--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote:
Having commented on the great controversy of who
changed the policy,
I thought that I might comment on the best practice
itself.
This is taken from a recent post by me to
[[Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Listed for
deletion notice]],
so please reply there:
I'm strongly sympathetic to listing the deletion
notices,
but I understand that some people have objected to
the practice
(preferring to simply blank the page) on the grounds
that:
1* Adding the notice more work than blanking the
page.
2* A blanked page tells the software in various
contexts
that there's no content there.
My suggestion: Redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for
deletion,
which explains everything! That page would need a
little text at the top
to explain the redirect, but the objections above
are resolved:
1* Since you have to go to Wikipedia:Votes for
deletion anyway
to list the page, typing in the redirect (a
little work)
saves you work later (you can just click to get
to VfD);
2* The software knows that redirects have no
content.
So who has those objections, and do you think
that a redirect would work better?
-- Toby
That's the best solution so far. But if it's replaced
by content, what should be placed there?
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com