Talk:Clifton Gardens, New South Wales
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Clifton Gardens, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110212038/http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/special_elements/just_soldiers/chowder_bay.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/special_elements/just_soldiers/chowder_bay.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The hatnote
[edit]Well, yes, Stephen that's the hatnote I put up before you reverted me.
WP:Hatnote rule #3 says: "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind". It's hard for me to imagine how someone interested in the Australian locality arrives at the New York article by mistake or how someone having New York in mind arrives somewhere in Australia. wbm1058 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, you didn't put anything up, you removed the hatnote [1] without any explanation and then reverted my replacement under WP:BRD. You didn't discuss anything and then added it as a 'see also' which is not what that section is for (which is weirdly what you are referring to as a hatnote in your link above?). At no point did you communicate that the disambig page had been modified, you should use talk more. If someone is searching for Clifton Gardens they might arrive at the wrong one, let's help our readers. Stephen 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The explanation (edit summary) was "removing hatnote for Clifton Gardens" – usually that's sufficiently obvious. Clicking the link shows you that Clifton Gardens is another page – a disambiguation – and not a redirect to the article that I just removed the hatnote from. If someone is searching for Clifton Gardens they land on Clifton Gardens, the disambiguation page. You still haven't explained how you think it is possible for someone searching for Clifton Gardens, New South Wales to unintentionally land at Clifton Gardens, New York. The only way these hatnotes help readers is by answering the trivia question, are there any other places in the world that share the same name as the place that I was searching for, and successfully found? That's why I suggested moving the link down to the "see also" section. I expected that you would see that the hatnote was redundant, and, just remove it, rather than reverting me. It's still there, you haven't removed it. I can let it stay there, since it's no longer populating Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, but, as I said, the only purpose it serves is to answer a trivia question that might, theoretically, interest readers. That's not supposed to be a function for hatnotes. The main purpose of hatnotes is to help readers navigate to another article, because they found a primary topic which was not the (obscure) topic they were really looking for, but the topic that 90% of readers are looking for. The "see also" section at the bottom of the article is the appropriate place to put links to (tangentially) related topics that readers might have a trivial interest in learning about. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have Clifton Gardens NSW in my watchlist so I've never come via a disambiguation page. You've written more than the New York article has content. Nobody cares, they get less than 20 combined hits a day. Move on. Stephen 09:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The explanation (edit summary) was "removing hatnote for Clifton Gardens" – usually that's sufficiently obvious. Clicking the link shows you that Clifton Gardens is another page – a disambiguation – and not a redirect to the article that I just removed the hatnote from. If someone is searching for Clifton Gardens they land on Clifton Gardens, the disambiguation page. You still haven't explained how you think it is possible for someone searching for Clifton Gardens, New South Wales to unintentionally land at Clifton Gardens, New York. The only way these hatnotes help readers is by answering the trivia question, are there any other places in the world that share the same name as the place that I was searching for, and successfully found? That's why I suggested moving the link down to the "see also" section. I expected that you would see that the hatnote was redundant, and, just remove it, rather than reverting me. It's still there, you haven't removed it. I can let it stay there, since it's no longer populating Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, but, as I said, the only purpose it serves is to answer a trivia question that might, theoretically, interest readers. That's not supposed to be a function for hatnotes. The main purpose of hatnotes is to help readers navigate to another article, because they found a primary topic which was not the (obscure) topic they were really looking for, but the topic that 90% of readers are looking for. The "see also" section at the bottom of the article is the appropriate place to put links to (tangentially) related topics that readers might have a trivial interest in learning about. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)