(+addition) |
April Arcus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 20:58, 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 which 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. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --Serenity 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)
- I like "Main article:" since often it's only pertinent to the given section. --Peter Farago 14:58, 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. And at the bottom isn't look that good like this. --Serenity 14:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)