Forum:See Also

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > See Also

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 05:51, January 3, 2010 (UTC) See Organization XIII#See Also. As you can see, the "See Also" section is ridiculously long. Nearly all of these links were already previously linked to within the article. Just as we have limits on the amount of quotes and trivia bits can be put in an article, I would like to establish a maximum amount of links in an article's "See Also" section as well. I think that a maximum of five links should be permitted, since most related articles are already linked to within the article. If there are no objections to the addition of this limit or the amount, I will be adding this to the Manual of Style immediately.

JFHavoc Talk to Me! — I once took an IQ test and got a score of over 9000. You're all morons. — 15:14, January 3, 2010 (UTC) Agreed. A lot of those seemed unnecessary to me anyway.

Definately five or less, most links found in the "See Also" section are listed in the article. Also, couldn't we move the "See Also" links somewhere into the page? Or is it mandatory/recommended an article have a "See Also" section? Xion4ever Who am I? — 23:59, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Azul81677 - "Ebil minds think ebily alike." - A collaboration between 2 very ebil minds TALK - 00:36, January 5, 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't mind if the whole section of "See Also" was removed. I've always hated it, most "See Also" either don't make sense, or the links in the section are already in the article more than once.

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...23:10, January 5, 2010 (UTC) "See Also", by definition of another wiki I post on, is for an article that contains an alternate view on the article in question, or extreme detail on something within the article's scope. So for example, it would be reasonable to put a "See Also" under Xigbar's article and add a link to Braig (and vice versa), since they're two aspects of the same person. It would not be okay to add Organization XIII, though, since his role in it is covered adequately by the details in his article.