Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

A needless and silly rule[edit]

Just with regard to this -- In July 2007, a consensus of four editors had a cursory discussion which is now to be found in archive 1 here as a result of which this edit was made. I would have objected at the time, if I had known, but I'm afraid that during this period I was not aware that I needed to watchlist obscure manual of style subpages to prevent people from very insistently enforcing these ill-thought-through rules on content that I maintain. The matter has annoyed the hell out of me in the past and now it's irritating me again: let's revert and remove. There's a longstanding consensus supported by excellent reasons about why redlinks are allowed on Wikipedia ---- see WP:REDLINK which has extensive archives. Why and how does it make sense for "See also" sections to be a special exception?—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The difference is the very purpose of the section—its name, even. You can't explicitly tell people "See this" if "this" doesn't exist.
More fully: Words and phrases in the body of article would be there whether or not linked. Linking them is only giving added value, providing potential paths to useful information on those words and phrases (which may not even have any information relevant to the current article, unlike See also links). In some cases, one might feel that there ought to be an article, that a word or phrase used in the current article, while properly included, is obscure enough or useful enough to merit giving the reader a hand, so that if there isn't an article now one might be reasonably anticipated or even suggested via the red link. Meanwhile, as long as the link remains red, the words and phrases are still serving as the means through which information in the article is being communicated.
See also isn't the body of the article. There are no words or phrases there that would still be there if unlinked. Their only purpose is to aid navigation, and they serve no other purpose if not doing that. It's the same rationale for proscribing red links on disambiguation pages, unless we provide a blue link to something related. Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I understand that, but it rests on a proposition I don't accept, which is that it's unhelpful to point people to a gap in the encyclopaedia. It's clearly appropriate to tell our users where to go for more information, and --- Wikipedia being unfinished --- some of those places to go for more information will be articles we need but don't yet have. So we draw attention to the fact that these articles still need to be written and show them a space where, if they happen to be so inclined, they can add it. It's not a good idea to conceal the gaps in Wikipedia. And besides, our aim is still to convert readers into contributors, or so it was the last time I looked ---- redlinks are a key tool for doing that.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
"See also" means see information we have, not information we don't have. It's that simple. While red links serve a valid purpose in the body, they run counter to the purpose of the section in this section. Largoplazo (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that follows at all. The purpose of the section is to point people to the articles they should visit for further information. Some of those articles might not exist yet. Why is that a problem?—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
If "the purpose of the section is to point people to the articles they should visit for further information" then, since redlinks don't "point people to the articles they should visit for further information" (since those links lead to no related information at all), it follows that they fail to serve the purpose of the section.
To argue that those links may lead to information some day in the future is like arguing that we should include an article on a garage band now because they may be notable some day in the future. When the band becomes notable, then there can be an article. When an article exists, then See Also can have a link to it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the current prohibition against red links in see also sections. Without this prohibition, one could foresee the see also sections becoming collections of article titles that some editors think ought to exist but can't be bothered to create. I don't see how that's helpful. CUA 27 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of "see also" is to list a few related articles, not to list mind dumps from drive-by editors. There is no point discussing this unless someone can provide a couple of examples where it would be helpful to have a redlink in a see also section. That is, what redlink was removed when it should have been retained? My feeling is that any worthwhile redlinks should be integrated into the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion it is useful to point out gaps that ought to be filled. We have lots of people here looking for projects and we can help them with auggestions in this way, using red links. Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
If it's currently a gap, then readers can't "see it also" because it isn't here. Imagine that the title of the section were, instead, "Related information that we have", and then it had links that weren't to information we have. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Imagine the title was "Useful information you might want to check out" -- note that even if it's red a user can always use google to find info he may want to know about. That is even if we have no article on it we can guide reader to useful info. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Like disambiguation pages, the See also section is a navigation aid to Wikipedia, not to Google or the entire Web. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I don;t think that redlinks should be a part of a See Also section. Someone has already pointed out that doing so defeats the purpose of See Also sections (as they are currently defined). Redlinks - thinking back to my early days and still had my dad (a since-retired editor) breathing down my neck about editing correctly. Redlinks were meant to offer opportunity for new articles to be created on subjects that would likely get them sooner rather than later. Redlinks are not similar items - they are opportunities to become similar items. Its distracting to follow a link of supposed similarity only to have it lead to a dead end. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with you S Marshall. I don't have much else to say on it, because everyone else in the thread's disagreement overpowers whatever I may say, but I agree with you that red links should be visible anywhere possible. If they weren't, we'd all have less knowledge that there needs to be a new article there. I think people should be stimulated to go and research something that isn't there for themselves and create it - it's great practice. SpikeballUnion 12:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Paragraphs[edit]

To quote the policy: "Bullet points should be minimized in the body and lead of the article, if they are used at all; however, a bulleted list may be useful to break up what would otherwise be a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers."

