Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Limiting

I agree with limiting the stuff on top to disambiguations, but disagree with "which should be limited to a simplest possible link —preferably to a standard Article (disambiguation) page." --SPUI (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Examples

In most cases a disambiguation page is the most apropriate location, but not always. A little bit of explanation is useful, e.g. at Union of South Africa:

Union of South Africa is also the name of a LNER Class A4 steam locomotive, preserved on the Severn Valley Railway.

This will tell many people what the other article is about without needing to read it if they aren't interested. It also might draw the interest to one of the linked articles more than For the steam locomotive see LNER Class A4 4488 Union of South Africa. Thryduulf 20:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, it is a bit verbose. We know the Union of South Africa part already (both above and below on the page). Speaking as a person that has long been involved with steam locomotive preservation, I think the same interest would occur with:

For historic preservation of a steam locomotive, see LNER Class A4 4488

We need some stronger positive examples. William Allen Simpson 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. "most often" would be a better phrasing than "almost always". WP:D specifically bans separate dab pages if there are only two homonymous topics; rather, the "hatnote" should refer directly to the other page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Temporary messages

On the main page, I think that while Hurricane Katrina is an ongoing event that the link is absolutely apropriate. It directs people to a central location designed for the purpose, rather than attract potential edits to the article and/or talk page like "Does anyone know if Kevin Smith from Gulfport is safe?", which will get reverted from the article and lost on the talk page. In six months time it would be a different matter, but this is one of the advantages of being a wiki. Thryduulf 20:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think all the articles should be editted as final, for they get preserved on CD-ROMs and archives. However, I also disagree with the action taken here. A short header pointing to the "External links" would have been better (and timeless). William Allen Simpson 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The concept of using these notes for reasons other than disambiguating should at least be mentioned somewhere, even if we state they should be restricted to "extraordinary circumstances". William, there are no "final" versions of any WP articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Quibbling; rather than "final", I could have said "for the ages", I did mention "timeless". This isn't a continuing news desk. And I disagree, on CD/DVD, it's carved in stone, as it were; as final as anything electronic. William Allen Simpson 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Still, this doesn't seem any more intrusive on a permanent medium than the plethora of NPOV tags, policy proposal tags, needs-improvement tags, and the like, which are intended to be equally temporary. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point! --William Allen Simpson 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Name

Is hatnote a protologism?—jiy (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If this were a legal opinion, it would be a "headnote". Perhaps they invented a new word to distinguish? William Allen Simpson 14:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On WP:D they're called "disambiguation links". I presume it's your intent to condense the content on that page and refer people directly to this page as a subtopic of disambiguation. In that case keeping the word "disambiguation" here might be less, well, ambiguous. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not convinced that "hatnotes" a sufficiently self-explanatory term – but cannot at present think of any alternative other than "headers", which I grant may be too vague and has other (computing-related) uses. Will wander by again if inspiration strikes. Regards, David Kernow 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the word hatnote — it has character. It's also short and sweet, and easy to remember.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

using technical terms, such as "lede", "headnote"

Not all of you are professional editors (nor expected to be), but it would be helpful to check information when editing somebody else's work, especially where the term is clearly defined in the edit summary.

define:lede
--William Allen Simpson 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, contrary to Jiy's comment on the article page summary, a search for "lead paragraph" does not find any uses in (Main). "Lede" is used in many places, see List of commonly confused homonyms.

--William Allen Simpson 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right, not everyone is a professional editor. So we shouldn't use jargon only understood by professional editors and not found in standard dictionaries. Even News style has lead emblazoned in bold, with lede only as a side note. Of course you won't find "lead paragraph" in the main namespace, when I said used throughout Wikipedia I meant used widely by Wikipedians. Search in the areas outside the main namespace and you will find the phrase is used commonly [1] . "Lede paragraph", on the other hand, generates zero results [2].—jiy (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The latter result would likely be because "lede" means "lead paragraph", and people are (hopefully) unlikely to want to write "lead paragraph paragraph"; given that they still want to write "PIN number", however, this might be more because they don't know about "lede" than because they know how to use it correctly . HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Consolidate some Otheruses[N]

I've been trying to update WP:D with good examples, as the old ones have often migrated considerably since originally written. One thing that I did today was use the actual Otheruses templates in place, as the old subst were often obsolete.

