Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 specify the scope of "See also"
2 Image layout:proposal for the "Images" section
3 See also
4 Mathematical formulae
5 Propose to change External links section to Further reading
6 Clarification needed: See also - alphabetical ordering by first name or surname?
7 sequence of these appendices
8 This guideline is being used to remove See also sections
9 Operation Camargue
10 Question about see also links
11 Notes and references
12 Question about inline citations
13 Stylization
14 On style
15 Proposed change to 'See also' guideline
- 15.1 Proposed wording
- 15.2 Arbitrary break
- 15.3 Case studies
16 Please comment on a new proposal
17 See also should go in the middle?
18 Straw Poll
- 18.1 In favor of change
- 18.2 Against change
- 18.3 Discussion
- 18.4 Discussion (moved from responses in vote sections)
- 18.5 A side issue
19 "Notes"
20 Order of See Also, but a different issue
21 STYLE1.0

specify the scope of "See also"

Would anybody oppose specifying that "See also" links should ideally not be already linked from in the body of the article? Circeus 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would oppose. I think a "See Also" section should be a list of related topics, even if they are mentioned in the body of the article.

1. You don't have to read the entire article to find other similar topics. Related material can be identified quickly.

2. This is how paper encyclopedias do it.

Rearden9 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I prefer to find a list of related topics in one place. I don't want to have to slog through an entire article looking for blue words in order to find a related article that better describes what I am looking for. -AndrewDressel 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk about raising a dead fish. Right now you would rather have to please start a new discussion if you want to make a point of havingtopic prominently discussed in the article in the see also, because the convention (which, like any MoS is not absolutely, and is actually not even worded absolutely) has been well accepted for over a year and a half now. Circeus 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image layout:proposal for the "Images" section

I am offering to expand the image section with material about how to you know, position images for best, and I'd like opinions:

When placing images, it is recommended to be watchful of not stacking too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid moving the edit links in some browsers. Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. Images should have an explicative caption.

In general, it is considered poor layout practice to squeeze text between images on the let and right (this sometimes also causes images to overlap text due to interference from surrounding templates or tables), to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section, or to cause a header to be moved by an image placed on the left.

If an article has many images, so much, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself, you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template ({{commons}}, {{commonscat}}, {{commons-inline}} or {{commonscat-inline}}) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.

What do you think? All of these are practices I've been applying regularly at Wikipedia:Peer review, Featured article candidates, and on articles appearing on Did you know?, and I have yet (with a few exceptions) to encounter true opposition to them. Circeus 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea to discuss visual layout at this page! I think there might be a word on creating a satisfactory balance between left and right, siting images in proximity to corresponding text, varying image sizes depending on emphasis and content, avoiding "foto-strips" down the right-hand side-- a favorite mutilation-- and positioning the vanishing point within the page. All the worst Wikipedian character flaws seem to be elicited when the visually impaired browbeat the rest of us on such simple matters of basic visual coherence. --Wetman 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

a satisfactory balance between left and right

How about "Some user prefer images to be evenly spread between the left and right, but you should then mind even more the above comments about moving headers and placing text between images on each sides."

siting images in proximity to corresponding text

It's already saying "Images should ideally be spread within the article, and relevant to the section they are located in."

varying image sizes depending on emphasis and content

I don't know. I want to suggest that 250-280 is a maximum, as 300px is half the text space's width on a 800x600 screen... But a word about appropriate size is probably a good idea, also about not stacking images of completely different width. How would you go about that?

avoiding "foto-strips" down the right-hand side

I think that is covered by being "watchful of not stacking too many of them within the lead or a single section," maybe specifying "multiple images within a section should not spread over the next one in 1024x800 resolution"?

positioning the vanishing point within the page

What does that mean??

Circeus 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would take the last to apply to details of paintings - the vanishing point of the perspective, if not contained in the detail, should be on the page, not off it. It seems sound - like having heads face in not out of the page. Johnbod 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing point - this disagrees with "facing into the page": Something that faces into the page will have its vanishing point off the margin; also, (1) you can have more than one vanishing point in a painting, and (2) the major vanishing point may not end up on the page in any case, because it could lie beyond even the farther margin. Finally, as Circeus points out, this is difficult to explain and therefore unlikely to be followed. I suggest scrapping the idea; there is nothing stopping you from following it where it doesn't conflict with the "facing into the page" guideline.

Image size should not vary unless there is a strong reason for it. Variable size makes for a choppy, uncomfortable, less readable layout. 82.71.48.158 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical formulae

I have suggested this elsewhere - and it is probably applicable in other cases.

I have occasionally come across mathematical formulae which show the formula and nothing more: for those of us who are not familiar with the field (which might include mathematicians in other areas for all one knows) a brief intro "This formula is used in context X to do/produce Y" would be useful. Jackiespeel 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, project mathematics is the place to bring examples. Rich Farmbrough, 17:53 24 March 2007 (GMT).

There are some formulae whose application isn't so obvious, or isn't for just a single purpose, e.g. Price equation. 82.71.48.158 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Propose to change External links section to Further reading

see above #Further reading/external links

I think it is time to change all mentions of the section ==External links== to ==Further reading== on this page. A couple of years ago this was not necessary as there were often two section, one for online texts and one for external links. But with the growth in the use of ==Reference== section and a ==notes==or==footnotes== section, that include web based articles, there is a need for another section which contains further reading with both online and offline sources that are recommended reading but are not currently used as references and are not cited. But before I made such a change I would like to see if we can build a consensus on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That misses much of the point of external links. These are to online sources exclusively, and often for purposes other than to provide further reading about the subject of the article. External links are for web content that is not used as a source and would not be appropriate to the article. See the WP:EL guideline on this. Wikidemo 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reading is not approriate. Links to videos and photos are obviously not "reading". It ain't broke so there is no need to "fix" this. 2005 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This change would be incorrect. Articles include an external links section at the end in order to list links to websites that are outside of Wikipedia, for purposes of providing additional information as opposed to onsite "reading". "Further" reading is facilitated by the "See also" section. External links specificaly identify a link which briefly summarizes a website's content and why the website is relevant to the article.--Hu12 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some years ago the move was to take external links out of the text of Wikipedia article and move them down to the bottom of the article, because they were seen as unstable and polluting to the Wikipeida text. So in the past people used to place paper articles in "References/Bibliography/Sources" and "External links" contained both referenced and unreferenced links. But in the last two years with the move to much more cited text (See WP:PROVEIT), there has been a move to placing external links that are referenced in the "References" and "Notes" sections. This leaves the external links as a further reading section. To call it "External links" is a now a misnomer as so many external links are in other sections.

User:2005 in what section does one place videos and photos that are not available by a link on the net? I concede that occasionally there may be cases where there are no external sources to be read where "External links" may be appropriate, but in the vast majority of articles the links are to external readable sources.

