Talk:'t Zand

Untitled
My recent edit eliminating redlinked lines was reverted without explanation ... why? Abtract (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * About the without explanation: I'm sorry about that.
 * About the reversion: because you removed information. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * mos:dab specifically speaks against "infomation" on dab pages except that required to disambiguate between wikipedia articles. The lines I removed contain no articles, so they must go. Sorry. :) Abtract (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, MOSDAB says quite specifically that you should not remove entries with redlinks. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see where since mos:dab say this: "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information". Abtract (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct, so what you could have done was add that second link (for example, add "in Nijmegen" to the 't Zand (Nijmegen) entry. Cleaning a page up by simply deleting everything that does not comply with a guideline is unnecessarily destructive. It's moot now, since they are all blue links now. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that wouldn't have done it; it's not enough just to have a bluelink on the line, the redlink has to be included within that article to give it notability. Of course the best way is to create an article so the link becomes blue ... I didn't have the info to do this but you did - and have, well done. :) Abtract (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)