Talk:Dragon: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I guess this is just my personal taste, but from my point of view a "See Also" section should be in the articles when something is closely but not directly related to the article. Of course these matters are sometimes hard to separate from each other, and I do not mean that a link in the text or not should be the line that divides them. For example, I do not see point if pikeman artcle would have "see also - castle" in it. That Vial of Dragonblood would have been a good see also section, but in this caste there is whole paragraph about Vial of Dragonblood, so I just do not see point to add it again. But as I said, my personal opinnion and not a guideline. –[[User:Kapteeni Ruoska|Kapteeni Ruoska]] 08:29, 24 March 2014 (CET) | :I guess this is just my personal taste, but from my point of view a "See Also" section should be in the articles when something is closely but not directly related to the article. Of course these matters are sometimes hard to separate from each other, and I do not mean that a link in the text or not should be the line that divides them. For example, I do not see point if pikeman artcle would have "see also - castle" in it. That Vial of Dragonblood would have been a good see also section, but in this caste there is whole paragraph about Vial of Dragonblood, so I just do not see point to add it again. But as I said, my personal opinnion and not a guideline. –[[User:Kapteeni Ruoska|Kapteeni Ruoska]] 08:29, 24 March 2014 (CET) | ||
:Oh, and about the pictures. They really are a good "eyecatchers" and when used appropriately, very informative. However, I think they should be used within reason. For example, and again this is just my opinnion, I do not like to use artifact pictures in see also links. I just do not see the point there. Sorry about this. :/ –[[User:Kapteeni Ruoska|Kapteeni Ruoska]] 08:34, 24 March 2014 (CET) | |||
::I get your idea. I think you are right that with '''See also''' plain links article looks cleaner and more to a standard than with images (unless they were the same 16px height as text for no line distortion) ;] --[[User:HaxLi|HaxLi]] 11:04, 24 March 2014 (CET) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:04, 24 March 2014
See also[edit | hide | hide all]
Well, I added that heading, because of graphic and page design alike in other titles. ;] Btw, People mostly recognize graphic, and they like to click those x] --HaxLi 00:16, 24 March 2014 (CET)
- I guess this is just my personal taste, but from my point of view a "See Also" section should be in the articles when something is closely but not directly related to the article. Of course these matters are sometimes hard to separate from each other, and I do not mean that a link in the text or not should be the line that divides them. For example, I do not see point if pikeman artcle would have "see also - castle" in it. That Vial of Dragonblood would have been a good see also section, but in this caste there is whole paragraph about Vial of Dragonblood, so I just do not see point to add it again. But as I said, my personal opinnion and not a guideline. –Kapteeni Ruoska 08:29, 24 March 2014 (CET)
- Oh, and about the pictures. They really are a good "eyecatchers" and when used appropriately, very informative. However, I think they should be used within reason. For example, and again this is just my opinnion, I do not like to use artifact pictures in see also links. I just do not see the point there. Sorry about this. :/ –Kapteeni Ruoska 08:34, 24 March 2014 (CET)
- I get your idea. I think you are right that with See also plain links article looks cleaner and more to a standard than with images (unless they were the same 16px height as text for no line distortion) ;] --HaxLi 11:04, 24 March 2014 (CET)