Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive ("See also")

message: I suggest a convention whereby explicit "see also" links to articles within a paragraph should be made bold. Example:
: "Harry potter is a fictional character envisioned by J.K. Rowling when she was 17 years old (see Origins of Harry Potter).
Reasoning: Such links are different from regular links within an article in that they directly elaborate upon the content of or claim in a sentence or paragraph. They frequently are the result of discussions where it was argued that a specific section should be split off because it goes into too much detail. People frequently resort to awkward long sentences like "This issue is discussed further in ..." to highlight the importance of these links; it would be much easier to just make them stand out more by formatting them slightly differently. 
Note: I do not propose to bold the see also texts at the bottom of articles, or disambiguation links, or anything else. Just the occasional see also that is thrown into the text. 
If there are no objections, I will change the text accordingly. --Eloquence 19:06 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:If an individual author wants to do so on a particular page, fine, but in my opinion there should be no convention or even recommendation along the lines suggested. There are often enough distractions on a page as it is. In any case, this kind of change should definitely not be done by a robot. Peak 04:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ''See also'' links within paragraphs should be bold

message: There exist a wide variety of formmating styles within Wikipedia articles for the presentation of "Ses also" lists.   Can we get more detailed guidance in the Manual of Style about appropriate "See also" list formatting?   I'm primarily concerned with the "See also" lists that end up at the end of an article. --  Bevo 11:23, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ''See also'' lists formatting options?

message: Sometime back there was a discussion on the village pump on these issues :
# whether "See also" can use links already mentioned in the page. There are scenarios where duplicating links are helpful.
# what is the difference between "See also" and "Related pages" ? This page makes no attempt at distinguishing them.
There was no consensus and I'd think they're still open. Should the discussions be copied to over to here ? They're currently at Wikipedia:Village_pump/January_2004_archive_3#Wikipedia_guide_to_the_See_also_lists
Jay 14:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''See also'' discussion on Village Pump

message: I would like to suggest removing the following guidline:
:do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article
I think this is wrong for the following reasons:
* It is difficult to maintain. 
* It is not really followed in practice.
* It makes the see also section less useful. Sometimes a practical way to search for a page is to go to a related page and check the see also section. If this guideline were enforced, you would need to check the entire article.
Gadykozma 14:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent. Maybe it would be good to just soften the language. Maurreen 15:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gadykozma's first two points. On the final one, it really depends on the length of the article. If it's one or two paragraphs long, there's no need to put the links in the "See also". Where it's a long article, Gady's comment is certainly correct. Since there's no need for the Manual of Style to have softer language when the advice is "do what seems most useful/appropriate in the circumstances", I support Gady's proposal to remove the guideline. jguk 15:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that the original intent was that a "See also" section should be included only when there were useful links that could not be included easily in the text of the article. But it is more useful in long articles that the most useful links are together in one section. It could be changed to:In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article. A short article might be defined as an article entirely visible on a terminal without scrolling, but then that despends on the user's resolution settings. That's the best defence I can come up with to keeping this in some form. Unless someone has a better one and a different modification, I'd go with deleting it. Jallan 22:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this suggestion:In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article. Maurreen 17:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Duplicate links are sometimes useful in long, sectioned articles. I particularly find that the same topic is likely to occur in the lead paragraph but be fully treated in a much later section. In such cases a link in both places makes sense when the link is an important one. Also, in-text links may be applied to a different form when in text than those in the See also section (which should probably always contain the current proper name of the article linked to while a text reference may not.) There is a difference between a link casually appearing somewhere in the text and the same link appearing explicitly in a See also section as especially recommended. I take the "also" to as a recommendation that one should "also" check the other article(s), without indicating one way or the other whether a following reference is the only gateway to that other article in the article one is reading. I still prefer deletion, but very weakly. It would be nice to actually remove an instruction. But if kept as Maurreen wishes, I recommend shortening:Again, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article. If you remove a redundant link from the See also section of an article, it may be an explicit cross reference (see below), so consider making the link in the main text bold instead.toIn short articles and within sections of longer articles there should normally be no duplication of links: a particularly important link should be only in a See also section or in the main text in bold style, but not both.Or even:Avoid duplicating links in short articles or within sections of long articles. An especially important link can be emphasized by placing it within a See also section or by bolding it.Jallan 03:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Those work for me. Maurreen04:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Don't like Jallan's first one. Am ok with nothing, slightly prefer Maurreen's suggestion, and could live with a slightly revised reversion of Jallan's second one ('bold' is not a verb, 'by putting it in bold font' is correct). jguk 06:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In English adjectives and nouns are quite often quite acceptably used as verbs. Googling for the form bolding falls foul of the surname Bolding for obtaining counts, but bolded gets 128,800 hits. Common use of bold as a verb  probably arises from computerized word processing. I expect it has gained hold within the last fifteen years. Merriam-Webster Unabridged does list a transitive verb bold, but claims it is obsolete. (The 1913 Webster accepts it as current.) It would appear that many dictionaries, as usual, lag a decade or more behind usage, quite understandibly. However the Canadian Oxford Dictionary released in 1999, which I often consult, states: bold adj., n., & v." and gives for the verb  meaning under "v.tr.": "(also boldface) set in bold type."  The entry boldface just redirects to bold. This use of bold as a verb is not marked as being a distinctive Canadian practice and I would be astonished to find that this usage was especially Canadian. That said, I don't care if the verb bold is paraphrased. Jallan 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm perfectly aware that every noun can be verbed, but why not go with Maurreen's version? It has the benefit of being shorter. jguk 20:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification: None of the versions are mine. I was just agreeing with all of Jallan's versions, which were compromises with me, because I'd prefer not to delete the section. Maurreen 04:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: OK. I thought 'In short articles, do not add any links to the "See also" section that are already present in the text of the article.' was yours. Go with that if you object to deleting it. jguk 17:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also