::: On the one hand, I still don't think that's appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but on the other hand, given that Conservapedia is not a typical encyclopaedia (e.g. having essays and debates, even the collaborative nature of the Wiki is not typical of traditional encyclopaedias, though normal in Wiki ones), perhaps that's not a bad suggestion. This would set a bit of a precedent, so I'll go along with that if there is further support and no or minimal opposition. I assume that in the "see also" section it will be apparent that it is an essay being linked to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 18 October 2008 (EDT) | ::: On the one hand, I still don't think that's appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but on the other hand, given that Conservapedia is not a typical encyclopaedia (e.g. having essays and debates, even the collaborative nature of the Wiki is not typical of traditional encyclopaedias, though normal in Wiki ones), perhaps that's not a bad suggestion. This would set a bit of a precedent, so I'll go along with that if there is further support and no or minimal opposition. I assume that in the "see also" section it will be apparent that it is an essay being linked to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:55, 18 October 2008 (EDT) |