User:Hu12 Further reading is not synonymous with "See also". External links is used to contain external sources that are not in the reference section, while "See also" contains links to Wikipedia articles that have for one reason or another not been integrated into the text of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

External links are completely different from sources or references. You are confusing the terms. You should read WP:EL. The term external links only refers to the end section, plus any misplaced links not properly placed. There should never be "external links" in other sections. The usage of external links is very clear now so making a section that is not just confusing but flat out wrong doesn't make sense. 2005 11:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific is better than vague. "Further reading" is vague and "External links" is specific, so the latter phrase is what should be used. I'm sure the suggestion was made in good faith, but I think the reasoning behind the suggestion might be faulty. Rray 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am confused see the section in the guideline WP:EL#References and citation and the guideline WP:CITE and also see the Wikipedia content policy WP:PROVEIT and as an example reference tag ^[3] attached to the quote. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It makes sense to distinguish between printed works and external links. 82.71.48.158 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference other than one is on line and the other is not? I think what matters is the quality of the resources (WP:RS) rather than the media on which it exists. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In general I like the the idea of putting both online and offline resources that are external to Wikipedia and aren't references for the article into one section instead of two. Not so sure about the "Further reading" heading though - seems a little too caught up in a paper world mindset. The gudielines for external links could be used as a starting point for the whole section. Would be nice to show we expect books in that section to be well considered too - I've seen quite a few books added to further reading lists that aren't appropriate (COI additions and tangentially related mainly), and some of the lists get a bit on the long side. I'm also seeing more and more uses of external links to texts of books in further reading sections - making the overlap even greater. -- SiobhanHansa 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a term like "More sources"? but that is a larger change than changing from "external links" to "further reading" because it involves a change to WP:CITE as well as this page.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think using the word "sources" is problematic - we've seen confusion between citation links and non-citation links on the external links talk page when using that word. Maybe "Explore further", "More information elsewhere", "Continued study", "And if you have a lot more time..." -- SiobhanHansa 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It would not work well for the visual arts articles I mostly edit, where many links are to pages largely or entirely with images. I also think the distinction is useful; further reading should cover primary or standard secondary sources that have not actually been used, and maintain a high standard of quality and relevance. For external links sections, even when regularly weeded, we know the threshold for acceptable links is rather lower - often mostly tertiary sources like WP itself. Johnbod 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lower standards may have been acceptable in previous years, but Wikipedia is not a link farm and those links that are provided in external links/further reading should be reliable. As I said above there may be a few subjects where the term "External links" is a better term than "further reading" acceptable, but at the moment it is the tail wagging the dog. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That continues to confuse the difference between sources (for which RS applies) and external links (for which RS is simply not the issue). It's not a matter of degree. They are different things. Most links that are allowed per EL would not be considered further reading, and most links that are further reading would not be appropriate as external links. It sounds like you're talking about the bibliography section. We already have that so I'm not sure what you're proposing to change Wikidemo 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is an issue. WP:V applies to all of an article including the links that are put into a collection at the end of an article. Many of the links in an articles as further reading are external links. See Genocide#Further reading, Torture#Further reading and Battle of Waterloo#Further reading for examples of where external links and further reading are amalgamated into further reading. The dichotomy stands out in articles that use both online and offline news papers articles, particularly where initially a new article is free to view and then becomes subscription based or when they are removed from the net and are only available via a library. Should online and offline newspaper articles be kept in two different sections? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are all nonstandard and don't follow the typical Wikipedia article format. They show what happens when people are undiscliplined about article format. In the torture article, the "museums" section is clearly external links and should be noted as such. The "Definitions" seem to be a references section. My guess is that they should be referred to only if used as a source of material, and otherwise not included, in that we're not an arbitrary list of links. The "further reading" section is a bibliography. With the battle of waterloo, it is not clear whether "References" is truly references (in which case the article is using the relatively uncommon Harvard Citation method, or it mixes in uncited bibliography works as well. The further reading is, then, a bibliography too. I can't tell from looking at that whehter there are any external links proper. The genocide article suffers from an occasional problem, the mixing of different reference styles - it has both "references" and "footnotes" (which are a reference or note section). The "Further reading" is again, a bibliography, but the "research programs" subsection is really an external links section and should be evaluated (and possibly pruned) as such. Some of the overviews are external links as well, and some should probably be removed per the el guideline. None of these argue for why "External Links" should be renamed or the standards changed. WP:V does not apply directly to external links. It never has. It"s for verifying article content on Wikipedia, not the content that may be found other places on the web.Wikidemo 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me where in the content policies it says that any specific section of an article is exempt from the content policies. FYI the Waterloo article uses references for those articles and books that are cited in the article, but as the citations come in any old order (and there is a limit on space) the cited sources (particularly those cited more than once) are listed alphabetically in the references section. As to your comment "Those articles are all nonstandard and don't follow the typical Wikipedia article format" I am suggesting a change in this guideline to bring it closer to that of WP:CITE, because this guideline is out of kilter with what happens in many articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exempt, inapplicable. I'm not going to get into how rules work but verifiability covers article content. The external links guideline covers external links. That's a longstanding (1+ year) and broadly accepted distinction. The norm is for external links to be a distinct section of....well, you can read the guideline for what's in that section. Putting external links anywhere else, calling them something else, or putting sources/references or bibliographical links in external links doesn't seem to be very common and seems to run against that guideline. If anything, this guideline ought to indicate which article sections are almost universal for articles (see also, references, external links), and which ones are optional, or deprecated but allowed (bibliography, notes, further reading, etc). There's also a question of whether we should even have further reading and bibliography sections if they aren't used in the article, with all the emphasis against link farms and random collections of data. I don't see the harm but some people might object to the untidiness Wikidemo 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Johnbod. Flyer22 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - often the external links are to sites not really describable as "reading", for example when a model's official site is mostly a picture gallery, or when a musician's music is on line. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true, "Further Reading" refers only to something readable but the Internet and today's publications are multimedia, including pics, videos, audio, visualizations, or clickable demos. Maybe "More Information" would be the better name for the section.--Mic-ro 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"External links" is the better name for the section. It is accurate, clear, accepted by long-standing convention, and well understood. There is no problem here that needs fixing. Finell (Talk) 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: If used correctly, the External links, Further reading, and References sections serve different purposes. The distinctions promote clarity and should be preserved. Also, it is unwise to make millions (literally) of articles that have proper External links sections, including (almost?) every FA, suddenly non-conforming by changing a long stable MoS guideline. Finell (Talk) 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: If used correctly, the External links, Further reading, and References sections serve different purposes as above. If created correctly some external links will justify inclusion as further reading or references. However that does not hid the need for a general other content "External links". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed: See also - alphabetical ordering by first name or surname?

