Hello, Wiljahelmaz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Hello, I am new and am thus in no position to argue, but I would posit that the title is ambiguous, otherwise there would be no disambiguation page in the first place. I arrived at the John Day (printer) article because I had heard of John Day, Oregon, and was wondering if there was a connection; the lack of a hatnote seemed very unusual to me. After searching for the disambiguation page I saw that many others linked thereto, so it appeared to me that I was fixing the odd ones out. I will revert, but in light of the irregularity, should I remove the preexisting hatnotes for John Day (Nova Scotia legislator), John Day (Liberian judge), John Day (horseman), etc.? Wiljahelmaz (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too much into semantics, but there is a distinction to point out: The individual articles on the dab page are not ambiguous since they all contain some kind of disambiguator (like the paranthetical "(cricketer, born 1812)" or a unique middle name); the base name "John Day" is of course ambiguous, which is why it's a disambiguation page :) To be honest I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other, so feel free to retain hatnotes on any particular articles where you think they would be useful. I just wanted to point out that adding them en masse goes against the usual policy. Thanks – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I had considered asking on the John Day (printer) talk page before making the edits because I wasn't certain, but the last post was from 2009, I believe, so it seemed unlikely anyone would answer. As previously stated I checked for precedent rather than for policy, but I guess I should have checked more thoroughly! Thanks for the assistance; if I'm going to edit I'd best do it correctly. Wiljahelmaz (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. None of the "rules" on Wikipedia are set in stone, and it's good to be bold and make improvements where they appear to be necessary like you were doing. Although being familiar with the policies and guidelines is important too of course :) Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any further questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.