18) External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages.
 * 19) Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.


 * So in conclusion the links go back in. 81.129.127.139 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't go off the deep end. I am not a one man crusade. This started with a bot, XLinkBot, removing a substantial edit that you made. Bots are usually very good doing actions that are based on policy. However, I concluded that it it had removed more than was reasonable so I reverted it and then deleted what I thought it was meant to delete. For example, there clearly was no reason to delete the infobox you added. Maybe I went too far. Maybe it was only the photos from Flickr that it was meant to delete, not the other photos. I am too busy to check the precise policy about Flickr links and I know nothing about Flickr. I suggest you check that specifically. It might come under the point 9 above that you listed. Otherwise you may get a bot coming back and again deleting more than the Flickr photos. I also suggest that you investigate whether the photos could be added directly into the article under our rules, either that they are open source, or meet the fair use guideline. If so I suggest that you add them to the article. This would be particularly a good idea for the two Flickr photos. The other 3 are very bad photographs and would not survive in the article if they were added. I can not recall seeing direct links solely to a photo. We add them to the article as you did with the de Gaulle photo. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)