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