That would be the only time that one would use bullet points. I would recommend a change to:

"Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article, and should not be used in the body unless for breaking up a large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of the reader."

Do other editors have a point of view before I change the policy, please? Regards,  William Harris |talk  05:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. Thanks. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BODY - Section templates and summary style[edit]

I am happy with the treatment of the template Main but not the templates for Details, Further and Also. This is because Main clearly introduces material from another article that is about to immediately follow below this template, however the other 3 being placed at the beginning of a section would have them appearing without any context. For example, in the article and chapter Origin of the domestic dog#First dogs as a hunting technology, why would a reader who commenced reading this chapter want to then be immediately confronted with "Further information Dog type" when we have not even introduced dog types yet. The place for it is at the bottom of the chapter and leading the reader towards the next article that focuses on dog types. I note that there is no rationale provided in MOS:BODY for placing these 3 templates immediately below the section heading, except for "rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section" - however, I believe that is exactly where they belong, placed below the paragraph that introduces the topic. I would like to hear the points of view of other editors on this matter. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It is my intention to change:

"These additional references should be grouped along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one), for easy selection by the reader, rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section."

to read as follows:

"These additional references may be grouped along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section or the paragraph that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information."

Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposed change. I prefer to retain the current guidance. It looks quite unprofessional to have these scattered throughout the section. CUA 27 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You appear not to have read my comment in the first paragraph and the reason as to why I am proposing this change. Please direct your counter-argument to whether you believe the templates should appear before or after the material that introduces them, rather than to what you personally believe may or may not look "professional", which comes down to a personal preference rather than a structure issue. (Please keep in mind that this is about a user's learning and reading experience, and not how something looks in its own right.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
For future reference: I understand your passion, but starting out with "You appear not to have read..." may not be the best way to put the person you are trying to convince in a persuasive mood. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. And in the next sentence he starts issuing orders regarding what he will allow me to comment on. Strange. CUA 27 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not trying to convince, I was trying to put the issue back on track. People will either support the idea on its logical merit or they will not. I have never heard of an order being given that started with the word "please". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with "These additional references may be grouped along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information." (Removing "or the paragraph.") Inserting templated links within sections interrupts the flow of the text. If the link is so crucial then the editor can include it as a generic link in the text. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a compromise that I can work with. I will wait until 1 February for any other input that might be coming from editors. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS for foreign names[edit]

There's a discussion about how to include foreign names at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Foreign names in the lead. Any thoughts? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: remove the proscription against previously-linked terms in the "See also" section?[edit]

OPPOSED:
  • Summary: There is strong consensus against the proposed change.
  • Reason: As one editor has brilliantly put forth, it's a "see also" section, not a "see again" section. Presumably readers who arrive at "See also" have summarily read the article and maybe be assumed to already have the chance to follow any wikilinks that they thought might be useful for their particular interest.The see-also section just give a short listing of tangentially related topics. Also, there are reasonable objections to have a long re-list of all articles hat have already appeared in the prose.

Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the section "Standard appendices and footers", in the subsection "'See also' section" (MOS:SEEALSO or WP:ALSO), the fourth paragraph has

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

This proposal is to remove the reference to article body (and FWIW also the bolding), leaving only the proscription regarding navigation boxes, thus:

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's navigation boxes.
Herostratus (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support as proposer, my reasoning being given in detail below in the "Threaded discussion" section. In summary, I don't see how this rule enhances the reader's experience. Let them access information from different places -- article body and "See also" section. If a "See also" section needs trimming, "has been linked in the article body" seems a poor criteria. Seems more like a "gotcha" rule than something designed to make it easier for the reader to access knowledge. Herostratus (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The goal of the See also chapter, as I see it, is a To-do list for editors. All the links there are supposed to be related to the article, so they should be somewhere in the text of the article. Those that are already in the text somewhere are not needed in the To-do list anymore. It does not make sense that an article contains a link to a second article in the See-also section without explaining why the link is there and what the connection between the two articles is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, that the "See also" sections are a to-do list for editors rather than a resource for readers is something I've never heard of before, and it isn't mentioned in the documentation. Shouldn't a to-do list for editors be on the talk page or something, rather than in the body of the article? Herostratus (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
See also sections are definitely not to-do lists as they aren't supposed to contain Redlinks but only links to other wikipedia articles. So what is there to do?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did you mean to say "See also sections are definitely not to-do lists..."? Herostratus (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I fixed it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support many users are not quite sure which article is of most use, and will get an idea of where to keep looking. The see also says "these are good places to look" which is not usually conveyed in the text. Rjensen (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It is handy, and quite reasonable, to list all of the "see also" links in one place, and not have to be scrounging through the article for them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The guideline says "As a general rule", so if a link is particularly important and helpful to the reader, it can be repeated in See also. But if this is removed entirely, people will add whatever links they want to draw attention to. SarahSV (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. But um isn't adding "whatever links they want to draw attention to" kind of the point of a See also section...? I mean if they're not good links, not helpful to the reader, that's different. But isn't being like "Excellent link for a See also, but damn, it's linked somewhere in the article text, so we can't use it; sucks for the reader, but it is what it is" kind of... random? Herostratus (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The point of the guideline is to make sure the See also section doesn't get too long, so we're supposed to use it sparingly. If something really is an excellent link to repeat, then you can do it. Note that editors may differ in their interpretion of "excellent", of course. We used to have an editor who would go around removing See alsos, no matter how helpful. He would either incorporate them into the text or remove them. That was a nuisance, but I've not seen anyone do that in a systematic way for years. SarahSV (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"If something really is an excellent link to repeat, then you can do it"... not so easy. Sure it says ""As a general rule", but in fact if you're going against another other editor who doesn't agree with you, the person citing the rule has the whip hand. You need to make a case and gather a consensus that we have an extraordinary situation at hand. Difficult.
I mean, if our concern is to "See also section doesn't get too long", then it would literally be better to have a rule that says to remove See also links at random if the See also section is too long. As I said below, the converse of this rule -- "See also sections should only contain terms that are also linked in the article text" -- would likely be better.
I'm fine with a rule "See also sections should generally have no more than one entry per X paragraphs of text in the article" or "Should generally not have more than ten entries, period" or something. That's fine. But this rule is IMO possibly the worst way to approach trimming of See also's. Herostratus (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support For reasons set forth above. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nominator's discussion is very abstract. He says it is a poor rule but what does this poor rule obstruct? What is the benefit of lifting it? Please give me tangible example! On the other hand, I can argue what benefits this rule has. The way I see it, the links in the article body are most often associated with some sort of context or description. The links in the "See also" section are most often not. (Yes, it is encouraged, but who are you kidding? No one's doing it.) So, the rule prevents the section from becoming a list of indiscriminate items. Consider the Virtualization article as an example. It would be a very sad state of affair if we allow links for the different kinds of virtualization to re-appear in the "See also" section again. Or consider Albert Einstein article: How horrible would it be re-list all list that already appear in {{Main}} templates? (And this one is actually a large article, one that the OP claims is actually in a disadvantage from the rule.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Even if this rule is lifted, I will continue removing those "See also" links that I had removed in the past, only this time I will cite WP:REPEATLINK. And there is a reason to it too: I have never removed a link from "See also" whose existence improved the article despite this "rule". MOS is a guideline and I treat it that way. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, User:Codename Lisa. What brought this over my attention was over at Pathological science. There're eleven links in "See also" (I don't have an opinion on whether that's too many or not). An editor came along and deleted some of them citing the rule. One of the links he kept was Paradigm shift. He kept it because it wasn't linked in the article -- and why should it be? It didn't appear in the article because it has literally nothing to do with the subject of the article. Another one kept was Science. The word "science" does appear in the article, but it's not linked. I presume it's not linked because it's a basic term, and it'd be overlinking to link it.
