উইকিপিডিয়া:নীতিমালা ও নির্দেশাবলী: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

→‎বিষয়বস্তু: সামান্য বাংলা করা হল। ফরমেটে সামান্য সমস্যা ঠিক করা হল।
(বট: 67 গুলো আন্তঃসংযোগ সরিয়ে নেওয়া হয়েছে, যা এখন উইকিউপাত্ত এর d:q4656150 এ রয়েছে)
(→‎বিষয়বস্তু: সামান্য বাংলা করা হল। ফরমেটে সামান্য সমস্যা ঠিক করা হল।)
*'''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 ।
 
(* '''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>)
* অতিরিক্ত সংযোগ
 
* '''avoidঅতিরিক্ত সংযোগ । overlinking.''' Linksনির্দেশাবলী, নীতিমালা, রচনাশৈলী এবং অন্যান্য নীতিমালার লিঙ্ক shouldতখনই beদেবেন usedযেখানে onlyবিষয়টি whenস্পষ্টকরন clarificationবা orপর্যাপ্তকরন contextদরকার isহবে। needed.<ref>For example, in "...are developed by the [[Wikipedia:About|Wikipedia]] [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|community]] to establish...", neither link is necessary. The links imply that the target pages might be important in understanding the sentence, yet the meaning is clear. The two pages provide more in-depth explanations of Wikipedia and the community, but this level of explanation is not necessary. In "[[Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines|Guidelines]] are [...]", the link implies that what follows is a summary of the linked page, which itself describes Guidelines in detail. Yet the link is just a list of guidelines.</ref> Links to other policies, guidelines, or essays may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them. Make it clear when links defer, and when they do not.
(* '''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>)
* '''avoid overlinking.''' Links should be used only when clarification or context is needed.<ref>For example, in "...are developed by the [[Wikipedia:About|Wikipedia]] [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|community]] to establish...", neither link is necessary. The links imply that the target pages might be important in understanding the sentence, yet the meaning is clear. The two pages provide more in-depth explanations of Wikipedia and the community, but this level of explanation is not necessary. In "[[Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines|Guidelines]] are [...]", the link implies that what follows is a summary of the linked page, which itself describes Guidelines in detail. Yet the link is just a list of guidelines.</ref> Links to other policies, guidelines, or essays may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them. Make it clear when links defer, and when they do not.
 
<!--
৪,১৬৫টি

সম্পাদনা