Talk:Japan/Related Articles

I am going to delete the Japan infobox, per the CZ policy of using related articles pages instead of infoboxes full of links. I will paste the code here in case not all of the links are on the related articles page yet.

What policy is that, Caesar? John Stephenson 06:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking briefly at the CZ policies, one can find this :'

...contributors can compile lists of "Subtopics" and of "Related topics". These should go on the Related Articles subpage. Right now, many articles have "See also" sections which will have to be moved to the subpage eventually.

— CZ:Article_Mechanics_Complete#Subtopics_and_Related_topics

Also, and perhaps more relevant than the rule itself, this was one of only three of these "list of links" templates. Almost every article on CZ uses Related Articles subpages instead, as described above.

I don't actually like this aspect of the subpages system; I think there should be a related articles section at the bottom of every page.

Caesar Schinas 07:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That information was added to a page of advice about article mechanics (not actually a policy document such as the SFP) by Jitse Niesen last July, who I think is explaining how subpages may be used: i.e., lists such as '==Subtopics==' go under 'Related Articles'. I don't think he's discussing other kinds of links (e.g in templates and infoboxes), or setting out an enforceable policy. You also highlighted "will have to be moved to the subpage" - but this is referring to ==See also== sections of main articles, not templates. I think template boxes can be useful (e.g breaking up the text; presenting links to readers who don't know that these links are found in a big block of text on a subpage which they have to find at the top of the article and click on), and I would be far happier if these kind of changes, which alter the look of the page as well as the content, were enforced through an Editorial Council proposal. John Stephenson 10:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's unlikely that the intention was for this not to apply to related links which are in a template rather than straight on the page, which is after all a technicality which most readers won't even be aware of.

But if there is any doubt, perhaps we should solicit the opinions of other on the forums.

I have just seen your message on my talk page; I'll reply to it there in a minute.

Caesar Schinas 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)