Now there's a template... Edit

... and category I haven't seen in a while. Looks fine to me; I disagree with a mid / bottom section association link (using SeeAlso), though Wikipedia is known to have them. My feelings: Let any meta-content associated with directing a user to another page be at the top of a section or at the bottom of the page in a separate section, for consistency's sake alone. As you have noted, this template is used... a lot (I stumbled onto a comment of yours from I don't know when on one of the templates' talk pages), and this has definitely produced inconsistency. I honestly dislike the graphic being attached to the template, as well, which is why I prefer (and the MoS prefers) T:Seealso. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My Input Edit

As it was requested... From what i've read, and imo, there needs to be a disambig notice at the top of the page (Which i would guess is {{for}} atm, but i've always found to be a poor choice of wording and functionality), a footer section for linking related articles on the subject (This is done manually atm? Though it does fall into the ball park of nav templates, and we all know how i feel about them. Cats handle it better), and a section level notice for linking to main articles that expand upon that sections subject for further reading (I'm undecided if this should be at the beginning or the end of a section. These ones should not be replicated in the footer section.). No more, no less.

{{i-note}} fulfills 2 of those 3 roles already, but never saw widespread use. -- 

• 
• 
• 
• 

  03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What I've seen {{for}} used for is in Magic, to create a "For more information, see blah,blah". In the same place as {{main}}, but for when the referred article wasn't a main page. {{i-note}} looks interesting, but the non-optional icon seems to be a turn-off. I think that for one-line disambig notices, it may simply be easier to insert it w/o a template.

The footer "see also" section only falls into "make it a template" range when the same footer is used in multiple places. For an individual article, a manual section seems less work. Do I understand your comment correctly, here, for what you were suggesting?

{{main}} appears to be commonly used at the beginning of a section, in the way that wikipedia seems to use it.

You feel, then, that there should be no mid-section "see also" links?

And lest I forget, thank you very much for replying. --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i-note isn't designed to be a one liner only, it's there to provide the same functionality as ambox, but as part of the article, rather than meta-info. So it works for lists and such.

Unless someone thinks more than the standard header and list format is needed, the footer section would be fine to do manually.

I honestly forgot to talk about {{main}}, was tired. It's a breadcrumb if anything, probably better to handle it as such.

Don't know what you mean by "mid-section" exactly. See also links would be best at the begining or end of a section in the article so they don't disrupt the flow of text or reading needlessly and as a section should be covering a limited enough scope of information anyway. Otherwise a reference or cite would fit the bill already i'd imagine. -- 

• 
• 
• 
• 

  03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mid-section: What I had in mind were some of the quest chain pages I've created, where formal sections are a bit confused. End of paragraph, mostly. But it's pretty close to the "end of section" case that I could simply omit it. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)