This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. At least 3 oldest sections will automatically be moved, when the total amount of sections has reached 5. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Please see WP:SEEALSO. The purpose of a "see also" section is not to serve as a substitute for a category, comprising links to things with only a superficial relationship (such as an unrelated TV show with a similar name or a somewhat similar premise) — it's only meant as a "temporary holding tank" for relevant links that should actually get integrated into the main body of the article but haven't been yet. Appropriate links would be TV shows that are important or valuable to link to by virtue of being direct spinoffs, directly franchised versions of the same show in other countries, and the like — and even then only until someone actually expands the article so that there's a more natural place for them to be linked in the article body. But the purpose isn't to serve as a category substitute; the fact that another article would be sitting alongside Restaurant Makeover in a category that doesn't exist isn't sufficient grounds to list it under "see also" — if the main body text of the show's article wouldn't ordinarily be expected to directly contain a text link to that other show, then it doesn't really belong in "see also" either.
So yes, at least in theory, Restaurant Takeover is the kind of thing that could be in the "see also" section, because it is directly related enough to be contextually relevant — but WP:SEEALSO bans listing redlinks, so it can't actually be there either until it actually has an article. And even when that article does exist, it would still be preferable to link to it in a main subsection of the article body, if at all possible, rather than as a "see also". Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)