উইকিপিডিয়া:নীতিমালা ও নির্দেশাবলী: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

 
*'''লক্ষ্য বজায় রাখুন, বাহুল্য পরিহার করুন ।''' উদ্দেশ্য এবং লক্ষ্য অবশ্যই পরিস্কার ভাবে প্রথমেই বিবৃত করতে হবে, এদের একপাশে রাখলে হবে না । বিষবস্তুকে অবশ্যই এর নীতিমালার পরিধির মধ্যে থাকতে হবে ।<ref>Suppose that some of the content from a dispute resolution page was copied into [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] as a great example of consensus building. Though it may be a great example, it is not a general community standard – yet several clarifying edits later, it may seem as if it were being presented as such. Or perhaps an edit is made to [[Wikipedia:Notability]] to clarify how it should be applied within a notability guideline on music. Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] is 'summarized' and reworded (non-substantively, of course!) in a guideline, so that editors don't have to check the longer (official, carefully-worded, more-rigorously maintained) version. All of this is scope creep. Keep policies to themselves.</ref> নীতিমালাসমূহে অভ্যন্তরীন বাহুল্য বর্জন করতে হবে সে সাথে অন্য নীতিমালার সাথে যেন বাহুলতাপূর্ণ না হয় ।
 
* অতিরিক্ত সংযোগ
 
(* '''maintain scope, avoid redundancy.''' Both purpose and scope must be clearly provided in the lead, and not merely as an aside. Content should be within the scope of its policy.<ref>Suppose that some of the content from a dispute resolution page was copied into [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] as a great example of consensus building. Though it may be a great example, it is not a general community standard – yet several clarifying edits later, it may seem as if it were being presented as such. Or perhaps an edit is made to [[Wikipedia:Notability]] to clarify how it should be applied within a notability guideline on music. Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] is 'summarized' and reworded (non-substantively, of course!) in a guideline, so that editors don't have to check the longer (official, carefully-worded, more-rigorously maintained) version. All of this is scope creep. Keep policies to themselves.</ref> Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves.<ref>The same redundant statement may change in one place and not in another, and though this is often not a problem in articles, with policy it lead to confusion, contradiction, and verbosity.</ref> Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion&diff=305723436&oldid=305720000 Example]</ref>)