On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Carcharoth<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
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
I think you mean Outlines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge
But yes, I agree with the spectrum comparison.
For example, we have these pages, that are variously explicating,
disambiguation, and listing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(disambiguation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Water
which in the main article, [[Water]], even manages to bring us back to
the original topic, of yes, excessive or inappropriate hatnotes could
be considered harmful!
Quiddity