I'm not sure where I should make this suggestion to grab the most attention, so I shall make it here.
I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the end of articles, we use the title "Related articles". The latter sounds much more encyclopaedic, clearly indicates the purpose of the section, and should encourage only relevant links at the end of articles.
"See also" is quite blunt, rather ineloquent and instructional in my opinion. Do people have thoughts on this? I'm aware of how wide-ranging this would be, but I would see the (somewhat) temporary dual-usage of both section titles as a small enough disruption.
Zoney
Zoney wrote
I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the end of articles, we use the title "Related articles".
As far as I'm concerned, these mean different things. 'See also' can include non-related articles with names that are closely related, for example [[Gilbert O'Sullivan]] in an article on [[Gilbert and Sullivan]].
I think 'See also' is fine; I'm sure most people just treat it as advisory.
Charles
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:01 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Zoney wrote
I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the end of articles, we use the title "Related articles".
As far as I'm concerned, these mean different things. 'See also' can include non-related articles with names that are closely related, for example [[Gilbert O'Sullivan]] in an article on [[Gilbert and Sullivan]].
I think 'See also' is fine; I'm sure most people just treat it as advisory.
Charles
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.
Zoney
Zoney (zoney.ie@gmail.com) [050119 04:01]:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:01 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Zoney wrote
I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the end of articles, we use the title "Related articles".
As far as I'm concerned, these mean different things. 'See also' can include non-related articles with names that are closely related, for example [[Gilbert O'Sullivan]] in an article on [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]. I think 'See also' is fine; I'm sure most people just treat it as advisory.
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.
In practice, "See also" is universally treated as meaning "Related articles (that don't have a link in the text)" rather than "disambiguation". Furthermore, the few existing examples of "Related articles" are being replaced with the conventional "See also". I think a move back is unlikely to gain traction.
- d.
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
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:19:55 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@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
Zoney (zoney.ie@gmail.com) [050120 03:32]:
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"?
Not that I know of, but it deos appear to be the convention. I sometimes change it, sometimes leave it.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Zoney (zoney.ie@gmail.com) [050120 03:32]:
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"?
Not that I know of, but it deos appear to be the convention. I sometimes change it, sometimes leave it.
"See also" is less verbose and thus quicker to read/recognize (especially for non-native speakers), is common in print media, and is basically identical in meaning. I don't see why anything else would be preferred.
It's more slick to embed the "see alsos" in article text that tells the reader *why* they're worth seeing also, but sometimes creativity fails us. :-)
Stan
Zoney, that's the function of Categories.
TBSDY
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.
Zoney
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:49:16 +0000, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure where I should make this suggestion to grab the most attention, so I shall make it here.
I hereby propose that instead of using the heading "See also" at the end of articles, we use the title "Related articles". The latter sounds much more encyclopaedic, clearly indicates the purpose of the section, and should encourage only relevant links at the end of articles.
"See also" is quite blunt, rather ineloquent and instructional in my opinion. Do people have thoughts on this? I'm aware of how wide-ranging this would be, but I would see the (somewhat) temporary dual-usage of both section titles as a small enough disruption.
Zoney
Personally i prefer "Related topics" which is more common than what you're proposing.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#.22See_also.22_and_.2...
-- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l