[WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes

[Carcharoth]

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<pandiculation at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>