But it took hours to find even a few good examples of Otheruses[N], as these are wildly applied. I must have looked at a dozen possibilities (when they exist) for each of the Otheruses templates.

There are too many nearly identical variants, and editors seem confused.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The major problem IMHO is that they are all labelled with numbers instead of being descriptive. Other templates with more or less the same purpose but different specifics have more mnemonic labels - see for example the various speedy delete templates. Hairy Dude 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses0}}

1 instance.

The only use could be easily replaced.

A modesty useful idea, that is a duplicate of/redirect to {{dablink}}. Seems to me that Dablink is improperly used, where standard templates apply, and should be replaced.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses1}}, {{Otherusesabout}}

165 instances.

On a page with title "Michigan" it says, "This article is about the U.S. State;" — gosh and golly gee, the very next sentence (the "lede") says, "Michigan is a state in the United States."

On a page with title "Abracadabra" it says, "This article is about an incantational word;" — the next sentence begins, "Abracadabra is a word used as an incantation ...."

Pursuant to WP:STYLE, the lede of every article is expected to have the title as the subject of the first sentence. I have not yet found an example where Otheruses1 is most appropriate.

All instances should be replaced with Otheruses.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses2}}, {{Otherusespar}}

many instances. Useful. Harmless.

Most could be replaced with {{Otheruses}}, as they simply repeat the title in the parameter.

Understandably, somebody created Otherusespar, as "2" is incongruous where there is only 1 parameter. Wouldn't {{Other1d}} (one parameter, "disambiguation" added) be a better name?

Replace and delete the duplicate.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses3}}

300+ instances. Seemingly useful.

However, there is a longstanding WP:D requirement (since 2002) that links to "Generic" disambiguation pages from other pages are supposed to go through a redirect from "(disambiguation)" so that WP:DPL won't list them. My guess is that many/most of these should be replaced by Otheruses2.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses4}}, {{This}}, {{This article is about}}, {{About}}

many instances. A mess.

Otheruses4 might be easier to remember as {{Othertopic}}. The primary use is for disambiguation of only two articles, to point at each other.

Most of the instances of {{This}} and {{This article is about}} are nearly identical to Otheruses4.

Template:This (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) barely survived TfD (3 delete:2 keep) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005#Template:This.

Template:This article is about (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) barely survived TfD (1 delete:1 keep) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/September 2005#Template:This article is about.

Like Otheruses1, should always check to see whether the "This" is already replicated in the lede.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. {{About}} has hundreds of uses too, a lot of them probably identical to {{Otheruses4}}. It has the marginal advantage of flexibility in that you can add extra links or non-links and other wording than "{{{2}}}" or "other uses" after the "For". But other templates do that just as well. Plus, this template runs the risk of allowing nonstandard wording and formatting, which kind of defeats its own purpose.
How about a bot to replace usage of these, once consensus has been reached here? Hairy Dude 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Ed_g2s just edited a number of these templates to remove the "redundant information". I can see no basis in consensus for his changes, although I agree with his opinion of those templates. Hairy Dude 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please see the talk page for {{otheruses4}}. It seems wrong to me to have all these remote discussions (and undiscussed actions) going on where a lot of editors who watch the WP:D page get no notice until their templates break. Is a disambig-fixing editor expected to watch otheruses, otheruses2, otheruses3, otherpeople, and every other template that might be useful? Chris the speller 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses5}}

2 instances.

Essentially same as {{redirect}}. Replace and delete.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Has been speedy deleted repeatedly.

--William Allen Simpson 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses6}}

5 instances.

Essentially same as {{redirect}}. Replace and delete.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses7}}

4 instances.

Paired with {{Otheruses5}} minus "(disambiguation)". Requires thought.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses8}}

1 instance.

Paired with {{Otheruses4}} plus "(disambiguation)".

Like Otheruses1, should always check to see whether the "This" is already replicated in the lede. Really not that hard to type the qualifier.

Replace and delete.