I think this is important to clarify, as it can lead to articles being unstable, and having a clear guideline will improve the usability of WP. 82.71.48.158 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need to select a format and stick with it, or at least stick with it for as long as it doesn't seem broke. I'm not much for changing the layout guide, because that means after changing it, all other articles on Wikipedia should be changed to reflect the new format, and not every editor keeps up with the changes. After getting used to things being outlined a certain way, it's not that easy to want change and sometimes not that easy to get used to change. Flyer22 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

sequence of these appendices

"It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices." Shouldn't the References have to come before the External links? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is being used to remove See also sections

Threeafterthree is misinterpreting this guideline to mean that See also sections shouldn't exist. His reasoning is that, either the link is already in the article, and therefore he deletes it; or it should be in the article, and therefore he deletes it until he can find a way to work it in. He is going through articles removing the See also sections based on this reasoning.

In fact, it's fine to have See alsos that are related to the article without being mentioned within it. That, indeed, is the whole point of the See also section. I'm therefore removing the following:

"Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section"

because it's this part of the guideline that is confusing him. But he is reverting my removal of it.

Does anyone else have a view? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to "clean up" articles by removing articles fron the See also section of articles that have already been linked to in the article per this guideline. Now an editor who disagrees with this has come here and changed this guideline to support his/her opinion of how this section should work. Can we please discuss this change here first? The guideline seems to make alot of sense as written. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I see that this was touched on before above. anyways,--Tom (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Tom, you are removing links that are not in the article, on the grounds that they ought to be in it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I removed the links since they were already linked at the bottom of the article. I then added them back saying that I would try to add them to the article per the guidelines over the next couple of days. You then came here and edited this guideline to support your position. I have now removed them again since you said the article was going to get a major rewrite and it wasn't worth arguing over. --Tom (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For example, here. I'd really appreciate some other input here, as I find it hard to cope with this kind of editing without resorting to a tone of "voice" I recently decided I'm not going to engage in anymore. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My feelings on the removal of the See also sections is that a See also section should not be removed until its link or links are already internal-linked within the article. In some cases, there is no way to internal-link a See also link or links within the significant body of the article, and in those cases...the See also section and its links that cannot be incorporated into the significant body of the article should remain as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin has now distorted my original point with this edit. Is this appropirate to change a discusiion this way? I do NOT want to remove See also sections entirely UNLESS the artlicle(s) listed in them has been already linked to. See also sections SHOULD exist as the current guideline points out. Can I make that ANY clearer. SlimVirgin, please do not change discussion titles and put your comments ahead of mine and distort this. I really didn't appreciate that. --Tom (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not what you're doing. Here you removed the section, even though neither of these links is in the article, but both have direct relevance. And it's the third time (or so) that you've removed it, citing this guideline. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted that since there is an ongoing disagreement.What is up with changing the title of the discussion here and inserting your comments in front of mine?--Tom (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting on that particular article, but could you address the broader point? You can't go around removing See also sections just because you think the links ought to be in the article. If they're not, they're not, and links can't always be forced in, and shouldn't always be forced in. Sometimes it's a good thing to draw people's attention to internal links that are related to the article, but not in a way that dictates they be included in it. That is the whole point of See also sections. The part of this guideline that implies otherwise does need to be removed, if that's how you're reading it -- or reworded in some way. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Again Slim, I have ONLY been removing links inside of See also sections that are linked higher up in the article. The Mann article was an exception since we went back and forth. Please review my edit history and you will see that is the case. I understand the guideline as it is currently written and agree with it. Basically See also links are relevent articles that have not been incorporated into the article YET. Once and if they can be worked into the main article, the See also should be depopulated and removed. If a See also link is already linked in the article it should be definately removed, correct? Anyways, maybe if necessary that section of the guideline could be rewritten here and consensus reached on the best wording? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As the section reads now: The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A "See also" section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article, include links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist. Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section.

A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "See also" section deprecated and removed once those topics have been added).

Links are presented in a bulleted list and should usually be listed in alphabetical order.

A less common practice is to name the section "Related topics". "See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with

It should be a heading of level 2 so that it appears in the table of contents. --Tom (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally disagree with Tom's opinions. Since this talk section is over month old I proose that it'll be moved to Proposed change to 'See also' guideline section. CrZTgR (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue

This seems to be the most suitable place to put this. Something in the layout of this article that I am working on is placing the [edit] buttons for the Background section and the Prelude to the battle section next to each other, just below the line of the latter section. The image of the typical Viet Minh ambush is also partly covering the first sentence. Is this a layout issue? Does anyone know what I can do to fix it, or where I should ask? SGGH ^speak! 10:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about see also links

If a Section has subsections, should all the see also links go at the beginning of the main section rather than under the subsection heading where they apply? An example is here [1] where the subsections printing and photography have main articles link under the header. I was told they all have to go at the top of the main section but this seems a bit confusing and less clear than the way they are currently. However, the guildeline on the page just says "section" with no reference for what to do with subsections. Thank you. pschemp | talk 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they can go under the subsection headings that they're most relevant to. That's the way I do it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood, pschemp ("There are Further details and See also templates in the middle of sections: they belong at the top."), as in this version. These templates go under the section heading before the text, per this and, for example, the instructions on each template (see {{See also}}). What you have in the article now is correct. Someone else may have corrected them before you saw the comment, which may have confused you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

Why is there a link to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes? This seems unorthodox for several reasons. First, it's a talk page without an accompanying article, even though its content is intended to be an article. Secondly, the small number of edits to that page combined with a lack of discussion seems to indicate that this did not result from a collaborative editing process. Finally, it introduces a method of combining notes and references in a manner which I have not yet seen in the wild, and is not elegant enough to encourage adoption (over simply combining a "Notes and references" section). Was this added by consensus? If not, I think it ought to be removed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to remove the links since no one has commented. I raised questions about it on the author's talk page and he did not respond either. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about inline citations

I'd like clarification on a point in order to (hopefully) put an end to an incredibly slow edit war. Note 2 under the section "Standard appendices and descriptions appears to suggest "Notes and references" is the recommended heading for footnotes which are both comments and citations, yet the paragraph under "Notes" gives an example of a citation which is headed "Notes". (And then there's the further confusion supplied by Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes, which I see has already been brought up.)

