Brickipedia

READ MORE

Brickipedia
m (Reverted edit(s) by Mykheh (talk), back to last version by UltrasonicNXT.)
(How many times have I been doing this?)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Forumheader/new|archive=}}
+
{{Forumheader/new}}
 
<!-- Forums are automatically archived after 7 days of no editing. To force a forum to be archived or not to be archived, use "|archive=true" or "|archive=false" -->
 
<!-- Forums are automatically archived after 7 days of no editing. To force a forum to be archived or not to be archived, use "|archive=true" or "|archive=false" -->
   

Revision as of 02:27, 25 March 2012

Forums - See Also
This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page.


I'm sure everyone's seen the "see also" headings on articles. Can we please ban them? I haven't once seen a useful see also section- it seems to be most common in licensed minifigure articles, where it's just a massive list of any character remotely related to them in their respective stories- if the characters are that important to each other, their name would obviously be in the character's background section- why doesn't linking to the character there suffice? For sets, this section is sometimes used as well (eg, a Hogwarts Castle set might have a "see also" of all the other Hogwarts Castle sets), which is a bit better, but again, why not just put {{OtherPage}} at the top, and link to the disambig page if the set has the same name? NightblazeSaber 03:50, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Keep them, Useful for readers if theywant find out about other people without having to search for a while. --Czech 03:56, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep 'em. If they're done badly, fix 'em. {{OtherPage}} serves a very different purpose from See Also sections; the former is for two easily confused items, and the latter is for other pages that may be of interest. FB100Ztalkcontribs 04:22, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • OpposeThey are there to make peoples experiences easier so that the can find more of what they are looking for so are therefore useful. Prisinorzero 12:03, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • They can be very helpful, and they can also be spam. It would take just as long to delete them as it would to fix them, so why don't we just fix them? Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) 17:29, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Just improve if they are terrible. - CJC 19:00, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh, I wouldn't say ban them. I do agree a lot of them are terrible, but they just need improvement. Per others, oppose ban. -NBP 21:10, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't ban, but regulate Cases when we have, like, 8, are just stupid. Something like a maximum of 5. - nxt