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Otheruses9}}, {{dablinktop}}

no instances, should be deleted soon. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 27#Template:Dablinktop

--William Allen Simpson 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
{{Otheruses9}} now redirects to {{This}}. Hairy Dude 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
All gone. --William Allen Simpson 06:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Consolidate some Distinguish[N]

{{Distinguish}}

61 instances.

This is for pairs of articles with confusingly similar names. Very useful IMHO.

Hairy Dude 20:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Distinguish2}}

6 uses in article namespace.

I think this is potentially useful where a brief explanation of the other word seems useful... but this sets a precedent of inserting potentially large amounts of text that are irrelevant to the article. It also needs documenting on its talk page.

Hairy Dude 20:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, this one is a waste of time. The only difference is that it doesn't link. Well, this is wikipedia, and links are our sine qua non. I'll look at the now 23 uses, but looks like they should all be replaced with {{distinguish}} or something similar.
--William Allen Simpson 06:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, useful only in very few cases, mainly to add the similar link AND a snippet of distinguishing information (or, quite wrongly and annoyingly, a second or third link). For those very few cases, {{dablink}} could do pretty well. When just seeing the other spelling instantly gives the other meaning to most people, such as Salon and Saloon, this form is not needed, but when there are two similarly named people in similar occupations, it is a kindness to add a few words so the reader does not have to flip back and forth. Chris the speller 15:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm starting to lean the other way — instead of trying to suppress or control all editors by deleting or chopping up templates, we should send a polite message to an editor who shows a tendency to use a template inappropriately. A golf club can be used as a weapon, but misuse by one or two people does not result in all golf clubs being melted down. I see some use for distinguish2, and so far I think it has often been used in an acceptable fashion. If there is an example of atrocious misuse, let's fix that case. And clear guidelines (with stellar examples) might help, too. Chris the speller 14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples of proper use

The aforementioned section was empty, so in keeping with the be bold directive, I went ahead and added some examples. I also added my interpretation of how these examples apply to hatnotes. However, I may be getting ahead of myself on this. Since there is no definitive standard, I'm not exactly sure which of these examples I should be advocating as proposed policy and which I should leave out entirely. I really need some comments on this.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 17:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous

