User talk:Svdb

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Outfit Pages

That section says what the "See Also" section "should include". It does not say that it should consist solely of these entries.
But assuming that what you are implying is what was actually meant, where do I put other related links which people might be interested in (as I was)? — SvdB 18:35, 24 January 2008 (CST)
  • The reason your changes on the Frat/Hippy outfits were reverted is that there is no precedence of doing such things before, nor is there really any reason to. The See Also section is reserved for things that are directly related to the article in question. --TechSmurf 17:57, 24 January 2008 (CST)
I expected "See also" to mean "things which you might also be interested in if you're reading this page", as was the case for me — I usually only make additions to pages when I am looking for something which isn't there.
I realise that I'm the outsider here and you're free to make up your own rules on your own wiki, but it seems to me that this is what "see also" is used for everywhere else.
I also strongly disagree that there is no reason to have references like this; having links to other related pages makes navigating this wiki a lot easier, as is the strength of hypertext. I actually think that also a link from "War Hippy Fatigues" to "Frat Warrior Fatigues" (and vice versa) and from "Filthy Hippy Disguise‎" to "Frat Boy Ensemble‎" (and vice versa) would not be out of place; these uniforms are analogous in their function, and when you're interested in one, you'll often be interested in the other too — SvdB 18:35, 24 January 2008 (CST)
When I look at "See Also" I expect to find a link to "moxie modifiers" or "combat frequency" or usefull things that, that I need to find more of. Outfits already have a link to their catigory, why link to individual ones as well? --Plater (t|c) 19:44, 24 January 2008 (CST)
I am by no means suggesting to remove the other items from "See Also", although I do wonder whether there isn't a better way to present this information, as that there isn't much variation in these lists.
As for why to have a direct link when you already have an indirect one, the increased easy of use far outweights the clutter from the extra link in these cases. And it's not as if these "indirect" links came out of nothing; these links represent an actual, direct relationship between objects. — SvdB 20:16, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Regarding the message posted on my talk page

Oh I see. Sorry for the inconvieneince. Had a feeling I was missing something when I made that edit. I'll try and figure out what the hell I'm talking about before I edit pages in the future (-; –Munkel (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (CDT)