31:
112:
against clear consensus without any discussion and ignoring clearly demonstrated policies and practices. I think you're just back to using your protection ability to try to force your way, as you did when you protected an attack page another editor made against me with false accusations and which the
61:
The "Notes" subsection under "Standard appendices and descriptions" doesn't really say what the "Notes" section should contain, but the implication is pretty clear. The current "Notes" section of this article, contrary to the subsection describing "Notes" sections, does not contain footnotes which
227:
In actuality, "See also" has been before "References" since it's first introduction. "Notes" was introduced in between the two, and since that time, "See also" has always been before "Notes" except for one period of less than 24 hours over the course of 4.5 years that the "See also" section (or its
92:
I've protected because of the reverting. Anyone wanting to change this guideline should first make sure his proposals are consistent with related policies and guidelines (and actual practice), and should then propose them on talk, rather than inserting them first and reverting over objections.
546:
It's a guideline and best practice, not a policy. Articles have see also sections because nobody has taken the time to link the topics to well-written text in the article. It's a goal many articles never reach, but a perfect article won't have a see also section and a middling article will.
505:
section is a highly important and fundamental navigation aid to closely related articles. Removing important links only because the same link is already hidden somewhere in the article (maybe even under a different displayed link text) is counterproductive and clearly against established
107:
I did make sure they were consistent with related policies and guidelines and actual practice, and the people reverting back to the old version were the ones reverting over objections. And that comment is especially bizarre coming from you, as the very person who constantly made edits to
734:
be followed". I might take the argument further and say if the relevance isn't immediately apparent, perhaps the article doesn't belong as a See also link, but I'd have to come up with an example. Since I almost never see an explanatory sentence, it's hard to find an example.
698:
I don't see any need to change what's there now, but I particularly object to No. 2 (followed by a short explanation or comment). We certainly don't need to start loading up the See also section with commentary, as those descriptions could become a source of problems.
466:
not repeat links already present in the article", now it reads "...should not repeat links already present in the article". I could not find any discussion preceeding this change and I strongly disagree with the current version. I would like to revert this change.
565:) and attempting to enforce a hard and fast rule will only cause teeth gnashing. I'll revert now at least until a consensus emerges here to the opposite. The point of bolding was that new links should be integrated in the articles, and not dumped in "See also".
387:. These are rough drafts, so please correct me where I have erred on layout. Issues like the disappearing vertical line on the left will be corrected too of course, I just don't want to put too much effort into this if people think it's a bad idea.
760:
These sections are often brought in after the
Reference section, because the references are often abbreviated and refer to works listed in Bibliography/Further reading. This is entirely logical, useful, and should be reflected in this document.
509:
Of course, we have to avoid the repetition of every link from the article (your "link farms"), but you should leave it to the discretion of the article editors to decide which links are important enough to be listed under
340:
Well, my first message to him was erased. Not sure if it was intentional, so I left him another just in case. I'm not optimistic about him bothering to take the section order history into consideration, though.
542:
I don't believe they are fundamental navigation aids. I put in what is already in practice, that editors regularly cull these out. If a topic is important enough to be mentioned, it can be mentioned in the
305:
Perhaps someone else could have a word with him? He's "banned" me from his talk page for having brought this up. Apparently it makes me part of a conspiracy of editors who he claims harass him.
431:
I'm not a policy expert, but I think the answer is no. Each
Knowledge (XXG) is separate, so an article on another Knowledge (XXG) (one of the other languages) is an external link. --
143:
681:
Looks okay to me. Maybe consider dropping or changing "closely" (maybe "closely, but not directly"?). Also similar, but not necessarily "related" topics are often founds (
203:
moves "See also" between "Further reading" and "External links" with the deceptive edit comment "see talk". There is no discussion relating to the change on the talk page.
721:
at the current section? It says (and has for a while) "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent".
72:
Uh, yes it does, the little bit after the number 1. You will see there is a superscripted in the description which generates the note in the article Notes section.
495:"The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Knowledge (XXG) that are related to this one as a navigational aid."
522:
209:: I notice the non-consensus change and fix it (partially). I finish fixing it a few hours later when I notice that I hadn't reverted the whole change.
657:
Sometimes, missing aspects of an article are added as a "See also" link as a quick fix - these entries should be expanded into article text.
685:
113:
consensus of admins later removed over your objections. You make it very difficult for anyone to assume good faith about your actions.
