User:Eirik Ratcatcher/SeeAlsoPlot

The part that distresses me about the state of SeeAlso is not really that folks want to axe AlsoSee, it's that the replacement they chose doesn't really cover all the uses.

This started the See Also Crusade (hey, you got a better name?).

Starting in editing, I ran across Magic, which used a number of templates that I thought "I could do better". The for template referred me to wikipedia... and now I mourn for my lost ignorance.

So... A correspondance between Wowwiki and Wikipedia.

I would like to see this trimmed down:

I care not the slightest if 'AlsoSee' is named something else.

If folks want to replace AlsoSee with (the new) I am fine with that, too. I think the icon calls out the link a bit better in cases where there isn't a big visual interruption (like a section header) above it, but perhaps it's simply that's how my eye has been trained.

I think at least some cases of AlsoSee should be See Also sections instead, which would involve reexamining the bulk of its uses.

But, I put this up for inspection, proposal-ish, so I don't end up changing things poorly.

--Eirik Ratcatcher 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about it?
got removed four months after I wrote the above.

I would still like to see both AlsoSee and Seealso changed to "see also", then the previous two templates redirected to the latter or removed. However, I don't have the facility to run AWB, and I counted Seealso at something shy of 200 uses and AlsoSee at perhaps 700, something beyond my willingness to do manually.

I'd also settle for the Seealso being converted to AlsoSee and then being removed, simply to cut down on the number of templates-for-the-sake-of-templates. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:57, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Grr... looks like Seealso converts its parameters into CSVs of links, where AlsoSee converts each parameter into a separate "See Also" bullet point, but not formed into links. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:00, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah...therein lies the problem. -- 23:31, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you already looked into this, then? Are the numbers I quoted above the end result after all the easy cases had been handled? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:12, July 21, 2010 (UTC)