Wikipedia:See alsos

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This issue is brought up as a straw poll because there is no information in the editing guidelines on such issues.

There is a debate in editing over the use of see alsos and the purpose of this poll is to determine consensus in good editing.

Some feel they should never be used
Others think that they should be used because categories get too large.
Useful to highlight other important/useful pages, which might get lost as a wikilink in the text
Useful to show other relevant pages which are not mentioned as such in the text
Should an attempt be made to reduce See Also links so they are put into the text of the article.
See also links should be put into the article as much as possible as it improves the article, but if they can't, they should be put on see also or else one of the templates that link topics (like the template linking scientology topics).
See alsos should be put into the article or not used. If there is a need, templates linking articles (e.g. scientology) must be used.
(Please add more choices)

Then there is the question of duplicate wiki links. If see alsos are to be included, by having something wiki linked previously in an article, does this exclude it from a see also?

Is it acceptable for a wiki link to be repeated in the same article for multiple sections?

Is it acceptable for a wiki link to be repeated in the same section if it is a really long section?

Would it matter if the link being repeated is actually a different link and simply redirects to the same article as the first wiki link?