See also no longer acceptable?

Question

I was informed that it is no longer acceptable to use “see also” to separate inline citations from other sources. However this page still has See also as an example 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_Style_Guide

Who decides these changes?  I personally think it looks better to have a “See also”  All 2389 of my profiles use this  surely Data Doctors have more important work than to go erasing “see also” from otherwise well sourced well organized profiles? 

Comments

No that is wrong.

You have your biography where facts and the story of a person's life go - then you have the inline sources for the facts in the biography - alternately you can just have the sources in the sources section - nice when they are inline, as then you can see easier which goes with what - the /see also part is tacked on at the end before acknowledgements - it is for sources that are not necessarily for one fact in the bio - but may provide some info further about the person there or time and place they lived - just general stuff that does not fit elsewhere

Also there is the Research Notes where you put stuff you are not quite sure of, or conflicting information from two sources or perhaps other family information for those you have not yet put a profile up yet

---

It's my understanding that 'See also:' is to be used under the sources and inline citations for other supporting evidence for the details on a profile, but that perhaps aren't well sourced, or for someone's blog or online family tree that may have supporting information. That's how I use it and if there aren't any of these corroborating details, I delete the heading. I use the heck out of it.

---

yes - that too

Answer 1

I agree that 'See also' is still acceptable in Sources section.

The Styles Guide states that it can be removed 'if there is no references' following it.  I have removed it when I saw no other references on the page.  People usually refer to those items as 'Secondary' sources, not 'Primary' sources.

Comments

I read the 'See Also' guidance as 'if you did not cite the source via inline citation, it goes under this header. If you have no additional sources beyond the inline citations, remove this header'.

Answer 2

According to the way I read the style guide,"see also" is only acceptable when it can be tied back to a source.  It's not something that can be used on its own.

The Acknowledgements section has bumped up to a level two == == instead of being a level three as it was originally,=== ===

Comments

I mostly use it for FaG. I have inline sources, then See Also and the FAG. Like this:https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Colville-421 or a book that has pertinent information like this: 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McNair-950

---

I also put free space references below the "See also:". And would use for any other "span id" entries.

---

I include the free space page right in the narrative.  "They were one of the first families in the [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Scottish_Immigrant_Settlement_in_Winnebago_Illinois Scottish Settlement in Argyll]

---

Why should something as unimportant (per the style guide) as the acknowledgements section be a level two heading with the same importance as the == Biography == and the == Sources == ?  IMO, these are the only two things which should be given a level two heading.

---

See also was supposed to be sources which were not directly used in the biography, but may still be important or useful to the profile.

---

I don't know how, but I picked up the idea that the Acknowledgements section was no longer regarded as appropriate and I have been happily removing it from profiles that I have edited. Apparently I was wrong about this and ashamed of myself, but I do not plan to go back and restore these acknowledgements. I acknowledge that I have never found any useful purpose for them.

Answer 3

Is there no end.

If the Style Guide is going to be policed this rigorously, it needs to be rewritten formally and unambiguously.

Comments

The style guide is awful and poorly written.  However, it is impossible to make changes on wikitree anymore.  It will never be rewritten.

Answer 4

"See also" is still perfectly fine.  It's only when there is nothing to "See Also" that it can be deleted. 

Answer 5

Perhaps the answer to these kinds of admonishments is to ask for a link to the policy/style guide that outlines the "rule" or a request for the profile ID for the person who told them it was a rule.

I think what happens a lot of times is people, especially Data Doctors (I am one, and not coming down on them), are advised on how to correct or approach certain situations and they misinterpret the information.

On the other hand, I have also seen new rules and guidelines come into play without anyone updating the pages for those rules and guidelines to reflect the changes.

Comments

I know that is common wisdom. However I have had bad experiences with private exchanges so I avoid private disputes. I prefer to keep things public.   This way the issue and answers are out in the open and everyone is publicly accountable for what they say.

Answer 6

You are getting a suggestion for this?  I never have seen that over the 20,000 profiles I monitor on my suggestions list.  And I am SURE there are lots of See also's on there.

As a Data Doctor I have never been asked or advised to remove them.

Comments

It was not on my list. An individual data Doctor removed it and when I questioned it they said it was no longer recommended.  It seems they were mistaken about that. But I wanted clarification.

Answer 7

Has this changed? I read the Style Guide quite thoroughly when I started, and the recommendation at that time was

== Sources ==

<references />

...and underneath, if there were inline references (i.e., <ref> tags), a separate

=== See also ===

...with bullet points underneath to separate it from the numbered references. If there were only bulleted references and no <ref> tags, this See also section could be left out.

As a former professional editor, I have been editing every profile I've touched for the last couple years - amounting to hundreds if not thousands of profiles - to this style standard. If this has changed, I'd like to know.

Comments

I didn't think the "See also" was ever supposed to be level 3 heading, but rather just a section of the sources with no separate heading at all.

== Sources ==
<references />

:See also:
*Source
*Source

PS: The whole "See also" is an awful term which should be removed and replaced with a "Source list" or "Bibliography"

---

Oh god, they've changed it. Shoot me now.

Guess who has two thumbs and is not going back to re-edit the 1,000 profiles they've worked on?

Answer 8

I believe these Style issues will be covered in the New Videos that are coming out each Friday. These videos are very good and should be watched by everyone.

Comments

How long are these videos? I have to confess that I have never watched a tutorial video in my life unless forced to. I prefer to read the information at my own pace.

---

Most are just a couple of minutes. One can pick the suggestion code they want to learn more about. They just started putting them up last week. They are very short, concise and to the point.

---

Data Doctors Video Collection

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Data_Doctors_Project_Video_Collection#Group_.26_Topic_Tutorials

---

Thanks Loretta and Linda for promoting the DD video collection, Karen is working hard to get one done for every suggestion but it takes time.

Always nice to know they are appreciated

---

The videos are the best improvement to WikiTree in a very long time! I love them!