Question is simple: Given that its footnotes are both citations and commentary, should Regina's historic buildings and precincts have "Notes and references" or just "Notes"? --Sturm 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Either; it doesn't much matter. If I were Jimbo, I'd probably make it "notes", because "Notes and references" suggests footnotes and a bibliography, and this is only footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it doesn't really matter, but one thing you could do is determine if the non-reference notes are really necessary -- if they can be moved into the article without disrupting its flow, then do so; if the commentary is not NPOV, it should be deleted. Note #38 in particular seems to be synthesizing a lot of information instead of properly sourcing it or deferring to another wiki article. If you're able to get rid of all the notes, then you're just left with "references" and that solves that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stylization

What is the guideline for the stylization of links appearing in See also? Should it be considered as "see these articles" or "see these subjects"? To illustrate, this is a problem I see often (ignoring the problem that these are redlink examples):

==See also==
*Uniquely Titled Movie
*Movie With A Common Title (1999 film)
*List of similar films

The problem, to me, is that the disambiguation tag in the second link should not be italicized, as it is not part of the movie's title. On the other hand, if you italicize only the actual title, the resulting link has a somewhat awkward appearance since it has mixed stylization. This is assuming that the link should be italicized at all. The other option would be that all links in this section be treated as article names rather than as prose; thus not requiring any stylization. That is, the links in this section should be read as "see the Uniquely Titled Movie article" rather than "see the article on Uniquely Titled Movie". Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also be worth discussing whether the links in See also should be piped, or whether it is preferable to show the actual article name for the same reasons as in disambig. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Movie With A Common Title (1999 film)

—Random832 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On style

The header to the page starts "This page documents a style guideline" yet the lead goes on to say "This guide is not... about style". Could this be clarified, it seems a bit contadictary. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--how bizarre! I changed the second instance to "nor is it about writing style". Libcub (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to 'See also' guideline

Excerpt:

The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

I think that See also sections are useful in their own right, since sometimes one has neither the time nor inclination to read an entire article to discover other related subjects. I oppose this "rule of thumb" and suggest that relevant topics are included in the See also section, regardless of whether or not references to those articles are hidden away somewhere in the main body. ----Seans Potato Business 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Seans Potato Business and I do not find anything wrong with repeating references to other articles in main body and then in See also section. If See also section becomes too long it could be sorted into one or more templates but not removed. CrZTgR (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. I often go to the See also section of an article, hoping to find links to closely related articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At the same time I disagree with Tom's opinions as presented in December 2007 (see above) CrZTgR (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I find the advice in here very unhelpful, and it's being used by at least one editor to go around systematically removing not only links that are already in the article, but links he thinks ought to be in the article. Every time he does it, he links back to this page in his edit summaries. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, yes. I think there's a reasonable underlying point about not duplicating relatively unimportant wikilinks in the "see also" section. But if a link is really important and fundamental, the fact that it's also included inline in the text of a section should not mean removing it from the "see also" section. Two different issues. Wikidemo (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "See also" sections should contain important links even if they are linked in the article although I think templates would definately be preferable wherever possible. Guest9999 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. I seldom have time to read a long article carefully, and I imagine that most people are the same. I think the "See also" section should be a compendium of links to related articles, preferably with brief annotations for each link. This would be really useful for any encyclopedia, and especially for Wikipedia, which tries to make maximum use of the hyperlink concept. Let's be useful, folks. — Aetheling (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, if the same link appears in a template at the bottom of the article, that link probably shouldn't be repeated in the "See also" section. If a reader was looking for related links, most of the related links are found in the template(s) at the bottom of the article. --Silver Edge (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

People might still want to highlight it for some reason. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If articles are already displayed predominantly using the {{see also}} and {{main}} at the start of the appropriate sections I see no need to put them into a see also section at the bottom. I use the see also section to put in relevant links for which I do not have the time or the inclination to embed into the text in the hope that in the future someone will come along and integrate the link into the text. But unfortunately some use selective links in the "see also" sections to push POVs. Does one then delete them saying an unbalanced POV or does one enter into an arms race of adding more and more links to a "see also" section? I think it is better if the "see also" sections are kept as small as possible (internal link farms and all that) "and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article." is useful in helping to police "See also" sections. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As people have said above, there are times when it's good to highlight certain links for readers' interest. Adding and removing links can both be used by POV pushers, unfortunately. All we can do is make sure the See also sections stay within a reasonable length. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If the section "See also" is to be used the way some are suggesting then perhaps it should be renamed "Internal links" or some such name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this change; it furthers POV wars and link farms within See also. Articles should be incorporated in the text and listed as See also only in very limited cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Since this guideline has been in place for at least a year and a half (I didn't check further back), broader discussion before removing it would be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe a "See also" section is very helpful and should list links to closely related articles. I often can't think of what the title would be for a concept I'd like to read about, so I go to a related title and hope what I really want will be listed in the "See also" section. If these sections are being used in POV wars, delete the POV articles that are being linked to. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy - as a general rule links should not be repeated in the See Also section. As it is, many See Also sections are horribly long, and repeating links that are in the article is going to make them even longer and repetitive. If it's that necessary to have a large number of articles linked, put them in a list or a category and link to that (and only to that) in the See Also section. If the underlying issue is POV problems on specific pages, then this needs to be addressed on those pages - WP:NPOV always applies. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy and Karanacs. I feel "See Also" sections should only list additional links, over and above those linked from the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Sandy as well. Let's not clutter up the bottom of every page with a long list of links that, while possibly relevant, have been linked probably twice already (once in the lead and once in the article body). — Dulcem (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the long-standing version. Before changing, broader discussion should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is not to "clutter up the bottom of every page with a long list of links", it's not working. The effect is to encourage filling navigation templates with tons of links, repeating links from the article body and one or more tables. "See also" is a form of navigation for readers, and even if a topic is mentioned in the article body, a reader may not read the entire article. Some allowance should be made for listing related topics, even if they are linked somewhere in the text. I would rather see a short list of key related topics in "see also" than more bloated nav. templates. Gimmetrow 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, we'll get the navigational templates anyway, and end up with both. I've gotten stuck with nav templates I don't want, and fortunately, they can be made collapsible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. See also sections as they stand are not especially useful, as they usually contain links to unimportant, loosely related articles while missing out on other pages that would definitely be of interest for the reader. The purpose of "see also" sections generally is to indicate other material that complements what you just read, but the way they are employed on Wikipedia seems to miss that point. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of POV pushing applies to both options here. The current wording is being used by editors to remove links they don't want to see highlighted, which they do by adding them to the article, then removing them from See also, citing this guideline.

Having important links buried in the text and not listed in See also forces readers to look through the whole article to find them. But lots of people only want to scan articles quickly, and the See also section is something they're likely to look at to find related material. We should therefore offer it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In general one shouldn't repeat a link if it's not likely to be helpful, and repeat it if it is helpful and not otherwise easy to notice and get to for someone quickly perusing the article. That's a matter of article length, organization, the link in question, the nature of the other links int he see also section, and a bunch of other things. It's an editorial decision. Do we really have to spell this out? Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but I think it would be helpful to say what you've just said, instead of the current advice, which is leading to helpful links being removed. You're also right that we shouldn't have to spell these things out, but sadly ... :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. But Wikidemo's language does more than protect against abuse. Some people will always treat our suggestions mechanically; we should encourage editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his language would be helpful because it does encourage editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Can someone put up some exact proposed wording so we can come to consensus without multiple changes? The concern is See also link farms, duplicating links already in the text and in navigational templates, used to push POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. As a rule of thumb, links already included in the body of the text are not repeated in See also, but they may be repeated if particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice. Red links should not be added to this section.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Current:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of related internal links to other articles in Wikipedia. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at them side by side, I don't see any difference, but I do see WP:CREEP in the proposed change. What is the difference? Both recommend editorial judgement, common sense, and rule of thumb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this version explicitly says links may be repeated. The previous version didn't make this clear, so people were using it to go around removing links simply because they were already in the text, and in the case of one editor, was systematically going through articles removing links that he felt ought to be in the text. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I see in the new proposal is subjective instruction creep; the problem of one editor should be sorted out via "should be approached with common sense" and "rule of thumb", which aren't prescriptive. This new wording opens the door to all kinds of disagreement over what constitutes "helpful, interesting and relevant". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten people have posted above wanting to see the guideline changed to explicitly allow links in the text to be repeated in See also. So that's what this wording does. As a compromise, it also retains your preference that, as a rule of thumb, this shouldn't happen unless the links are particularly interesting. My own preference would be not to have the rule of thumb language at all, and I think that was the preference of all or most of the ten people who posted. But I retained it in my suggestion as a compromise between the two positions.

