User talk:82.6.65.183

External links in "See also" sections
Please don't add external links to the "See also" section of articles. If anywhere, they belong in the "External links" section.

However, it's questionable whether the "List of paintings on view" links are appropriate additions to country house articles, even under "External links"– see point 13 under "Links normally to be avoided" at WP:ELNO: "...a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." It could be argued that these links are "on a specific subject" and would only be valid for a more specific article (i.e. they'd be fine on an article about "Paintings at Tatton Hall" but not on the general "Tatton Hall" article). Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I accept your points but unfortunately there probably never will be an article such as "Paintings at Tatton Hall" and therefore would-be visitors to the hall would be denied the opportunity to browse a list of the paintings on view. It also raises a more general issue on the value of Wikidata - what is its purpose if it is to be confined to its own closet and not made more available to the casual wikipedia enquirer. I often wonder to myself whether the administrators of wikipedia see it (wikipedia) as an end in itself and not a marvellous source of information for the general public. The bullying of contributors only tends to strenghthen my views.


 * I'm sorry if you feel you're being "bullied", but I'm just pointing out a long-established Wikipedia convention, without with the "See also" and "External links" sections would become an inconsistent mess. If you want to add these links, put them in the right place. They're external links, so they go in the "External links" section. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)