Other links, such as Junk science, were linked in the article (makes sense -- that term is somewhat related to the subject of the article!), and consequently became ineligible for the "See also" section and were deleted.
So OK. The reader reaches the end of the article, but maybe she wants more. Well, where can he go? What are we going to offer him? Well, we have Paradigm shift (I suggest we also add Battle of Okinawa. Why not? It's an important and interesting subject, and has just as much to do with the subject of the article.) The reader can also access Science (and since we're going for the big-picture here, let's also add Matter, Time, and The Universe -- those are scientific subjects, and the reader might well enjoy those articles too.) What she can't do -- we're not going to let her! -- is easily access Junk science or Pseudoscience. And we're not going to offer those links precisely because they are reasonably closely related to the subject of the article she's reading, demonstrated by the fact that they appear in the article text.
Silly way to run a business IMO. Poor way to treat the reader.
And no, I'm not going to and curate that article and fuss any more over its "See also' section. I can't really argue the point, because the other editor -- who believes that "See also" is a to-do list for editors -- has the rule behind him, and thus the whip hand. That's not the point, and I've other things on my plate. I have that article on my watchlist, like a lot of others, to notice and defend it against nonsense edits. But I guess this is one type of nonsense edit that people want, so OK. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If your problem is that I did not remove the paradigm shift link and the science link, then you should not revert the deletions I did. Instead you should delete the paradigm shift link and the science link. What is this, a displacement activity? I just missed those links, otherwise I would have deleted them too.
Also, you are arguing against introducing links nobody wants, such as "The Universe". Why are you doing this? People who have good reasons for their opinions should use those. Bad reasons should be left to those people who don't have any good ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I agree with SlimVirgin's and Codename Lisa's reasoning above, and in my experience, contrary to the assertion below, it's not observed only sporadically but widely. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is the very nature of wikis, by virtue of their wikilinks, that their articles are "see also" sections for their topics. The only reason to have a "see also" section at all is to have a place for links that are tangentially related but don't figure into the narrative of the article, or haven't been fitted into it yet. If the restriction is lifted, then I don't see a natural limitation. In a biographical article that describes a person's associations with many other people over decades, all of them wikilinked, what would keep others from thinking "Hey, he worked with X, we should suggest to readers that they also see X", with the "see also" section ultimately containing dozens of links and thereby rendering the section fairly useless as a means of focus on especially related topics. Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a "see also" section, not a "see again" section; the implication to the reader is that we're presenting some further topics in addition to the ones that have already been discussed in the article. Herostratus's understanding below of see-also sections as "here is list of related articles which we have curated which bear closely on the subject" seems mistaken, and not, I think, how see-also sections are composed in practice - this sounds like it's more closely describing navboxes, or the links we might expect to see in an article's lede section. --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Presumably readers who arrive at "See also" have read the article, or those parts of it that interest them, and already had the chance to follow any wikilinks that they thought might be useful for their particular interest. "To-do list": it's both: for the reader, "this article doesn't (yet) give a comprehensive account of its topic, but these links may help to cover further angles"; for the editor, "this article would benefit from expansion so as to show the connections with these further topics". If "See also" contains irrelevant or over-general links, that's the fault of the "tangentially related" clause, which I think needs review: Noyster (talk), 09:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SlimVirgin/Codename Lisa/Largoplazo. I can't improve on their reasoning. I sympathize with the proposer in that perhaps the guidelines could do more to explain scenarios where a link in the article prose could reasonably be repeated in the See also section. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose User:McGeddon sums it up excellently. Primergrey (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with User:McGeddon and User:Primergrey, "see also" is not "see again" Seraphim System (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Another editor has invoked this, and looking at it, it seems a poor rule.