I don't know about this one. If I'm trying to learn about a Scottish clergyman named John Brown, and I don't know if he was an abolitionist or not, I might look up John Brown on Google. One of the top Google links takes me to John Brown (abolitionist), but that's not who I meant. Shouldn't there be a hatnote to take me to John Brown? And it's not just names. I might be brand new to Wikipedia, looking at the Magpie River (Ontario) article. And I think "Hey, does that mean there are other Magpie Rivers?" But to get to that, I can't just click. Sarah crane 13:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • But why can't the user simply type "John Brown" (or "Magpie River") in the Wikipedia search box? The problem is that adding hatnotes to disambiguated articles only adds unnecessary clutter. Since we should presume that readers are looking for specific things and people, it might cause confusion to include superfluous links.
    ,-~R'lyehRising~-, 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The user can retype the name, but that's more work than clicking a link. I don't think a one-line hatnote is too distracting for people who don't care about other John Browns, but it would be very helpful for people who do. The article name Magpie River (Ontario) indicates that there are others, and it's natural to be curious. Shouldn't we link? Sarah crane 12:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed - make it easy. And don't presume that readers are looking for specific things or people - one of the joys of web-based encyclopaedias is the ability to wander to wherever your attention is distracted. Bazza 14:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • One should note, however, that the proposed guideline for hatnotes says that they are intended for disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). Thus, hatnotes are essentially condensed versions of disambiguation pages, which means that they should be used for navigation and not exploration. Just as Wikipedia discourages the use of disambiguation pages for exploratory purposes — such as games of free association — I think that a similar rule should apply to hatnotes. In fact, hatnotes should rarely be used, except when absolutely necessary.
          ,-~R'lyehRising~-, 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • You are confusing how authors should write with how readers might read. I'm not on about what authors might use disambiguation for - I'm talking about how readers might use it. I know that Wikipedia:Disambiguation says authors should not use disambiguation to provide games of free association, but where does it discourage readers from using disambiguation for random exploratory purposes? I say again, web-based encyclopaedias are great for reading about things you never set out to read - whether to do so or not is up to the reader. Bazza 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that there's such a clear distinction between navigation and exploration. In so far as there is, though, navigation means nothing on its own; we need to ask: who needs to navigate, and to where? Explorers need navigation as much as (if not more than) anyone else, surely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree that these "non-ambiguous" articles should have dab links at the top that go back to the main page. Some people will end up on the "unambiguous" page without having gone through the disambiguation page, and some of those people will realize that they are in the wrong place. Also, the backlink is the only way you can find out that there are other people or concepts with similar names. That's interesting information which should not be destroyed by adherence to overly harsh style recommendations. -- Beland 16:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I previously would have disagreed with adding hatnotes to even the pages with disambiguation clarifiers in parenthesis, but there are some good arguments for including them. However, I worry that if they are included on all pages that are disambiguated, the pages will become quite cluttered.
A discussion regarding hatnotes has been going on at Wikipedia:Disambiguation in the latter part of Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Is_anybody_doing_it_right, which brings up a few interesting points. -- Natalya 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Referenced discussion is now here. Hairy Dude 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I appear to have missed this discussion first time 'round. Several previous discussions have found against these hatnotes for several reasons. I don't buy any of the above arguments in favour of them:
  • Sharing a name with something is not a good argument for a link to an otherwise unrelated article, and it's an especially bad excuse for a privaledged link above the article. If it's relevant, by all means make a note of it in the text. If we're playing random association links for the purpose of allowing users to read for the sake of reading, why should items sharing a name get the privaledged position of being the only things we do that for? Why are they more entitled to being included in that game than items established in the same year, people born in the same town, buildings with the same purpose, organisations with the same patron?
  • Regarding google: disambiguation is and has always been for those using Wikipedia's search box, and nothing else. For some reason people seem to think page names with a suffix are more ambiguous than page names with multiple words. They are not. If we accept the google argument, why stop at pages with suffixes? Type "Bush" into google. The number one result is George W. Bush. Should the GWB article link back to Bush? Indeed, the number 10 google result for "George", number six result for "Dubya" and number one google result for "GWB" are all to George W. Bush, so by now the hatnote for that page is ganna be getting pretty big! Should New York City have hatnotes for New, York, and City? Should History of England have them for History and England? Joe D (t) 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This answer ignores the fact that guidlines should describe how these features are used, not prescribe how they should be used, and cetainly not proscribe useful uses. IPSOS (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of horizontal line

Why should there not be a line dividing material that is not part of the article from the article? indentation doesn't do this (parts of an article are often indented, such as long quotations), nor does the use of italics. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree the italicized indentation does not look very nice. A line might be in order. Though that would involve changing a lot of articles. (Which could be automated by bot.) -- Beland 16:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Having a dividing line after a hatnote breaks up the article in an unneeded fashion, and really distracts from the article. With an indentation, the hatnote is separate enough while still allowing a reader who does not need to read it to easily move to the article. Adding a horizontal line between the hatnote and the article makes the distinction too noticable. -- Natalya 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But this misstates the point; the line can't break up the article, because it's separating the article from non-article. And why shouldn't the distinction be noticeable? It's a genuine distinction (and a horizontal line is thus often used in this way in print works). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's likely just personal preference between us, but I feel that hatnotes should not stick out of a page. The whole point of having them be italicized and intented is so that they don't wake away from the nature of the article. The article is there for the article, that is the main point. The hatnote is only there for people who mistakenly come to the article; as dismabiguation practices are improving, the number of people mistakenly coming to an article becomes less and less. For people coming to the article and finding they are at the wrong place, they will soon relize this, see the hatnote, and go to the correct place. For everyone else, they will gloss over the indented and italicized hatnote, and continue on reading the article they were originally looking for.
Here is an example of an old version of a page using a horizontal line with a hatnote. There are so many horizontal lines and other boxes near the top of the page that it is unneedingly cluttered. There is no way that with indentation and italitization, a person at the wrong page will miss the hatnote. But with the horizontal line, many people who are where they are supposed to be will be distracted by the hatnote. It seems to be a question of aesthetics.-- Natalya 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd have thought that a note insufficently distinguished from the article was more likely to distract than one clearly set off and separate. In either case, though, the effect is surely minimal. (The example that you give seems fine to me; this is clearly simply a matter of taste.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe use preference settings along the lines of...
  • Hatnotes/headers:
  • Refer to these as "hatnotes" / "headers"
  • Always show / never show / use last setting  [as with TOCs etc]
  • Show only on article page / only on talk page / on either ...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Either, I suppose. A drawback, however, is that this would demand further work from the seemingly already hard-pressed software developers, so I guess it would take some time to appear. Best wishes, David Kernow 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues. The first concerns aesthetics, and that's clearly a matter of taste (discussions at other Talk pages, such as Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Horizontal line, bear that out), and there's not much more to be said. The second concerns usefulness. My position is that the horizontal line (used in this way by many print encyclopædias) serves to mark off material that isn't part of the article, and that merely indenting or italicising text is insufficent for that purpose (as other text in articles is also indented and italicised). Natalya holds that it makes the hatnote stick out, and is therefore undesirable (my reponse is that the hatnote is supposed to stick out, so that a reader who has misnavigated sees as soon as possible that that's what she's done).