I agree that people will argue over what is "helpful," but people will argue regardless of the wording. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that, as Wikidemo says, we're trying to legislate for common sense, which isn't possible. But what we want to stop are people removing links in the See also section for no reason other than this guideline saying links shoudn't be repeated i.e. for no editorial reason. That's the aim of any new wording. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"forces readers to look through the whole article to find them"

Readers who know what they are looking for should just go to the article. Readers who don't know what they are looking for aren't going to look through an article to find it. See also sections should be used minimally, and removed when possible. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

"Readers who don't know what they are looking for aren't going to look through an article to find it.". Exactly, but they might glance at the See also section. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in providing links to those who read Wikipedia in a state of free association. That certainly is not the point of See also. We have sidebar templates on topics, we have nav templates on grouped articles, we have categories for loosely hierarchical organization. See also sections are a tacit admission that Wikipedia is perpetually incomplete and should be limited to topics the article does not already cover or link to. If we've already linked everything in a see also it should be removed, it's not there as an internal link farm. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

But people disagree with that, as you can see above. Therefore, we're trying to find compromise wording. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People do disagree with that, which is why the current wording is already a compromise. What's wrong with it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I meant that people disagree with the current wording, which is why this section was started. See above for the reasons. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a variety of opinion in the discussion without any overwhelming call for change. So as to your specific proposal, I oppose it. The added sentence will add to internal links farms, POV pushing, and even spam. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why is the "particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant" phrase back? I don't see any new consensus for that, only opposition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are ten people above who want that section changed. If you can propose better wording, please do, but there's no consensus not to allow links to be repeated. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are not ten people who've shown consensus for your proposed change. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The proposed wording seems fine. As an example of an article where I think the current wording causes problems, take a look at right triangle. In this article I think that if Pythagorean theorem isn't linked in the first few sentences, it should appear in see also, but this is prohibited by the current wording because the term is already linked deep within the body of the article. All in all, I agree that links should not be repeated if they are already in the lead, but otherwise believe that important links ought to appear in see also even if they are being repeated. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added your point about the lead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

SV, you've got two people saying they oppose the wording, and two people saying it is ok. That's not a discussion with consensus for you to insist on making the change. You want this change to get the upper hand in your own edit wars on other articles. It's not good faith to push the issue here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How on earth would this change give me the upper hand in edit wars, and what edit wars? I'm actually not keen on long See alsos with lots of repeated links. Your assumption of bad faith is astonishing.

We have 11 people saying they don't want the current wording. I'm going to remove the sentence people are objecting to, then we can discuss what to replace it with, if you don't like the wording I added. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference between the two versions, except the current version uses 'should', which I like. Here's a suggestion:

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Though generally this section should not repeat articles already linked in the body text, links that editors agree are particularly helpful, interesting or relevant may be repeated, particularly if they are not prominent in the body. Red links should not be added to this section.

I like it because it places emphasis on editorial consensus and relative prominence, and uses 'should', which is proscriptive enough to make people think. My ¥0.5 WLU (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the "links that editors agree" part of that wording. That can, and in some cases will, be read as empowering one disagreeing editor to assert a veto. I also disagree with wording saying, e.g., "where there is a consensus", which can be read as requiring a consensus to be demonstrated in order to reverse the removal of a link. I haven't been following this discussion, but the current wordding,

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

looks fine to me. Thnkering with that in an attempt to explicitly define "editorial judgment and common sense" in this context invites wikilawyering, IMHO. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I strongly disagree with the removal of the long-standing consensus wording, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article. Also, the edit warring that occurred today is inexcusable; I believe SV knows that WP:3RR doesn't excuse three reverts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "additional" necessary in the proposed wording? It seems to assume that there's already a list of links in the article, which may not be the case. I'm unsure I can see the advantage in the change, in any case. Tony (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people understand phrases like "rule of thumb" and "generally" as allowing for differences. I think we're in agreement that the rule discouraging repeating "links" is not absolute, if "links" means any wikilink in the text. If we're clear on that, fine. I was wondering about the context of this rule of thumb: was it perhaps added when the majority of featured articles were fairly short? Or by "links" did it mean {{main}} links? Or was this back when articles were not filled with wikilinks, and you could pick out the valueable links on sight? Gimmetrow 02:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw this at ANI, so how about just changing the order of the sentences so that people realize how things are generally done but emphasizes that good judgment is necessary (descriptive not prescriptive). I suggest this order:

"Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also", however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

Does that satisfy everyone's concerns? R. Baley (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, although it would need to be two sentences or a semi-colon if you use "however"; if one sentence, "although" instead of "however." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking "however" and semi-colon more than "although". . .but I can't exactly articulate why . . .something about the two ideas needing to be linked tighter than 2 separate sentences would allow. . . R. Baley (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"But" could also link them, as in: "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also", but whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." I'm fine with whatever you decide though. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the "but" wording seems a little strong to me, I'm going to go ahead and add it with the "however" phrasing (does a comma go after the "however" part? It's clear that you have a better feel for this type of thing than I do). Let me add that I'm not married to this, and I hope that Sandy Georgia, and others, support this edit as well. If not, well, I guess we'll keep talking. R. Baley (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw this at AN/I: can I object in the strongest possible manner to the removal of "and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article"? That is a pretty good rule of thumb. I also think we need to encourage people to actually write rather than link enormous numbers of articles in a list. And if they are forced to write, then they are forced to cite how those things are actually linked, which cuts down on OR an POV-pushing. Weakening this restriction is completely unjustifiable. 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that there has been a massive change since Dec 6. That's unacceptable. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the compromise phrasing? It keeps the phrasing (which I agree with by the way) but it also allows for common sense exceptions (no rule is ironclad. . . well, almost no rule is ironclad :-) R. Baley (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the wording on Dec 5:

"The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A "See also" section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article, include links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist. Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section. A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "See also" section deprecated and removed)."

This is what is current.

