Talk:Ashford Bowdler

Local businesses

I added a link to a local business yesterday and today it's gone - why?

I think Wikipedia has a social obligation (locally) as well an a net obligation (globally) - a small village with just a few businesses - where's the harm in showing that this village is current - occupied, working - not a part of a historical museum.

The business in question buys eggs from another person in the village info - http://www.orchard-barn.co.uk/menu.htm Rural villages in England need support from the likes of Wiki... not some editor - miles away - removing all signs of life from the Wiki page.

Please, reinstate or give (good) reasons for it not being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.97.212 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have such obligations. Give WP:External links a read, you'll find the answer there. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia does have an obligation to present small villages such as this more completely, the current page makes the village look like a dead village - a dead wiki page showing a dead village - neither is good for Ashford Bowlder... or Wikipedia.

The link was under an informative, honest heading - local businesses - there are plenty of other pages on Wikipedia that have this heading, and links to businesses, why can't Ashford Bowlder?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.97.212 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for explaining your concerns here. By the way, please "sign" your talk page comments by typing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of each comment to add the date and time automatically. It makes it easier to keep track of who said what and when!

I reverted your original additions to Ashford Bowdler and Great Torrington because, as mentioned above, Wikipedia policy is not to include links which are promotional. I left an explanation on your user talk page. Unfortunately, your internet IP address changed when you came back to the site, so the message didn't get through to you. You might find it helpful to register so that it is easier to keep track of your edits and messages.

Anyway, responding to your concern:

Whatever you or I might personally think of the benefits of promoting local businesses, that is not allowed on this website (see Wikipedia:Spam for more information). After all, you wouldn't expect to be able to send unsolicited emails with similar information without it being regarded by many as "spam". If you want to promote businesses, you will have to do so elsewhere.

But if you want to improve Wikipedia by making it more accurate and complete, you are welcome to do so. So, if you know about the history or geography of Ashford Bowdler or other local places, please do expand the articles. But the wording must be neutral and non-promotional, like you would expect to read in a good encyclopedia or gazetteer (but not like a guidebook which is biased towards encouraging trade or tourism). References to books or webpages are used to allow readers to verify contested facts.

In some articles, it may be appropriate to mention local businesses, where they are important to the wider local community. For example, the Great Witchingham article refers to the "Norfolk Wildlife Centre and Country Park" and mentions that the village "is also home to the headquarters of turkey business Bernard Matthews Farms". But those are examples of a major destination and a business which has a huge impact on the local economy, which makes them relevant for an encyclopedia. Individual farms or holiday accommodation are unlikely to be suitable for mentioning, except perhaps in relation to any major historical events that took place there.

I hope that helps to explain the policy and that you will be able to improve Wikipedia in other ways.

— Richardguk (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richard

Thank you for the explanation - I still find it unfortunate that Wikipedia wants to be a living and developing entity whilst not helping the places it lists to do likewise; but I've had this argument before regarding Pewsey in Wiltshire and its remote editor in London not allowing a valid and useful local charity to be listed.

It's the reason I don't log in.

I prescribe to Oscar Wilde's view of rules - whilst Wikipedia, with it's US ethos, regards them as sacrosanct.

Comment removed - I was being thick!

G 86.158.97.212 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 86.158.97.212 (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashford Bowdler. 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/20141218161427/http://ashfordbowdler.co.uk/ to http://www.ashfordbowdler.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)