| abstract
| - My redirect at The Hand was deleted a while back, so I asked about it at Talk:The Hand. That too was deleted, instantly, and I was sternly admonished not to create talk for articles that don't exist [any more], and to read up on the policies. OK I see your policy here but are there really no exceptions? It seems kind of absurd that The Hand is required to be a blank, with not even a pointer to the correct article. Surely allowance should be made for forms that newcomers, and casual readers (who are hardly going to read the manual of style first), are likely to type in? It makes the wiki easier to use, and it's not like you will run out of pages.--Mad Latinist (talk) 07:48, March 18, 2017 (UTC) The whole point of this policy is to collect the only redirects that are allowed. So, logically, every other redirects are not allowed, especially the ones that contradict other policies. I'm sorry, but that there is people who don't care or don't bother in reading our policies doesn't mean either that they can do whatever they think best....--Shabook (talk) 10:43, March 18, 2017 (UTC) Then may I suggest that in the interest of efficient and professional language, you should change the phrasing from "the creation for redirects is allowed if they follow one of these rules" to: "the creation of redirects is not allowed if they do not follow one of these rules," or "the creation for redirects is allowed if and only if they follow one of these rules." That way readers do not need to presume the fallacy of the inverse to correctly understand this rule. Legalistic perhaps, but shouldn't rules that are to be strictly adhered to be strictly phrased? (Also, that "for" needs to be changed to "of".) But I don't understand the point of this parsimony. When I say "Surely allowance should be made for forms that newcomers, and casual readers (who are hardly going to read the manual of style first)," I don't mean that people who don't care or don't bother in reading [your] policies should be allowed to create whatever redirect they think best. I mean, shouldn't redirects (and the rules that govern them) take into account where a casual reader looking for information (who presumably would be most people who use this wiki) is likely to look for an article, so that they don't find just a blank page? You can argue that a user must be intimately familiar with all the policies before they contemplate becoming an editor (or even just make a redirect), but it's difficult to argue that they need to do so in order to use the wiki. I personally have on at least two occasions looked for the evil association of ninjas under the Hand. The first time I was thinking "How is it possible they haven't written this article yet?" for a shockingly long time before I figured out what was going on. This was why I made that redirect in the first place. The second time I realized a bit faster, but still was confused because it took me a while to remember what had happened (it had been over a year after all), and then I couldn't figure out why such a handy redirect would be deleted. I now know the reason but I still don't see the point... what are you conserving by banning such a redirect? Can I possibly be the only one stupid enough to think that the Ninjas would be under the Hand? I use this wiki a lot. It is one of my favorites. I would maybe have been a good candidate to lure into becoming an editor, but I have to admit that my interactions with regular editors have so far felt (whether or not it was their intention) brusque and unwelcoming. Why not follow the (theoretical) model of Wikipedia, and encourage me to read up and become a good editor, rather than snap at me for being bold, and trying to do something I feel is useful? On that note, why not welcome new users with a friendly welcome message linking them to the policiesm after they make their first edit, as many (maybe even most) wikis do? When I was warned to read the editing policies I had to dig a bit to find them, why not make this easy in order to encourage new users and ensure their edits don't need to be deleted? I really don't mean to pick a fight over something so small as a revert, so hope I do not sound nasty in any way. This honestly is one of my favorite wikis, and I would prefer to keep my relationship with the staff positive and friendly. Thanks, Mad Latinist (talk) 18:58, March 18, 2017 (UTC) Honestly, I don't think we need policies written by a lawyer to make them clear. If we have a list of the redirects that are allowed, the rest are not. That's common sense. Most wikis don't even bother in writing up policies, and it causes problems and having ongoing arguments that take months to solve... As for the rest of you claims, maybe this particular talk page is not the place.--Shabook (talk) 19:08, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)