বিষয়বস্তুতে চলুন

উইকিপিডিয়া:নীতিমালা ও নির্দেশাবলী: সংশোধিত সংস্করণের মধ্যে পার্থক্য

* '''মূলভাবের উপরে জোর দিন''' বাগাড়ম্বর বা বাগবিস্তার করে ভুল ধারনার প্রতি সমর্থন প্রতিষ্ঠিত করা যায় না। দ্ব্যর্থহীন ও সুনির্দিষ্ট ভাবে লিখুনঃ বহুশ্রূত বা মামুলী কথা কিংবা অনির্দিষ্টভাবে লেখা পরিহার করুন। মনগড়া কথা কিংবা অনুমিত ধারণা বা তত্ত্ব লিখবেন না। অপ্রয়োজনীয় শব্দ, বিশেষ করে বিশেষণ, বাদ দিন। যদি মূল বক্তব্য লেখা হয়ে থাকে, আর কিছু না লেখাই ভালো।
 
*'''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>)
* '''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.