"The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

Eviscerated, pointless, dangerous, and completely unacceptable. Relata refero (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Relato, the wording you're pointing to was added quite recently without discussion, in September, by Schmucky the Cat. [2] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I read the thread that lead up to this, and am surprised that none of this was included (or noted) in the objections. I'm going to have to take this up a bit later today (if something isn't worked out in the meantime) since I really can't spend any more time on it right now. R. Baley (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, SV, that makes more sense. However, here's the revision that seems to have lasted a long time:

"The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links."

That should be the basis of comparison, then. Relata refero (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And what has been added to that is: "however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just that, though that is either redundant or inappropriate. (Depending upon how you look at it.) Also, the word "additional" has been excised; and it has removed the line "Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article...." Which is absolutely correct. This isn't a minor tweak, its changing the meaning. Relata refero (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the meaning is changed. What the additional clause does is stress "ideally" or "generally," whichever word is being used now. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous version (before Schmucky's Sept 3, 2007 edit) [3]	Current version [4]
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.	The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

Oo, that's clever formatting.

Come on, SV, one makes a suggestion, and the other wimps out. You know that. There's a big change in meaning. Relata refero (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a style issue, where editor discretion is needed. Clearly we don't want a link farm in the "See also" section, nor a repetition of many or most wikilinks already in the text. We need to explain that in general we don't repeat, but it is up to the editors to decide, depending on specific circumstances. Crum375 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Glad you like it. :) Well, for a start, the writing is now better, which is something. The only suggestion missing is "Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links." This is exactly the kind of advice I dislike. We should write articles the way they need to be written, not according to all these recipes. But I won't squeal if you want to restore it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to R. Baley's version, although I prefer the original wording that said ideally not repeat links. It more clearly specified the standard of neutral writing expected on Wiki's best articles, which is to incorporate meaningful links into the text for comprehensive, neutral articles.[5] Weakening this wording is an invitation to move edit warring from within the article to the See also section, without engaging good, neutral writing. What I am concerned about is the 3RR violation that occurred here yesterday; three reverts are not excused by WP:3RR, and each time this occurs it shouldn't have to go to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But will that apply to you too, Sandy, when you ask your friends to turn up to revert and argue and insult other people on your behalf? Or should it apply only to people who get in the way of what you want? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that outburst contribute to improving this article/guideline? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Does yours? And why don't you use four tildes? Crum375 (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with R Baleys change, as it is simply different wording for what existed before the edit war. The objectionable part is the expansion that was added during part of the edit war. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Case studies

Sometimes, looking at specific cases can help clarify matters. 7 World Trade Center is the first article listed on WP:FA, and it has two links in "see also": List of tallest buildings in New York City and World Trade Center in popular culture. Neither seem to be in the article text, but the second is in the nav. box. Do both links belong? Going down a few sections on WP:FA, what about 0.999...? This article has no nav. boxes, and seven "see also" links. I would be surprised if at least one were not already linked in the text, and some could probably be incorporated into the text. Gimmetrow 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ACK! 7 WTC passed with two supports, one oppose, no thorough review (looking at the footnotes alone makes me want to get to work on cleanup), so this article may not be representative of FAC. But ... I think both of those could be considered appropriate under a rule of thumb for See also, as they both represent links that probably don't have a place in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from accessdates, what's the big problem with the footnotes in 7? Yes, I think "sister" articles, like "X in popular culture", fit into "see also", though a short section with a {{main}} link could be written for those. The "see also" in 0.999... is not in the promoted version. Gimmetrow 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing accessdates, missing publishers, date formatting in citations all over the map, and MOS:CAPS#All caps. So far (first two sections only). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on the Red links should not be added to the section. It may be obvious to experienced editors, but for new editors not familiar with wiki, it's a good bit of guidance. Since this is being reviewed anyway, perhaps we could plug in something from WP:EL - "a small number of links or lack of a see also section is not a reason to add to the page/section." A policy I like for this is WP:PROVEIT - the onus is on the adding editor to convince others that they are necessary, not the other way around, but I could be in the minority on that one (in case it's not obvious, I'm more than a bit of a deletionist and hate long see also sections).

So, what are the central issues? 1) how much do we want to restrict links already in the body text? Right now there is rule of thumb' (moderately proscriptive) vs should not (much more proscriptive) vs generally does not (weakly proscriptive) 2) When should links be duplicated? particularly interesting, helpful or relevant and not otherwise easy to notice vs including no criteria (essentially making it a 'should not repeat').

Another point - any of the 'particularly interesting, helpful or relevant' links should probably be in the lead or {{main}}'s themsevles, making them quite prominent indeed. WLU (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"particularly interesting, helpful or relevant" is inviting people to make link farms out of repeat and POV "relevant" links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agreed, I would rather the statement be something like 'exceptional cases only' or flatly 'don't repeat links.' WLU (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Why not push it all to nav boxes then, and get rid of see also? (I don't actually want this, but it seems to be where this is headed.) Gimmetrow 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some articles don't have enough related links to have nav boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the argument seems to be they should be incorporated into the text. If necessary, can create a generic "related links" navbox. Gimmetrow 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Incorporation into the text has been the default position for a while I believe, and one that I'm happy with. There are cases where it's impossible or very difficult to integrate into the body (such as List of ... links or similar incidents in different geographic areas). See also sections can be useful, but they shouldn't be glutted with a duplication of every link already in the page. Some links on loosely related articles only make sense on one page, and a see also link is much easier to add than building a template box. WLU (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I had previously wrote into the guideline that See also links should often be treated as work items: unfinished text that needs to be incorporated into the text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

'Should be if possible' is reasonable, but 'needs to be' is a bit strong to me. Sometimes the links just can't be included, and that's OK, but not ideal. The see also section is a useful one, but one that should be handled carefully. WLU (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the very strong opinion that the current wording is fine. It does not prevent links being included again in the section if there is a case for it. I'm not sure if I was the user SlimVirgin was referring to above, but if you browse my contribution history, you will see many of my edits are removing redundant links (edit summary usually "rm redundant section" or "rm redundant links"). Most of them are clearly over the top (such as the article Australian Open having "See also: Tennis" on it). I've never had anyone show opposition to these changes until today, which is why I checked this talk page. In the example, another user is reinstating removed links which are mentioned both in the introduction to the article, and in a navbox directly below the 'See also' section. Since the entire point of navboxes is to provide links to other articles in a consistent manner, I think navboxes are effectively a 'standardised See Also' section. The article in question is Newcastle United Jets season 2007-08 (and also the 2005-06 and 2006-07 articles). If anyone wants to share their opinion, either on those articles or my "rm redundant links" edits in general, please feel free (either here, article talk page or my talk page, as appropriate). -- Chuq (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on a new proposal