Are there any other arguments on either side? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well my view is that the hatnote is indeed part of the article. And if indenting or italicising isn't sufficient, neither is a horizontal line (horizontal lines are also used elsewhere in articles). Also, as a personal point, I find the current formatting of hatnotes to be ideal for my own personal use; I realize that's anecdotal but it's still a data point. Powers 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see how a link that explains that there are other, usually unrelated, articles with the same or similar names can be seen as part of the article. "See also" sections, yes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest posting a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), since many people who deal with disambiguation pages every day frequent that discussion, and may not know about the discussion going on here. -- Natalya 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel just removed the restriction on the horizontal line from the Wikipedia:Guide to layout with the edit summary rm line lacking consensus, and I reverted. Clearly, there was no consensus anywhere to remove the restriction. This has been the standard since 2004-05-16. As noted in the edit comment, the existing text was merged there from the long-standing Wikipedia:Section (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Section|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

--William Allen Simpson 04:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It does appear that Mel is the only one here who thinks a line should be in there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Mel. But I'm not about to start another style war over it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from User:Beland's apparent agreement with my point too, the discussion is fragmented across different Talk pages, and others have agreed with me elsewhere. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Template gutting

Is it just me, or have most of the hatnote templates dropped the very useful "This article is about..." clause? Surely I'm not the only one who made use of that. I've been bouncing around among various talk pages (here, WP:D, and the talk pages for the templates) and never once found any consensus to remove that clause. What the heck is going on? Powers 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page for {{otheruses4}}. There is an editor (an admin, no less) who thinks there was consensus 8 months ago for it, but I see it quite differently. Chris the speller 15:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Otheruses4

Template:Otheruses4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

followup The template has survived TFD with consensus of 'keep'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The nomination is in fact at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 18#Template:Otheruses4. Hairy Dude 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why templates?

I don't see the reason for "In most cases, a standard Wikipedia:Disambiguation template should be used" at the start of the Format section. Using a template has the disadvantage that it makes the wikitext more complicated and less readable. I have no idea what Template:Otheruses3 says, and I certainly do not feel like looking up the correct template when I want to write a disamb notice.

I don't think we should try to keep the wording of the notice uniform across articles. I do agree that the format should be kept uniform, but that can easily be achieved without a template. It can even be changed without using a template, though that is admittedly more complicated. Finally, if the format is the only reason for using a template, then there should only be one template, Template:Dablink. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for using templates is that they can be more easily hidden (e.g. in print) using code more complex than that used to make simple wikitext notes. Circeus 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't realized that there is a class hidden in the templates. I still don't templates like Template:Otheruses3 and the proposal seems to be written to make us use those templates. On the other hand, I'm happy with {{dablink|For other meanings of "foo", see [[foo (disambiguation)]].}} and that's allowed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What needs to happen is the disambig templates need to be condensed for comprehensibility. That would make them much easier to understand. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:About

Template:About has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

--William Allen Simpson 04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Consolidate some Otheruses again

Again, we have the problem of proliferation of variants. Analysis shows that there could be just {{Otheruses}}, {{Otherterms}}, and {{Othertopics}} with up to 2 optional parameters.