595:
In order to avoid future confusions over the function and usage of the "See also" section, I propose the following clarified text for
775:, sometimes along with with mixed-in footnotes not linked to cited sources, and which place materiel which I would expect to see in
477:
I think your diff is broken. I made that change. What do you strongly disagree with? See also sections shouldn't be link farms.
47:
17:
243:
And it makes sense, because See also is wikified content; we prefer to direct readers to Wiki content before off-Wiki content.
128:...so we can fix the errors in the heading section. See also always comes after Notes and References and before External links.
288:
It would seem that DreamGuy is editing against the consensus here. Why doesn't he accept the proper order of the sections? --
596:
488:
455:
609:
The "See also" section is a navigational aid that points the reader to closely related articles in
Knowledge (XXG).
518:- at least it was until you sneaked in your change without an adequate summary and without any previous discussion.
38:
615:
The section is a bulleted list of internal links that should be followed by a short explanation or comment.
783:
sections (i.e., a list of external sources, which individually might or might not be cited by one or more
743:
707:
384:
380:
251:
158:
762:
422:
795:
765:
747:
725:
711:
692:
675:
599:. Please comment and suggest improvements, I have numbered the sentences for an easier discussion:
582:
569:
548:
529:
525:
which actually suggest to link to the same article in different paragraphs if it helps the reader.
478:
471:
451:
435:
425:
411:
401:
391:
369:
345:
335:
314:
292:
277:
255:
237:
162:
132:
117:
101:
81:
66:
636:
331:
I left him a message pointing him to this section. Hopefully he'll take a look at the stuff here.
629:
The links should not point to pages that do not exist and that are not likely to be created soon.
421:
Are non-English
Knowledge (XXG) articles allowed in the See also sections of English articles? --
623:
The "See also" section should not be an indiscriminate repetition of the links from the article.
561:
in the Manual of Style should be taken with a grain of salt. "Ideally" always worked just fine (
736:
700:
244:
151:
771:
I've been noticing quite a few articles recently which place a ref/cites in a section headed
147:
139:
792:
643:
447:
359:
342:
332:
310:
289:
273:
233:
94:
77:
63:
109:
193:: "Related topics" is changed to "See also". It is between "Quotations" and "References"
408:
388:
138:
The order of section headings was established here many times (read up) as well as at
366:
265:
216:
200:
177:
129:
114:
379:
Some people learn more efficently with visual aids, to help them out I've created a
722:
689:
672:
579:
566:
526:
468:
398:
432:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
306:
269:
229:
73:
688:). The vast majority of "closely" related topics will be linked in the body.
397:
At the bottom "infobox" needs to be replaced with "navigational template".
62:
comment on, or which cite a reference for, a part of the main text. --
756:
Current best practice not reflected: Bibliography or
Further reading
268:
could only acknowledge his mistake, this page could be unprotected.
57:
Should not this page follow the guidelines which this page explains?
665:
The "See also" section was previously also called "Related topics".
25:
187:: first introduction of "Related Topics", before "References"
219:
makes the same change, then subsequently edit wars over it,
417:
Non-English
Knowledge (XXG) articles in See also section?
562:
459:
220:
212:
206:
196:
190:
184:
635:
This section is the most appropriate place to link a
563:
I was the one who added the statement to begin with
458:section, thereby completely changing its meaning
514:. This practice is perfectly in accord with the
8:
124:This article needs to be unlocked already...
521:I think this topic is very similar to the
407:Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it.
228:equivalent "Related topics") has existed.
146:. (Noting that you're also changing it at
730:Yes, that's a bit different than saying "
365:the white space at the top looks funny.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
787:section items) into a section named
686:Hamlet chicken processing plant fire
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Guide to layout
557:Everything on Knowledge (XXG), and
597:Guide to layout "See also" section
523:Manual of Style linking guidelines
442:See also: Never linked in article?
24:
29:
454:has changed the wording of the
748:16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
726:04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
712:04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
693:02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
676:01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
583:01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
570:00:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
436:20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
530:04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
472:21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
426:02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
412:01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
402:16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
392:05:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
796:00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
766:23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
223:it has always been this way.
370:23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
358:can anyone fix this page?
264:Absolutely. Now I think if
169:History of the position of
812:
346:06:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
336:19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
315:13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
293:07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
278:15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
256:15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
238:15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
163:03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
133:02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
118:03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
102:18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
82:02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
67:01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
637:Knowledge (XXG) Portal
462:. It said "...should
185:02:25, 2 January 2003
42:of past discussions.
