Jump to content

Talk:Prince William County, Virginia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to edit[edit]

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Friends of the Occoquan[edit]

I call for a vote on this. I see an edit war brewing; let's avert that. Personally, I don't see a problem with "Friends of the Occoquan" being listed as an external link. Look at that site. I looked up the domain information online. The domain was created March 2, 2000 (almost 9 1/2 years old). They have an agenda, true - but all non-profits do! Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, not the sources. There is no reason to accuse the poster of "vandalism" or "spamming". The reverter claims that this is the (supposed) spammer's personal web page; it certainly is not! The only thing that I see wrong is that the link is highlighted in bold making it stand out from all the other links; this formatting could be removed and the link could stay.

I vote for restoring the link, but removing the bolding. Tim Sabin (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You overlooked the "and" in my change summary (I did not state that Friends of the Occoquan is his personal website). Go look over the editor's edit-history - there are two types of edits (self-promotional, and promoting the Friends of the Occoquan. There is one topical link existing in WP for this. Tedickey (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? Just because this user used Wikipedia to promote his own website previously (yes, I looked at his contributions, so I know he's not doing that now), you're willing to say that all his edits are bad? The Friends of the Occoquan link, which he is inserting now, is relevant to those localities that border the Occoquan River, and, most likely, those localities that are part of the Occoquan River watershed. Removing the bolding will, I believe, get rid of the appearance of impropriety. And, since when is putting an external link to a non-profit considered "spamming"? Especially if it is relevant to the page at hand.
Putting the link on a locality like Arlington County is, I agree, spamming, and should be reverted because Arlington County is in no way part of the Occoquan watershed. But, unless you know intimately the geography of the region and thus know when this link insertion is spamming and when it is not, I believe you should leave it alone (it's not like he blanked the page or something). Tim Sabin (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding it to Chesapeake Bay, Northern Virginia, Fairfax County crossed my threshold for spam. You may want to add it to Arlington, Falls Church and any other place that happens to share watershed, but that would reflect on your opinion. Tedickey (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In line with your comments, adding it to anything which is linked to Occoquan River, such as Bull Run would be topical. Tedickey (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Bull Run (and possibly Fauquier county? I don't know) would be OK. My test for spam in this case is relevance. The link passes that test for watershed locations. The bolding issue is minor and can be taken care of. Tim Sabin (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then it's your opinion that this organization should have links added to promote it, irregardless of whether it provides topical information. I'd suggest that you read WP:EL. Tedickey (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) I don't see it as promotion. 2) The part of WP:EL that you reference is, I believe, #4. I don't think that applies here. Tim Sabin (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sure - the last 3 see-alsos also are promotional in nature (but there's the excuse in those cases that two of them are notable). That's not true of the link we're discussing. Tedickey (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest town[edit]

The template refers to incorporated communities (CDPs are not) TEDickey (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]