Talk:Josephology

"See also"

I don't see anything in WP:SEEALSO that says repetition of links from the article in the "See also" section is "best practice". Mariology is mentioned three times in the article (once in the lead, twice in the body - excessive linking?) and linked each time; a fourth linked appearance is overkill. Redemptoris Custos is mentioned and linked in the last paragraph of the article, and also appears in the navbox at the side of the article. Overloading the "See also" section with articles that have been linked already diminishes the impact of the other links in that section that haven't been used in the article. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The key word in WP:SEEALSO is "generally". Just because it is mentioned is no reason for non-inclusion. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, see also WP:IAR and the Five Pillars. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Overlinkage used to be a "real" perceived problem. I'm of mixed opinion. I love links especially when I come across a term I'm not familiar with it. Sometimes by the end of the article I wish dupe links exist which is why having Mariology in the See also makes sense. Only major topics should be See alsos but that's my two cents. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As for overkill, the only overkill I see is in this discussion. Josephology is like Mariology, so what is the big deal with Mariology in the See also? It is there as a ref-point. It does not bite. I promise. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)