Talk:Cotswold sheep

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The See also debate

I am starting this discussion here by the advice of an admin and by policy of WP:3O.
The user:Saga City believes that the current See also section is nonsense and should be removed. However, as the editor who added it, I feel that it should stay. Originally, there were four links. Two were already mentioned in the article and removed by Wizardman. That made sense and was explained. However, the other two links are related to the sheep industry and are there for further reading. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

I think it makes sense to have sheep related interlinks within a sheep breed article. To know how to protect your flock with guardian animals as well as how to shear the sheep is good, general knowledge. I'm not sure why this isn't common sense. But, it appears to have provoked an emotional response from user:Saga City on my talk page after I warned the user about deleting chunks of text without explanation or citation. See my posts Delete warning and the user's replies Saga City reply All constructive comments are welcome. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the See also section again today, before reading this talk page (I didn't realise it was contentious). The two links in it are not specific to Cotswolds, and belong in a general article on sheep, not splashed across all breed articles. A reader looking at a breed article is unlikely to have found it without some general knowledge of sheep. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the two See Also links are used with Cotswold sheep they don't belong? But, if you go with your line of reasoning, most See Also links should be removed throughout Wikipedia. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The see also links should be directly related to the topic, and be likely that readers will want to follow them. Many things are "used with Cotswold sheep", but don't belong. We could fill every sheep breed article with loosely related links such as sheep dip, paddock, fence, hoof, wide comb, truck, farm, mulesing, fly strike and so on. I'd accept a sheep navbox template, but a few odd links in a see also section don't cut it. If these two topics are particularly relevant to cotswolds, they can be linked in the prose quite easily. List of sheep breeds would be something that is harder to link in prose, and might fit in "See also". I'm not sure about most, but yes, many see also lists are excessive. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sheep nav box is a good idea. It would provide a solid foundation for loosely related links (as you say) for sheep articles. It would also allow the See Also section to be more narrow in scope as is intended by other editors. How do you go about setting up a sheep nav box? --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cotswold sheep. 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/20100124180132/http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/sheep/cotswold to http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/sheep/cotswold

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]