Zoney (zoney.ie(a)gmail.com) [050119 04:01]:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:57:01 -0000, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)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.