For long articles, there's no real reason to it. The original introduction of a term, with its link, may be many paragraphs above and kind of lost among the text. Gathering links to a few of the most cogent articles together into a special section where we can say "Hey, if you're interested in the material in this article, here is list of related articles which we have curated which bear closely on the subject, and which we suggest might broaden or deepen your understanding of the general subject". That's what a "See also" section is for, I guess. Whether the term was introduced somewhere in the article does not bear terribly strongly on that, either way.

In fact, thinking about it... if you've got some terms in the "See also" section, and some of them have been introduced in the the text and some haven't, isn't it kind of backwards to proscribe the ones that have been introduced in the text? Aren't those more likely to bear on the subject? Maybe not in particular cases, but statistically speaking if you analyzed a bunch of articles? Maybe a better rule would be "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not introduce links that do not appear in the article's body, because if the text hasn't seen fit to mention them before maybe they are not that germane". I'm not suggesting that, but if you have an existing rule, and a good case can be made that its exact opposite might be a better rule, you just might have a not-so-great rule on your hands.

Anyway... presenting different ways for the reader to access information is, mostly, a good thing. Not always -- we don't want to overwhelm or confuse the reader. But generally, because people are approaching the article from different perspectives, and because people think differently, it's OK to be of the mind "Let's let them access the information from Location X or from Location Y". IMO this is good interface design.

This rule might apply to short or very short articles, I guess. If you have a two-paragraph article maybe you don't want have two links to the same article, since they would be pretty close to each other, and thus WP:OVERLINK could come in. I don't think it's worth having the rule just for that.

Also FWIW -- and it's worth quite a bit IMO -- is this rule even followed that much? I've been around an while and it never came across my radar before. Rules are supposed to codify general/best practice, and if this rule is only followed sporadically -- not sure, but could well be -- that's another reason for sending it to the bit bucket. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Another thought is, that if you're called on this -- and maybe you can invoke the "As a general rule..." clause and the "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" sentence, and win the argument for an exception, but if you have a rule the assumption is that in most cases it's going to be applied and enforced -- you're then left with the conundrum "should I delink the occurrence in the article body, even though it's appropriate and useful there, so that I can link to the article in the See also section, where it might be even more useful?". I'm not see how presenting editors with this choice is helpful to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "only followed sporadically"—often a "See also" section is created at an early stage in the article's history, and later on items in that list are added to the body of the article without deleting them from the list. They're not necessarily in both the "See also" section and body deliberately. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah OK, but are you saying it matters? If it was was first in "See also" keep it there and delink the article text, and if the converse, delete the "See also" link? Besides being very random, it'd be a huge pain to paw through an article history to determine this.
The rule doesn't (and can't really) allow for this, just says "should not repeat links". Under this rule, a person could certainly go on a campaign (even write a bot) to go through articles and either trim out all the offending links or delink them from the article text. That's what brought me to make this RfC, an editor doing this and citing the rule (might have been just that article rather than a campaign, but soon or later a campaign (or bot) is certainly possible).
If for some reason we want to keep this rule, I guess we need to go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking and add the admonition "As a general rule, links that exist in the an article's "See also" section should not be linked to in the article body". Right? Or something. I guess we would need to have a debate over what to do when duplicate links in both places are found or desired: 1) generally, remove it from "See also" or 2) generally, delink it in the article text, or 3) provide no guidance and let editors argue over each case. Such a debate would be Alice-In-Wonderland-level nonsense IMO but I guess we'll need to have it. Herostratus (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"are you saying it matters"—I wasn't saying any more than that such duplication is (most?) often just cruft. You'll notice I haven't !voted—I really don't have a strong position, other than that it may open the floodgates to people endlessly appending everything they can think of into the "See also" section. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"If it was was first in "See also" keep it there and delink the article text"—I didn't notice this. That's a terrible idea. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. They're all terrible ideas except "get rid of this furshlugginer rule". Herostratus (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
A "see also" section provides links that one can also see. It's no more a "rule" than saying that an "infobox" needs "info". These aren't Wiki terms of art. If you think that there is a desire for a "see again" section, propose it. Primergrey (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is "As a general rule," What about removing that and replacing it with "Except when the link has a strong connection to the article," (or something similar). That would give more guidance regarding when there is an exception to the rule. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Doing this defeats the purpose of the rule. Links that appear in the prose have a strong connection with the article and that's why they are there. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice I said "or something similar." What standard would you propose? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken section link to ideal stub[edit]

In the first sentence of MOS:ORDER, “simple article” links to a section of WP:STUB that was renamed in revision 659534886 from “Ideal stub article” to “Creating and improving a stub article”. The link here should be updated to reflect the change, I believe. (Or an anchor added there and linked here, not sure if this is necessary.) Being unable to edit semi-protected pages yet, I propose the change here. Palec90 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this heads up. I've updated the link. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)