@Devonian Wombat: I noticed you removed a section I had written in Plastic Pollution Coalition called "Similar organizations". I think it's helpful to mention similar organizations somewhere in the article to put the article subject in perspective and help the reader compare other related organizations. I see this kind of section as a better alternative to See also sections, as it included a cited list organizations frequently mentioned alongside the article subject rather than just using the list of organizations that have Wikipedia articles and seem similar by my own editorial discretion. Would you prefer a see also list? Is there a policy which discourages this kind of section? I don't mean to be defensive, but I thought the article was better with the section included. Daask (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Other organisations should, if they are mentioned in the article at all, be only included in the See Also section at the bottom for a good reason, and that is the fact that this article is about the Plastic Pollution Coalition, it should not devote a significant amount of space to other random groups that have nothing to do with it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
- @Devonian Wombat: I certainly agree that there should not be "significant" discussion of other groups, but I do think it's appropriate to list them and would like to restore the section. Similar sections have been written by other editors. I briefly searched Wikipedia for "similar organizations" and found the following examples of similar organizations listed in paragraph form:
- Sometimes this kind of information is even inluded in the lede.
- My message above described several reasons why this information is helpful to users and why presentation in the article body is superior to see also lists. Does anyone else reading this have an opinion? Daask (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
