Talk:'t Zand

Untitled

My recent edit eliminating redlinked lines was reverted without explanation ... why? Abtract (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the without explanation: I'm sorry about that.
About the reversion: because you removed information. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mos:dab specifically speaks against "infomation" on dab pages except that required to disambiguate between wikipedia articles. The lines I removed contain no articles, so they must go. Sorry. :) Abtract (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, MOSDAB says quite specifically that you should not remove entries with redlinks. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to see where since mos:dab#Red links say this: "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information". Abtract (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, so what you could have done was add that second link (for example, add "in Nijmegen" to the 't Zand (Nijmegen) entry. Cleaning a page up by simply deleting everything that does not comply with a guideline is unnecessarily destructive. It's moot now, since they are all blue links now. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that wouldn't have done it; it's not enough just to have a bluelink on the line, the redlink has to be included within that article to give it notability. Of course the best way is to create an article so the link becomes blue ... I didn't have the info to do this but you did - and have, well done. :) Abtract (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.