Talk:Coroico

External Links Section

I am the owner of the semi-official community approved tourism portal / general info page about Coroico, which is hosted at www.COROI.CO.cc . This page meets all criteria for inclusion, but has been removed for having a .co.cc domain name. Apparently, this extension is sometimes/often used for spamming, and has been blacklisted. I believe my website would be in place on this website, as tourism is one of the main economic activities of the village, and hence a site about this is highly relevant.

I haven't been able to have my website whitelisted because:
a. The one to ask shouldn't be me, as I am involved with the website
b. "Wikipedia isn't a tourism directory"

Neither reason seems fit to me. The second one is just silly, as I showed before that a site about tourism is relevant to a tourism town. And if one applies a rule like this, it should be applied everywhere. This has not been the case, with a link to a specific hotel on this very page, and links to sites similar to mine from other town's article pages. My website has been handpicked for deletion for no other reason than having a free domain (prone to abuse). The editor who deleted it (Ckatz), probably did not take the time to study the relevance of the link. If the local community, which I represent, would have had the money to pay for a "real" domain name, it would never have been deleted. Or why else is the link to Gravity (one of the most succesfull agencies in Bolivia), and Hotel Esmeralda (one of the most succesful hotels in Coroico) still there? (FYI: the price of a paid DNS is worth two weeks to a months wage in Bolivia. Placing a link to a .com increases the chances of placing a future dead link, as bills for DNS often don't get paid)

There is something acceptable to the first reason though. I'd like to remark though that very few people take the time and effort to write about something as 'exotic' as Bolivia. Logical consequence is that almost anyone working on these pages will be involved somehow. Also, if the decision for removal was wrong in the first place, then maybe this rule shouldn't apply?

Normally, any editor would be allowed to put this link back up (not me though, unless discussed on this page first). But as it has been blacklisted, first it has to be removed from the blacklist. By you, the reader, the editor in chief. Oh, and you shouldn't have anything to do with me and this website. Thank you!

Follow the discussion and make your case here.

Regards,Joostschouppe (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coroico. 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/20100609150928/http://www.travel-bolivia.com/coroico.html to http://www.travel-bolivia.com/coroico.html

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) 07:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)