2009/8/19 Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>om>: This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]].

I am impressed, though, that we have this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_plankton

Carcharoth wrote: It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all places.

Ray Saintonge<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

> It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done >with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.

Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too.

2009/8/19 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>om>: Q. Why did the chicken cross the road? A. HITLER!!

We do already have on this guideline wording on this, for anyone wondering: "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then

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_page… 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&g… Seem reasonable? Quiddity _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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!

2009/8/21 quiddity <pandiculation(a)gmail.com>om>: I see the "outlines of X" pages are spreading. Last I saw, they were being added in "see also" sections - when did they leap to the forefront of the article? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

2009/8/21 Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com>om>: It's an editorial issue. The two-item disambig is one workaround, though more than two items is nice.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't know whether this is related, but the other day I found that the article Vienne contained two separate hatnotes, one disambiguating the French town of Vienne from the canton, and the other pointing to the article on Vienna.  I changed it to a two-item disambiguation relevant to the context. I don't think this is a huge problem at all.

On 8/22/09, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Ah, in part that's a question about when to go for primary topic disambiguation.  I happen to favor such disambiguation strongly, but again this is something that gets worked out in the course of editing.

 I would say that primary topic disambiguation is probably correct in the case of Vienne (if they wanted the river they'd go for River Vienne, if they wanted Vienna they'd go for Vienna).

The multiple hatnotes are one way of handling the disambiguation but at some point you may want to create a "Vienne (disambiguation)" page and have a single-item hatnote.

Far worse than hatnotes, I'd say, are the ever-more-garish templates we now use for matters such as tagging for NPOV, cleanup, and so on. In my opinion we were better off when such templates produced a single line of italics akin to a hatnote.  These pastel-colored boxes we've been struggling with for the past four or five years are horrible.

On 8/19/09, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: I don't see the problem here.  Be bold and remove crap, whether pointless hatnotes or anything else.