Talk:Mow Cop Castle

Adding photograph as an External Link to a website
First time I've used a talk page, so I'm not sure if I'll be using it correctly...

I've tried twice to post a link to a photo of a sunset through Mow Cop Castle, and twice it's been removed.

The photo isn't public domain so can't be added directly.

Can someone explain why the link to the photo isn't allowed?


 * In order to help your and others use the talk page and know who they are addressing, etc, it would be useful for you to sign your comments by using four tildes ( ~ ). Its considered a good thing to do this. Now onto the main issue: The reason why the link was removed can be seen if you read WP:EL, in particular points 1 and possibly 4 of WP:EL; "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." (point 1), and "Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming." (point 4) Given that there are already two photographs of Mow Cop castle on the article page, there seems little additional merit in adding a further photograph by means of an external link, the only benefit would seem to be showing the external website, which adds nothing relevant, and brings us onto point 4. This photograph has been added twice previously to Mow Cop by yourself and was removed once as being a spamlink, and once by yourself. It has also been removed already a number of times from this article for the same reasons. Its present form really does not seem appropriate, given the presence of the two photographs already in the article, as it does not add anything to the article apart from adding the name of the website: "Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (in the "In a Nutshell" box). You can ask for further advice about this specific issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links. I hope that helps.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

When did it become a ruin?
Apparently it was built for use. It would be interesting to know how long it stood, when and why deterioration started and when it became a ruin. I guess it happened before the giveaway in 1937 (or something, see the text). (Anders Hallström) 195.60.183.2 (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's always been a "ruin" – it was built that way a picturesque folly, with no purpose other than to enhance the view, by a local aristocrat. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So why is the ruin described as an "elaborate summerhouse" when bviously isn't? 2A02:908:1460:400:119:7A1D:C46:2A34 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what it was built as. I doubt it looked substantially different when it was built (it still has an enclosed space – albeit unroofed – within it). Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Pictures
Why does this article need two very similar pictures, in very similar light? MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Strive for variety." Since you apparently don't bother with edit summaries, your reasons for reverting my removal of the second picture aren't clear. Please defend your reversion. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a newer high resolution picture of greater clarity. Revert it back if it causes trouble. Paddyhalfmonkey (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the second picture in isolation; it's the two very similar pictures I was querying. I'll remove the first. Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)