Wikipedia talk:See alsos
I want to develop this with some more choices before I begin a poll and I hope others will add. Anomo 06:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Pages? edit
What is a "page" in the context of this proposal? A screen length? What size screen? With what display parameters? What size fonts? And so forth... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Maybe we can measure it another way? Anomo 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about using sections as a guideline? So, if a term is introduced in one section, it shouldn't be again wikilinked within the same section, but can be in one of the following sections. Sections are seldom too long for a link to get lost.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean sections "== like this ==" or the less important ones "=== like this ===" ? It depends also on how long a section is. Anomo 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- In general, the higher level ones ("==XXX=="). Exceptions can be made when/if necessary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the best way to make length objective. Number of words may fit this, but it is hard to visualize. Sections may be easier to measure for everyone, but their length varies. Anomo 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Length isn't that important a factor for this particular purpose when you use sections as a yardstick. Short or long, it's more likely that a reader would finish reading a section rather than the whole article. A section is a logical unit of flow, so it would be natural to link each term once within a section. And again, in an extremely long section, there can always be an exception for rare but important terms. Anyway, just my opinion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the best way to make length objective. Number of words may fit this, but it is hard to visualize. Sections may be easier to measure for everyone, but their length varies. Anomo 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- In general, the higher level ones ("==XXX=="). Exceptions can be made when/if necessary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean sections "== like this ==" or the less important ones "=== like this ===" ? It depends also on how long a section is. Anomo 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about using sections as a guideline? So, if a term is introduced in one section, it shouldn't be again wikilinked within the same section, but can be in one of the following sections. Sections are seldom too long for a link to get lost.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Debate? edit
- There is a debate in editing over the use of see alsos and the purpose of this poll is to determine consensus in good editing.
Are you thinking of a specific, on-going debate? If so, where? Or are you thinking about previous debates you've come across from time to time? If so, what was their outcome? 192.75.48.150 15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I asked lots of people on IRC and on the wiki and nobody could agree so I am trying to find consensus on proper editing. Anomo 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so nobody could agree. That happens a lot, actually, and usually everything works just fine anyway. Is this lack of agreement causing problems in this case? Maybe, for now, we don't need an answer at all. We can use our judgement as we need it. Are there specific pages you have in mind? 192.75.48.150 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I made this to determine what people think on this editing issue. Even if people debate it, I thik it is good to know the various consensuses on what are the best editing regarding what is mentioned here. Anomo 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so nobody could agree. That happens a lot, actually, and usually everything works just fine anyway. Is this lack of agreement causing problems in this case? Maybe, for now, we don't need an answer at all. We can use our judgement as we need it. Are there specific pages you have in mind? 192.75.48.150 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I asked lots of people on IRC and on the wiki and nobody could agree so I am trying to find consensus on proper editing. Anomo 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Purpose? edit
What is the purpose of this? What is wrong with the current practice? Why is this formed like a vote when the proposal is apparently not even finished? Also, you are mixing different issues; having multiple wiki-links in an article is not related to a see also section. The proper place for any discussion on these matters is their respective Manual of Style pages, which is where an addition like this would go. I don't see why there would be any need for an entirely new guideline. —Centrx→talk • 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- See also m:Instruction creep. —Centrx→talk • 15:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is current practice? I formed this because there was nothing on this in any manual of style. It's not about rules but recommendations based on consensus for good editing regarding see alsos. Anomo 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is information about See also in Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. See also sections are commonly used fairly well; the only change I would think appropriate would be discouraging the inclusion of relatively unrelated links. —Centrx→talk • 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had looked before and found nothing at all. I asked a lot of people and they debated whether it was good practice to use see alsos at all. So I had thought maybe they should be put into the article. I also had seen many attempts to order the see alsos into a template box like in Scientology and Enki (although those articles do have see alsos, sometimes I've seen it where people try to move all the see alsos into those). Thanks for finding that. I don't know what to do with this straw poll now. Anomo 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Templates on subject areas are a different matter. Sometimes, though having many of them on one article is excessive. I am still not sure what you think is a current problem or what you are proposing. See alsos are for directing the reader to other articles that would supplement their knowledge of the subject. To that end, entries should be combined to a few, highly relevant ones. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't a problem so much as an uncertainty and finding good editing advice when I found everyone asked had pretty different ideas. Anomo 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Templates on subject areas are a different matter. Sometimes, though having many of them on one article is excessive. I am still not sure what you think is a current problem or what you are proposing. See alsos are for directing the reader to other articles that would supplement their knowledge of the subject. To that end, entries should be combined to a few, highly relevant ones. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had looked before and found nothing at all. I asked a lot of people and they debated whether it was good practice to use see alsos at all. So I had thought maybe they should be put into the article. I also had seen many attempts to order the see alsos into a template box like in Scientology and Enki (although those articles do have see alsos, sometimes I've seen it where people try to move all the see alsos into those). Thanks for finding that. I don't know what to do with this straw poll now. Anomo 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
See alsos for bands, authors, book titles, works of art etc. desirous of promotional enrichment edit
A very un-encyclopedic and abusive use of "see also"s is to advertise and promote bands or other artistic/cultural works who aim to benefit from the fact that they are named after a much more popular subject on Wikipedia. In almost all cases where a band/author etc is doing this (deliberately or otherwise), a link to a disambiguation page is preferable to a "see also" which advertises the name and existence of the entity they wish to promote at the very top of the (usually more popular) page before the article even begins.
The above link is the information I posted on the village pump regarding this subject. Also see the talk page on Rings of Saturn for an example of the successful removal of a "see also" on the grounds that it constituted advertising.
In cases like Iron Maiden for example, the band's massive popularity warrants a "see also" as people may likely have been searching for the band and not the torture device of dubious historicity. I wish to open a discussion on how to use discretion in determining whether or not a see also is warranted in such cases. It is my opinion that, with a view to keeping wikipedia serious and non biased, it is usually not.Edaham (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)