On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:19:55 -0000, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Zoney wrote
Ah, but you see, that's exactly the kind of
thing that would be nice
to stop (in my opinion). If for example, [[Gilbert O'Sullivan]] is
likely to be confused with [[Gilbert and Sullivan]] (and I'm not
certain about that, but yes, there are other plausible examples), it
should surely be treated as disambiguation, not lumped in with a list
of *related* articles. "See also" is too much of a "catch all" title.
Well, you seem to be on several crusades. I don't myself see much future in
trying to regulate what internal links people make - it's one of those
things that wikis handle by consensus.
Charles
I wouldn't call it a crusade - it's simply that I would rather use
"Related articles" in articles I edit - and without any support from
others for this title (either as the preferred option or an acceptable
alternative), I would have to face people randomly changing it to "See
also".
I hadn't known that the heading "related articles" had indeed
previously been used. Is it still acceptable or was there a definitive
decision to only use "see also"?
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...