Consolidate into Otheruses

  • {{Otheruses}}:
    For other uses, see Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 1 (disambiguation).
  • {{Otheruses|PAGE1}}: {{for|other uses|PAGE1 (disambiguation)}}
  • {{Otheruses|PAGE1|PAGE2}}: {{for|other uses|PAGE1 (disambiguation)|PAGE2 (disambiguation)}}

That could replace:

Is there support for the simpler and easier to remember syntax?

--William Allen Simpson 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I just found {{Otheruse}}, currently used on 36 pages, which uses named parameters. I prefer your proposal. Hairy Dude 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Consolidate into Otherterms

That could replace:

Consolidate into Othertopics

  • {{Othertopics|TOPIC1}}:
    This page is about TOPIC1. For other uses, see Hatnote/Archive 1 (disambiguation).
  • {{Othertopics|TOPIC1|PAGE}}:
    This page is about TOPIC1. For other uses, see PAGE.
  • {{Othertopics|TOPIC1|TOPIC2|PAGE}}:
    This page is about TOPIC1. For TOPIC2, see PAGE.

That could replace:

Is there support for the simpler and easier to remember syntax?

--William Allen Simpson 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This can be merged with your otheruses section above as well, into the equivalent of the current {{Otheruses4}}. (You may notice I've already basically done that to the extent I can.) I think dropping the first parameter is easier to remember than the difference between uses and topics when both use the word uses. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be concentrating on the output text, I was grouping by the parameter usage that would allow a redirect (or bot) to replace existing instances cleanly. I agree that the text could be changed here to something more like "for other topics". I just used existing language for the examples.
Also, we have these templates like {{otheruses4}} that don't point to a "(disambiguation)" link/page, they point directly to another page, and are used as the example in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. So, we cannot be like {{Otheruses}} or {{Otheruses2}}.
Moreover, unlike the proposed {{Otherterms}}, the PAGE parameter moves over one, instead of having two pages (I don't know why we need two pages for {{Otheruses}}, but somebody has been doing that lately). It's computer science and ease of conversion, not esthetics, driving my proposal here.
Finally, noting that your various recent transclusions work by leaving out parameters ("||" empty pipes), that's really not documentable, and extremely hard to read. Different template names are preferable.
--William Allen Simpson 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"I was grouping by the parameter usage that would allow a redirect (or bot) to replace existing instances cleanly": Well, there's a one-to-one mapping between parameters here, so just editing everything to use a meta-template to something like {{otheruses4}} would work to clean up existing templates. (Ideally a bot would replace them in wikitext too, but this would also be easy.)

"Also, we have these templates like {{otheruses4}} that don't point to a "(disambiguation)" link/page, they point directly to another page": Yes, why is that relevant? All of your proposed templates also drop that bit.

"Moreover, unlike the proposed {{Otherterms}}, the PAGE parameter moves over one, instead of having two pages": That's a silly change people have been making recently. What should be is just that the new templates shouldn't autoadd wikilinks; this gives far greater flexibility to end-users. If you want a link, put a link; if you want two links, put two links; if you want and, put and; if you want or, put or. This would make conversion more complex, but in the long run I feel it's the only sensible course of action, in the absence of StringFunctions.

"Different template names is preferable": Could be. We should have a straw poll once we get some more of the details worked out, I suppose. But if they do have different names, I would suggest {{for}} (which starts with "For other uses") and {{about}} (which starts with "This article is about"); your current division is extremely confusing. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot fathom your scrunched comments with HTML p paragraphs, so I'll just note that you are wrong. The division is about "Uses", "Topics", and "Terms".
Using "For" because it is the first word in the OUTPUT TEXT (as I mentioned before) is silly! Using "About" because it is the 4th word in the OUTPUT TEXT is even sillier! The output text can change at any time. The parameters and usage should make sense, be consistent, and easy to document.
The (mostly Netaholic) hack that includes bracketed links inside template parameters is non-intuitive, and contrary to just about every other template in the *pedia! (The only ones I know of were all revisions by Netaholic.)
I'm not at all interested in designing arbitrary junk. I'm proposing this as a clean and clear consolidation, easy to implement.
--William Allen Simpson 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The only difference between the template you peg as "uses" and the one you call "topics" is that the first doesn't contain a sentence explaining the content of the current page, and the second does. That is in no way parallel to the difference between the words "use" and "topic"; therefore, the distinction between those two is likely to be lost on many. That output text can change is irrelevant—first of all it's not going to change too much in the foreseeable future, but even if one does, we can just redirect the template. The output is what people remember.

