Template talk:Seealso - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:58:34Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom it doesn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom it doesn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	: To be honest, I don't see the need... The "see also" section typically suffices for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:30, 17 January 2007 (CST)		: To be honest, I don't see the need... The "see also" section typically suffices for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:30, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: + .02 cubits

2007-01-18T00:30:59Z

+ .02 cubits

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 18 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			: To be honest, I don't see the need... The "see also" section typically suffices for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:30, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Serenity at 21:02, 17 January 2007

2007-01-17T21:02:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 17 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and which therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)		Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and which therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom ~~isn~~'t look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom it doesn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)

April Arcus at 20:58, 17 January 2007

2007-01-17T20:58:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 17 January 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Serenity: +addition

2007-01-17T20:53:27Z

+addition

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:53, 17 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)		Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and which therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Serenity at 20:46, 17 January 2007

2007-01-17T20:46:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 17 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)		Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Mercifull: not sure about this

2007-01-17T20:40:49Z

not sure about this

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 17 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)		Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Serenity: description

2007-01-17T20:24:18Z

description

New page

Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom it doesn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom it doesn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	: To be honest, I don't see the need... The "see also" section typically suffices for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:30, 17 January 2007 (CST)		: To be honest, I don't see the need... The "see also" section typically suffices for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:30, 17 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 18 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			: To be honest, I don't see the need... The "see also" section typically suffices for such things. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:30, 17 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 17 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and which therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)		Good idea with a template for this, but the description is that of "See main article:". Personally I use "See also:" to link to articles that are about closely related subjects and which therefore might be of interest to the reader. But those aren't outsourced parts of the parent article. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom ~~isn~~'t look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom it doesn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			::::Yeah, main article is good and the ident works there as it's usually only used for sub-sections. But for the above reasons, doing "See also" the same way isn't such a good idea IMO. At the bottom, a seperate section draws the most attention --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 15:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 17 January 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)		:Mmm i don't really like the look of this and don't feel there is a need either tbh. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
	::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)		::Oh, that was my other thought. Having a <nowiki>==See Also==</nowiki> header at the end of the article makes more sense than the italicized ident like we do with "Main article:" now. Even putting it at the top isn't as good as at the end, where someone will read it ''after'' he already read all the main information. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
			:::I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)