On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Carcharoth<[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
