Talk:Quick conversation questions

I'm not so sure about the "See also" elements. It will make cutting and pasting difficult.

How about using internal links instead for instance:

• Jobs and employment: job interviews; starting a new job; asking for a salary increase;
• Language skills: learning foreign languages; speaking in public; speaking in English in public; writing poetry; writing a novel;
• Red tape: dealing with bureaucracy; visas; passports;
• Traffic: learning to drive; buying a new car; driving; having a car accident; road safety; traffic control; cycle lanes; public transport;

OR using headings like this

Jobs and employment

job interviews; starting a new job; asking for a salary increase;

Language skills

learning foreign languages; speaking in public; speaking in English in public; writing poetry; writing a novel;

Red tape

dealing with bureaucracy; visas; passports;

Traffic

learning to drive; buying a new car; driving; having a car accident; road safety; traffic control; cycle lanes; public transport;

New section to avoid possible format conflict

Version 2 above is much the best, but I don't agree that the link should be incorporated into the subsection heading because there is often more than one possible conversation question page to each subsection. Wikipedia also recommends against doing so, arguing that any link should be in the body of the text or as a list item.

So how 'bout:

Jobs and employment

See also Employment conversation questions

• job interviews; starting a new job; asking for a salary increase;

Ball's in your court... --Technopat 09:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that one is that you've still got the "see also" in the middle of the text. If people are just going to cut and past then they are going to need to edit it out. I suppose that they may need to do some editing anyway, but obliging them to edit out an extra line under each section doesn't seem very user-friendly.

As far as the Wikipedia policies are concerned: firstly, although I am sure that their policies are very good, they don't necessarily have to be followed by every wiki which may have different aims and objectives from those of an on-line encyclopaedia - though I, of course, accept that WP guidelines give a good indication. Secondly, this is not really an "article" in the WP sense of the term, (WP articles are meant to inform while this is meant to be copy pasted), so I'm not sure that the WP guidelines would be relevant in this case even if we had decided to follow them automatically.