I would welcome comments on this proposal Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Policy_amendment_request_-_addition_to_what_Wikipedia_is_not--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This is WP:LAME - just saw the thread on AN/I - well, since WP:BRD seems to have broken down, there's only one way left to determine consensus... —Random832 15:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Add link to ANI.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In favor of change

proposed version

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Links already included in the body of the text, particularly in the lead, are generally not repeated in See also, but they may be repeated if they are particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

Regardless of any behavioral issues, this is in my opinion a good change. —Random832 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes repeating links so that they are in the body and see also section is a good idea, think about how a reader is going to be reading it. Are they really going to find links in See also that easily? It is hard to explain why repeated links is a good idea, it just is. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Editors should be allowed to repeat links that are especially interesting or relevant if they're not easy to find in the text. Any problems can be dealt with using NPOV and UNDUE. Schmucky, please let people comment here. You can make arguments against elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. A short organized list of related topics, all together, is quite helpful. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. The 'See also' section is useful in itself, as a separate entity to the rest of the article. If I don't know the name of a topic, but I do know the name of a topic very closely related then there used to be a good chance of finding it in the 'See also' section, but the current wording of the Layout guidelines would require that I read/scan the entire article. The 'See also' section can be useful, without even reading the rest of the article (which may not meet a readers requirements). ----Seans Potato Business 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. As much as some may hate to admit it, Wikipedia's major strength is its list of relevant, high quality, vetted links and sources for a given subject. This is true for external links (as footnote references or separate), as well as internal links into other WP articles as in 'See also'. We should not hamper editors who are trying to provide readers with the best possible and easiest to access information about (or related to) the subject. Crum375 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Against change

current version

Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

I think the current wording, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" is more appropriate. We do not want to run the risk of encouraging a link farm in the See Also section. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Against change to long-standing consensus, which encourages See also link farms, POV wars in See also, and non-comprehensive writing. Long-standing consensus was that good writing incorporate meaningful links into the text for comprehensive, neutral articles. [7] I'm also concerned that SV's change to this guideline arose out of a content dispute she was having at Keith Mann;[8] it's a concern if someone edit wars to alter policy and guideline pages to gain an edge in a content dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Against link farms and excuses for POV See also lists. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Don't like the change, and hate polls. Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. I agree with my colleagues above. — Dulcem (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry about the edits, easier for me to understand the difference if I can compare on the same page) Prefer this version. Simpler, less wiggle room for sliding in links that aren't needed. If the link should be more prominent, this means the page isn't putting enough emphasis on it and should be edited accordingly. Duplication isn't a good thing, neither is lengthening a page with duplicate content. WLU (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer this version, labeled against change. The other version seems to encourage see also bloat and is a green light to those that want to see them grow. Further, how could one easily distinguish the unique links from those repeated from the main text? They would be less obvious and thus the value of the see also section, IMO, would be significantly diminished. This version still leaves room for exceptional links to be repeated. David D. (Talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am against the change to the new wording for the reasons I gave higher up the page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Just so I understand clearly, the proposal here changes the order of the sentences/phrasing a bit, and adds:

". . .but they (See Also links) may be repeated if they are particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice."

the above is an argument to be made for inclusion of a 'See Also link', but is it necessary to suggest arguments in the guideline itself? I don't see the necessity for this change and still think that the current wording is fine because it discourages link farms while explicitly permitting the addition of links when merited. But it's hard for me to get worked up over this either way. R. Baley (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed by its very nature the current version allows see also links to be added as a rarity, while the former version invites it. The change is minor, but is it significant? Stick with the old. WLU (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the old version:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of related internal links to other articles in Wikipedia. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between them can be measured in mustard seeds. I come down on a side that discourages duplicating links in the see also. I'd say 'current version' is preferable, but either of these are OK to me. WLU (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (moved from responses in vote sections)

(re Karanacs) I don't see that issue with the proposed wording; it's just trying to prevent something from being kept out of See Also just because it's an obscure piped link in a subsection of a subsection. —Random832 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When you identify this text with the edits of the person proposing it, it clearly is meant to be an excuse for POV entries on See also lists and link farms. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

P.S. - Can someone explain why POV can't be stopped by, you know, referring to the WP:NPOV policy; instead of using "they're linked elsewhere in the article" as a reason to remove the links? —Random832 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of all the whining. Putting wikilawyer language like "considered helpful" or "considered relevant" will encourage the POV links, and encourage whining about their removal. You can hear their chorus now: "It's not POV, it's relevant." I try and neutralize a lot of articles where nationalism runs high. If there is some independence movement in a country, you will find links to it in the See also section of dozens of articles about that country and it's government. Of course linking to a political movement everywhere is NPOV because of undue weight. If the nationalist come here and see "helpful, interesting, or relevant" they (and their socks, and their friends, and their friends socks) will campaign that linking to the movement is all of those things.

To that I say, soundly, NO! Like all content decisions, See also is bound by our policies, and by editorial judgment. When something is truly helpful, interesting, or relevant and under-represented in the main text it will be linked to in See also. We don't need any encouragement to do that, it's natural. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(re 209.244) Articles have dozens of wikilinks. We have no idea which link any particular reader is looking for. Readers who don't know what they are looking for are not going to be helped by a link farm of a dozen freely associated links. Readers who DO know what they are looking for have navboxes, infoboxes, categories, and a helpful search box. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(re SandyGeorgia) Stop these bad-faith assumptions and personal attacks. Show me diffs to how anything at Keith Mann relates to this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] I've never edited this article. All I did was scan the first 50 edits for your name. Behind the Mask should be written into the article. It's a good See also candidate UNTIL a sentence is put in the Keith Mann article saying he was in the film. But why should Veganism be there at all? That's link spam. If he's a vegan, it should be a sentence in the article. Veganism shouldn't be in the See also for every vegan, not even the activist ones. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

All good points from SmuckyTheCat. SandyGeorgia's comment just states the obvious, I don't see how AGF does not preclude her from making such an observation. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(re SchmuckyTheCat) I didn't start this proposal, in case you hadn't noticed. You really ought not to let yourself be used in this way. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A side issue