The "hack" that includes bracketed links inside template parameters is not non-intuitive if you aren't already used to the vast majority of templates that unfortunately don't use it. As a matter of fact, most unfortunately don't, but that's not a reason to say that it's better that way. The ones that use the present system are bad and should be changed, because they're much less flexible and so force the use of {{dablink}} more than is necessary. But if you're focused on easier implementation, the extra parameter can be added to my templates as well as yours.

I use the <p> syntax, by the way, because any line breaks kill the current table. That looks acceptable on these tables, which are pretty hacky anyway, but I've gotten used to using it from * and # tables. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using the name {{Otherusesabout}} for the variant with a summary à la {{Otheruses4}}. Currently {{Otherusesabout}} is a redirect to {{Otheruses1}} and is used by a small enough number of articles that we could simply convert those by hand. I don't see any problem with the fact that "is about" might be changed to (e.g.) "discusses", since the name will still be reasonably mnemonic.
For "other uses of TERM", I suggest {{Otherusesof}}. In this case we can actually keep the old template and just extend it with extra parameters to allow more articles to be linked to. Hairy Dude 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Argh! I've found yet another template: {{This article}}. Allegedly it is "useful for those articles where the "is about" could be replaced with better words", but most uses use "is about" anyway. Created on 4 October 2006. I think we really need to standardise on some templates and strongly discourage creation of any more. Hairy Dude 02:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Now nominated for deletion. Hairy Dude 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on how to format explicit references to other articles ("see Article") in Wikipedia. Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Formatting of referrals to other articles is appreciated. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 55#Formatting of referrals to other articles. Hairy Dude 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump thread on this proposal

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hatnotes inactive? (continued). Carcharoth 13:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion was archived, so it is being copied by me here below. —AySz88\^-^ 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion copied out of archives for further discussion. Carcharoth 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Radient placed inactive tags at Wikipedia:Hatnotes, and his comment on my user talk page reveals that he feels the page is an inactive proposal. I disagree (I thought it was an active guideline), but the page hasn't been updated in a while; should this page be rejuvinated and/or perhaps integrated into the MoS? —AySz88\^-^ 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

End of first copied (by Carcharoth) section.

I think this is more a case of a proposal being written to reflect practice at the time, and to help prevent diverging practices. It seems that either people started following it, or they always did follow it (from what I can tell, the hatnote templates are widely used). I suspect the proposal just never got tidied up and pushed forward to being a guideline or merged into the Manual of Style. The absence of anything on hatnotes in the MoS is rather a glaring omission. I would support this loose end being tidied up and accepted, rather than just tagged "inactive" - which struck me at the time as very strange - people add hatnotes all the time - the practice of using hatnotes is not inactive, which is what some people might have thought when they saw the page tagged as inactive (I realise that Radiant was probably tagging the proposal, not the activity, but not everyone clearly understands this difference). Ditto for the recent tagging of the Wikipedia:Death threats proposal as inactive (by me, not Radiant) - some people might interpret this to mean that they can get away with death threats! I think we need to be careful with these "inactive" tags. Carcharoth 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The obvious solution against death threats would be redirecting it to NPA, which already has a clause on it. I have, of course, no objection to a MOS page about hatnotes, but I have not had sufficient experience with hatnotes to write it myself. Hence, until someone can be found to write it, we don't actually have such a MOS page, and this proposal is presently inactive. (Radiant) 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the rewritten tag I had there was my initial attempt to avoid this, but the redirect you did for 'Wikipedia:Death threats' looks good. I've moved the tag to the talk page to prevent people adding discussion to that talk page, but still leaving the talk there for people to read, plus a link directing people to the talk page of WP:NPA. I've also updated the archives box at the top of WT:NPA to link to the talk page when a subpage has been turned into a redirect. Hopefully people following old links to Wikipedia:Death threats will work out what has happened here! As for the hatnotes, I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else wants to volunteer, and then I'll see about setting up something in the MoS. I'll add a note over there. Carcharoth 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

End of copied (by AySz88) section.

