Some disambiguation pages have "see also" sections for things that aren't strictly disambiguation. But yes, it can be difficult to draw the line between classic disambiguation and a topic overview of loosely related terms, annotated in a way that is more informative than search results would be (at this point, someone will probably mention the 'overview' articles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overviews It seems that non-standard disambiguation pages, lists, overviews, categories, topic navboxes, and true topic articles, all lie on a spectrum trying to do similar but different things, in different ways. Carcharoth On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM, quiddity<pandiculat...@gmail.com> wrote: > We do already have on this guideline wording on this, for anyone wondering: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages > "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then > a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term (in > which case disambiguation links may or may not be desirable on the > specific topic articles – see below). If only a primary topic and one > other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are > sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." > > more at these two: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Examples_of_proper_use > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries > > > I sympathise with the distaste for linking to popular culture entities > from hatnotes (pokemon and beanie babies should all burn in some > spikey hellscape...), but I'm not sure whether creating new disambig > pages just for 2-items is a reasonable solution. > > > In this particular instance, the new disambig page is also breaking > the guideline about inclusion-criteria. > "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on > which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one > Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to > lead." > IAR is a good policy, but it needs rationalisation for usage -- If we > make exceptions at [[Plankton (disambiguation)]] for > [[Electroplankton]] and [[United Plankton Pictures]], then why not > also for [[Zooplankton]] and [[Phytoplankton]] and [[Aeroplankton]] > and [[Continuous Plankton Recorder]], etc? Because, then the guideline > would be pointless, and the mess it is intended to prevent would > proliferate. > > > Therefor, in my opinion, and according to my limited-understanding of > the disambig guidelines, there doesn't need to be a [[plankton > (disambiguation)]] page at all, and the [[plankton]] article doesn't > need a hatnote at all. > > If someone wants to find the Spongebob character, "Sheldon J. > Plankton", they can search for "plankton spongebob", and obtain far > more information on the variety of places the character is mentioned: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:search?search=plankton+spongebob&go=go > > > Seem reasonable? > Quiddity > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l