Forum:Proposal: remove See also

Forums: Index > Watercooler >

I propose we remove the See also section from articles. Either an item on WikiFur is something relevant enough to be discussed and linked in the article text, or there's a thematic connection which can be adequately done with categories or topic templates. -- Sine 22:56, 18 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I don't see the benefit of doing away with it. Is not a page hog, it is easy to add, covers additional material that most times is not covered by categories or templates. We have transformed "See also" into templates when they have become unwieldy or too close related to the article, but its main feature has been its redirection to similar but not related data on an article, almost in a cascade effect (plus it holds most of the article's external Wikipedia link). Just two cents - Spirou 23:03, 26 July 2012 (EDT)


 * Ideally, relevant topics would be covered in the body, and if they are then they should not be in "see also". However, sometimes that doesn't happen - and in that case, where's the harm in the link, if it's valid? Someone could always come along later to expand. It has been overused in some places where navboxes would be a more appropriate solution, but in that case, the path is clear - create the navbox. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:24, 26 July 2012 (EDT)