It looks like the actual content dispute that sparked this was someone removing links from See Also because they were present in a navbox. Should navboxes be considered "article text" for purposes of this guideline? —Random832 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As with the rest of this guideline, common sense and rule of thumb apply. If something is important enough to be needed in See also, and doesn't have a place in a nav template, then it should be worked into the article. If something is already linked in a nav template, there's often little reason for it to be in See also as well. (My samples supporting this view are the autism and Asperger syndrome articles, and {{pervasive developmental disorders}} and the entire series of articles relating to {{autism rights movement}}; there are numerous links in the nav templates which don't need to be repeated in See also. A navigational template more than serves the purpose of leading the reader to related topics. If they are significant enough to be mentioned, they are already in the article.) On the other hand, there are probably common sense exceptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A navbox places a fair amount of emphasis on anything contained therein - it is by nature a large box saying "These topics are all related in a particular way, and here is the structure". I'd say it's more useful than a generically alphabetized see also section because of the structure inherent to all navboxes, and accordingly would not need to be duplicated in the see also section. If it's major, it should be embedded as well. If it's not, it shouldn't be repeated in a see also as well as a navbox. If it's somewhere in between and not embedded, that's when a discussion should take place. WLU (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Banner blindness. The fact that SlimVirgin, in describing the other user's actions, didn't even realize the links were present at all would seem to support my point. —Random832 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely different kind of banner (advertising). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From the article: The information that was overlooked was both external advertisement banners and internal navigational banners like e.g. quick links. (emphasis mine). And, anyway - I don't agree that "it should be embedded as well" is valid if it is _not_ at present time embedded. —Random832 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is, if the link is highly relevant to the page it is on, it should be linked somewhere already. If not, this suggests to me that the page content requires expanding to include the link's topic to show that it is relevant to the page. Banner blindness is something worth thinking about and it seems like there is value in discussing. I'm tempted to argue that given what wikipedia is and the uniformity of many aspects of various page, people may seek out navboxes rather than tune them out, once readers realize what they are. But I'm sure that's what web designers use to comfort themselves as they drift of to sleep. We need Benway and Lane to do a study of wikipedia... Wouldn see also sections themselves result in a form of banner blindness? They are akin to quicklinks for wikipages after all. WLU (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Notes"

This style guideline currently says:

"Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise "Notes and references" should be combined.

Numerous Wikipedia articles have sections (often named References) which contain alphabetized lists of works cited in the article and which also contain sections (often named Notes) containing both footnotes and links to internal and/or external URLs and/or unlinked citations of external works (e.g., Book of Mormon, Bengali language, Brabham, Brigham Young — just a few examples turned up by searching for pages which link to {{harvnb}}). Should this guideline be modified so as not to disallow both notes and references in sections named Notes? If not, then what? Should such articles have all of this material in one section headed Notes and References? If so, what about the myriad of existing articles such as those mentioned previously which do not follow this convention? Personally, I would favor not disallowing the common current practice of placing both notes and references in a section named Notes. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that language is only referring to situations where two footnote systems are used to create separate sections for content footnotes and citations; even in those situations I'm not sure the rule is widely followed. The system you describe is in wide use, and the text on the guideline should be adjusted to reflect existing practices. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Citing sources guideline seems to disagree with this one; they should be harmonized. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the featured article for today you will see that it only contains footnote style reference and this becoming the standard expectation at Wikipedia:Featured articles. If you are going to build towards a FA article (and we are all doing that I hope) that includes footnote notes, you don't have any choice but to combine References and Notes. There is no way I am aware of to use <ref></ref> to populate a reference section and notes section seperately. Jeepday (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case being discussed here, the References section would contain a list of works, and Notes would contain the citations, made using <ref> or another footnote technology. Only the Notes section is populated with inline citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some articles split annotations and citations and list of works, and so need three section headers. That can mean "Notes" for the annotations, "Citations" for citations and "References" for the works, but I've also seen "References" for citations, and "Works cited" or even "Bibliography" for the works. Gimmetrow 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is an article with a hundred references or more. The notes/footnotes section is of no use as a reference section as the entries are in whatever order they appear in the text. In such cases having a list in the reference section in alphabetical order on author for articles, and in particular books, that are cited more than once is useful for the reader of the article if they wish to delve further into a topic than a Wikipedia article can go. It also has the practical advantage that it reduces the length of the article as only the author and page number needs to be given in the citation rather than a full citation every time. See the Battle of Waterloo for an example of this system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of See Also, but a different issue

WP:ALSO currently says, "Links....should be listed in alphabetical order" and also that "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation." In longer lists, it is often not possible to comply with both guidelines simultaneously. Which rule has priority? Should we alphabetize, even if it means that related topics aren't kept together, or should we group by topic, even if it means that list isn't alphabetized?

As a matter of editorial sense, I think that topical groups are more important than alphabetical order, although I'm happy to do as much alphabetization as possible within that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. For instance, at WP:WPA, of the 15 most recent good articles, 10 have no See also section, 1 has 1 such link, and 4 have 3 or 4 See also links...and not one of the 4 is alphabetized, but then, you hardly need help finding your way through 4 links. That suggests that good articles don't tend to have a lot of See also links, and also that alphabetization is not something people care about a lot for this number of links. OTOH, I have noticed a tendency to have more See also links in science and tech articles. For instance, on the upper end of the wikilink scale, Robot (which passed its GAR a while ago) has around 60 See also links. Only three links weren't alphabetized...and this might be instructive, all of them should have been (and they are now). This suggests, maybe, that if the rule is "don't alphabetize if you want to group things together", you might go for a long time (as Robot did) with the links in the wrong order, because proofreaders will be assuming that someone knew what they were doing when they grouped things together...and, in science and tech articles, almost no one knows what all the words mean or which words might possibly have connections to other words, so it seems to me, in an article with 60 See also links, it might be counterproductive not to put them in alpha order. I suppose we could say that related groups of links get sub-bullets...but when you've got 3 columns of links already, wouldn't that get messy?

At any rate...although usually in a MoS-related article like this I wait for consensus before I do anything, in this case, the two rules in the article that you mention contradict each other, and we can't let that stand, so I'll change it at least to something that's not contradictory for now...going by the pattern in the GAR-articles, how about "It is helpful to alphabetize the links if there are more than a few of them."? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. WhatamIdoing, Robot broke the See also links into two sections, and alphabetized in each section. Would it make sense to do this in general, that is, to break things up into separate sections in those cases where you want to keep like things together, to keep copyeditors from coming through and re-alphabetizing by mistake, and also to keep people from wondering when things are out of alphabetical order if it's for some non-obvious reason related to grouping? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that having sixty items in the ==See also== section is poor form in general. As alternatives, they could be incorporated into the article, or dropped into a collapsible subject-area template. But yes: subgroups on such a list are really useful. Also, if editors add the half-sentence explanation of why a reader might want to click on the link, that may also make the chosen order clear. On those articles with enough links to make some kind of formal organization useful -- well, it's not like we have a horde of alphabetizing editors out there. If you grouped by topic, and it gets alphabetized, then you can undo it and leave a note on the talk page. I'd be surprised if that happened to the same article twice in any year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps either separate subsections, or doing sub-bullets (wikicode **), would be the way to go, to clearly represent the subgroups the editors are thinking of. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

STYLE1.0

Version 0.7 decisions are being made now, and the printed and DVD Wikipedia Version 1.0 is not that far off. Wikipedians don't have absolute discretion in formatting decisions (where the periods should go, where the lines should break, end section format, etc) in the printed version; there's also the publisher to deal with. Why formatting decisions in the printed version might affect Wikipedia style guidelines is a bit complicated (short answer: "Jimbo said so"), so anyone interested in either is encouraged to join the discussion at WT:STYLE1.0. Some of the discussions above do seem to involve these kinds of issues. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives