Template talk:Seealso: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Template:Seealso
More actions
not sure about this |
No edit summary |
||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 20:46, 17 January 2007
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. --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 ==See Also== section with 2 links isn't going to hurt. It also is less database queries. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 14:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)
- Oh, that was my other thought. Having a ==See Also== 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. --Serenity 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)