Difference between revisions 426865157 and 427775979 on enwiki

< previous diff
next diff >
User talk:Schneelocke
__FORCETOC__
<div style="padding:1em;border:4px dotted black"><font size="+1"><strong>NOTES</strong></font>

* Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from [[m:the Wrong Version|the list]]. Thanks.

* Please add new messages at the bottom of this page, and sign them using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Thank you!
</div>

(contracted; show full)
: Someone else has just removed it for the same reason (lacks an article), so I figured I'd let you know. &ndash; [[User:Anna|<font color="#6CA111">'''anna'''</font>]] 09:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
⏎
⏎
:: Thanks for your note. Generally speaking, a lack of an article is not a reason to not mention something. Quite the opposite &mdash; without red links, how would others (especially casual users) be enticed to write new articles?

:: Now whether boradors deserve an article is another question, and one I'm not qualified to answer, but if there is a redirect, then it makes no sense for the target page to not mention the redirected term. It only serves to confuse readers.

:: You're right that linking to a redirect is not useful, though. The correct course of action would be to either a) include a link in the list if boradors are notable, and delete the redirect so that a proper article can be written; or b) if boradors are not notable, delete the redirect so that there won't be any confusion. Given that the [[borador]] redirect has a history (it was apparently made an article twice), I won't delete it, but I strongly suggest that those who're involved more intimately in these dog-related articles resolve the situation, ideally by (re)creating a proper article. Clearly there are people interested in it, and Wikipedia isn't paper.

:: -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schneelocke]] ([[User talk:Schneelocke#top|talk]]) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)