This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Seathwaite Tarn is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
The online reference about Wittichenite is no longer available. What's the best course of action? Would it normally be left, or should the reference be removed? Pikemaster (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Red links themselves should not be removed if there is a reasonable chance that an article will be written. Since both this article and the Sulfosalt minerals article link to Wittichenite it seems possible that someone will eventually write an article with that title. You may wish to explicitly request such an article either at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. The dead link to the Stanley and Criddle article in the March 1979 issue of Mineralogical Magazine should probably stay as a paper reference (which are considered by some editors to be preferrable to online references). If replacements for both the url and the doi parameters to the {{Cite journal}} template cannot be found, then perhaps they, and only they, could be removed. But the rest of the information in the {{Cite journal}} template should probably remain as is. Presumably someone might want to check the reference in a well equipped library that carries back issues of ''Mineralogical Magazine, and they would not be able to do so if the whole citation were removed. 164.55.254.106 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