383:of an article and a
591:"See also" proposal
213:21:33, 17 July 2007
207:00:08, 7 April 2007
197:19:45, 6 April 2007
191:02:51, 26 June 2005
176:For the benefit of
663:
655:
633:
627:
621:
613:
607:
100:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
803:
740:
717:Sandy, have you
704:
661:
653:
648:
642:
631:
625:
619:
611:
605:
578:Thanks Circeus.
248:
221:falsely claiming
155:
99:
97:
33:
32:
26:
811:
810:
806:
805:
804:
802:
801:
800:
781:Further reading
758:
738:
702:
646:
640:
593:
516:Guide to layout
489:Guide to layout
444:
419:
377:
363:
360:Najib Tun Razak
246:
174:
153:
126:
95:
90:
88:Page protection
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
809:
807:
799:
798:
757:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
696:
695:
670:
669:
668:
667:
659:
651:
617:
592:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
573:
572:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
549:SchmuckyTheCat
544:
535:
534:
533:
532:
519:
507:
499:
498:
497:
482:
481:
479:SchmuckyTheCat
452:SchmuckyTheCat
443:
440:
439:
438:
418:
415:
405:
404:
381:sample diagram
376:
373:
362:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
338:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
298:
297:
296:
295:
283:
282:
281:
280:
259:
258:
225:
224:
210:
204:
194:
188:
173:
167:
166:
165:
125:
122:
121:
120:
89:
86:
85:
84:
58:
55:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
808:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
755:
749:
745:
741:
733:
729:
728:
727:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
694:
691:
687:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
674:
666:
660:
658:
652:
650:
645:
638:
630:
624:
618:
616:
610:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
598:
590:
584:
581:
577:
576:
575:
574:
571:
568:
564:
560:
556:
550:
545:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
531:
528:
524:
520:
517:
513:
508:
504:
500:
496:
493:
492:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
465:
461:
457:
453:
450:
449:
441:
437:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
424:
416:
414:
413:
410:
403:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
374:
372:
371:
368:
361:
357:
347:
344:
339:
337:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
294:
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
257:
253:
249:
242:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
222:
218:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
182:
181:
179:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
123:
119:
116:
111:
106:
105:
104:
103:
98:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
69:
68:
65:
56:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
793:Boracay Bill
788:
784:
780:
777:Bibliography
776:
772:
763:82.71.48.158
759:
731:
718:
697:
682:
671:
664:
656:
634:
628:
622:
614:
608:
594:
558:
515:
511:
502:
494:
463:
446:
445:
420:
406:
378:
364:
226:
175:
170:
127:
91:
64:Boracay Bill
60:
43:
37:
423:Silver Edge
144:in archives
36:This is an
789:References
559:especially
512:"See also"
503:"See also"
448:Gracenotes
343:Editmaniac
333:Editmaniac
290:Editmaniac
96:SlimVirgin
649:template.
639:with the
409:Anynobody
389:Anynobody
491:states:
456:See also
367:Bigglove
266:DreamGuy
217:DreamGuy
201:Reinyday
178:DreamGuy
171:See also
130:DreamGuy
115:DreamGuy
739:Georgia
723:Circeus
703:Georgia
690:Circeus
673:Cacycle
580:Cacycle
567:Circeus
527:Cacycle
469:Cacycle
464:ideally
399:Circeus
375:Diagram
247:Georgia
154:Georgia
39:archive
732:should
719:looked
644:portal
506:usage.
433:Gronky
148:WP:MSH
140:WP:MSH
791:. --
785:Notes
773:Notes
737:Sandy
701:Sandy
543:text.
307:IPSOS
270:IPSOS
245:Sandy
230:IPSOS
152:Sandy
110:WP:EL
74:IPSOS
16:<
744:Talk
708:Talk
683:e.g.
501:The
487:The
460:diff
385:stub
311:talk
274:talk
252:Talk
234:talk
159:Talk
150:.)
78:talk
779:or
662:(7)
654:(6)
632:(5)
626:(4)
620:(3)
612:(2)
606:(1)
746:)
710:)
647:}}
641:{{
313:)
276:)
254:)
236:)
215::
199::
180::
161:)
142:,
80:)
742:(
706:(
309:(
272:(
250:(
232:(
157:(
76:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.