Forum:Layout

The Manual of style says that See also follows Behind the scenes. Surely it should be before as it is in-universe.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:21, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the layout doesn't say anything regarding 'see also'. -- Bold  Clone  20:25, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that behind the scenes should be kept seperate as it is out of universe. Revanvolatrelundar 20:27, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not talking of merging them, though. We're arguing whether 'See also' comes before 'Behind the scenes' section or not. -- Bold  Clone  20:29, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the different between in-universe and out-universe 'See also'? -- Bold  Clone  20:30, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

I cant see what we could put as an out of universe see also, as most articles on this wikia are in universe. Revanvolatrelundar 20:32, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Skittles: Is it against the policies to alter the policies to win an argument? -- Bold  Clone  20:35, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Other episodes maybe?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:37, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * the policies were altered as an example and not to win an arguement. Revanvolatrelundar 20:44, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...OK...sorry for the misunderstanding there...but I think it would be better to just propose the idea to Tangerineduel first. -- Bold  Clone  20:47, January 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Bold Clone, why are you so aggressive. You deleted my comments on your pages when I warned you about vandalism. You are not helping the wiki, you are causing issues. Surely the fact that every edit you make is reverted is a hint that you are going wrong somewhere. You have reverted my edits to my own comments! I do not understand why you think you are some sort of law and order upholder when you’re merely ruining the wiki. Users have to go out of their way to revert your vandalism. I presented an issue I wanted sorting on this page and you have vandalised it with your aggressive opinion. This is an appeal for you to stop.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:51, January 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about mandating the "See also", as is noted on the Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles and its cover page Tardis:Guide to in-universe writing, in universe articles often have a more fluid nature to them.
 * Mini-mitch's description of the "See also" section looks good, but again I don't think it should be mandated, I don't want us to get into a situation where people are including the "See also" and it making the page a stub because there's nothing else to put in the "See also".
 * I prefer to excise the "See also" requirement from the main MoS page and then on the Tardis:Layout guide page I'll give it a re-edit, as well as the Guide to in-universe writing and the individuals articles guide to explain/include what the "See also" is, and that it's not always needed. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:31, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with TD on this one. No format should be mandated for any in-universe article.  I'd go further than him, though, and suggest that the Layout guide section of the MOS should merely redirect people to the individual guides.  Giving even some guidance as to format within the MOS is dangerous.  As the text stands, I'd believe that every in-universe article should contain all those elements, and that's just not true.  The layout guide should basically just read,
 * "A series of guides suggesting best practices for structuring articles has been prepared to assist you. They serve as an adjunct to this manual of style, and all editors are encouraged to read them carefully.  They are: ."  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  15:32, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Skittles: Point-by-point counter: I'm aggressive because that's how I am. I was not vandalizing, and so your warnings were null and void, and deserved to be deleted. I am trying to help the wiki, but you are opposing me everywhere I turn. honestly, the fact that everyone reverts me only shows that you are unwilling to accept any opposing idea or seomthing you disagree with. You were removing comments from a forum, which I believe is against the rules and considered vandalism. I have to go well out of my way to keep the site clean of your persistant vandalizing edits wars with me, and I don't appreciate it. I don't understnad why you think you have tostop me from 'ruining' this wiki, as you have no power of me; I am doing my job, improving the wiki--you are keeping me from it. As for reverting your edit to the format page, I thought you were changing the policy so you could win an argument; I didn't realize you were changing it to illustrate your proposal. My bad; I was reverting your apparent vandalism. This is an appeal for you to accept me and to stop opposing all of the improvments I am trying to bring to the wiki. -- Bold  Clone  17:59, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

It's not just me. Most users have reverted you at some point.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:09, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on Layout
Opinions?--Skittles the hog-- Talk 20:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Layout change

 * 1) --Revanvolatrelundar 21:06, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --Mini-mitch 21:24, January 5, 2011 (UTC). See here on how I think it should be laid out.

Layout stay the same

 * 1) -- Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  15:32, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Not really a vote for "stay the same", but a vote against the proposed change.   To be sure, if an article contains a BTS and a "see also" section, BTS should precede SA.  I do not believe, however, that either section should be mandatory.  In fact, I believe that most "see also" sections are extremely lazy and redundant.  If you link to the article in the text, you don't need to do a separate link in a "see also" section.  And if you don't link to an article in the text, then the chances are extremely high that the connection between the page you're editing and the page you're "see also-ing" isn't a strong one. There are simply very few times where you need a "see also" section, provided you've written the article well.
 * 2) See also, by its very nature, it out-universe. It is the editor suggesting related pages to the reader, so it is written from an out-universe perspective. -- Bold  Clone  17:50, January 7, 2011 (UTC)