This page

I personally have no objection to adding this page to the manual of style, but I note the lack of recent activity here and the lack of response to a recent thread on the village pump. Therefore I am in doubt as to whether this is consensual, or if people simply are not particularly interested about the subject. (Radiant) 12:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a page has to have recent activity in order to be considered worthwhile. AFAICT, it describes current practices pretty well. older ≠ wiser 13:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be; I was simply wondering if the lack of response to this page implies assent or disinterest. (Radiant) 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's working, and it's not controversial. That's why my lack of response, up to now, impied Assent. Chris the speller 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Should this page not now be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (hatnotes)? It should also be linked from Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Hairy Dude 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous"

Hi. I'd like to open a discussion on one of the "improper uses" of disambig hatnotes listed here, specifically "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous". The reason given for this being inappropriate is that "the user would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if they were interested in other types of trees, as tree does not redirect there". At first glance this seems like a sound piece of reasoning but I'm not sure that it is. If a user types "tree" into the search box and hits "Go", they are taken to tree which may be what they wanted, but if it isn't, they're directed at "tree (disambiguation)" where (hopefully) they can find what they were after (e.g. tree, tree or tree). No problems so far, but that's only one way in which a user might end up at a page. How about, however, if they arrive at an article by following a link. If it's a poorly-crafted link, i.e. it points to tree (disambiguation) or it points at tree when tree was intended, then they can (hopefully) find what they're after, and if they're an experienced user, perhaps even fix the links). For well-crafted links, on the other hand, i.e. links that point to unambiguously named pages, what if a user followed a link to tree expecting to find information relating to tree? They wouldn't find the right information. For an experienced user, this wouldn't be a big deal, as they'd probably spot that the page has a qualifier and deduce that there was a corresponding disambiguation page, would visit that and (hopefully) find what they're after. A novice or casual user, however, probably wouldn't realise that a qualified title indicated that a disambiguation page existed (if they even knew what disambiguation pages were) and would be even less likely to know what the disambiguation page would be called. In terms of the user experience for novice/casual users, I see little if any difference between the appropriateness of placing a disambig hatnote on a qualified vs an unqualified page. On the basis that we're writing this encyclopaedia primarily for the vast bulk of the human population, and not primarily for the very small subset of it which has lots of Wikipedia editing experience, something seems not quite right here. The reasoning given for this usage of a hatnote seems to me incorrect or at least over-simplified. Do others agree? I don't have an opinion at this stage as to whether a hatnote or some other device is the most appropriate way of solving this problem, but if we can agree that there is a problem, I'm happy to give the solution some thought. SP-KP 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with the guideline, simply with the way it has been implemented in your example. Since "tree structure" could refer to "tree (data structure)", it is ambiguous, and so tree structure should have a hatnote directing users to tree (data structure). In contrast, there is no need to have a hatnote linking the other way round. As long as noone assumes that only one of the pages associated with a disambiguation page is ambiguous, there shouldn't be a problem. JPD (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In this particular case, I don't think that a hatnote is necessary on tree structure since tree (data structure) is listed as a related term within the article. But in general, the advice by JPD is sound. older ≠ wiser 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The case for hatnotes

I think that the section of the draft guidance on "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" is far too wide-reaching and woukd damage wikipedia if adopted. There are many cases where hatnotes are useful and important even on article names which may appear not to be ambiguous'. (My editing primarily involves biographical articles, so my comments may not be so relevant elsewhere, but they arise from long experience in this biographical area).

Some reasons for having hatnotes:

  • A concise hatnote (using, for example the {{otherpersons}} template should take only about ten words in all, and fit on one line. It creates minimal page clutter, and is visually distinct from the body text. (I deplore most uses of templates such as {{otheruses1}}, which create absurdly verbose hatnotes: if the article has a proper lead section there is no need for a hatnote which says "this article is about ...").
  • The advice against using hatnotes is based on the assumption that when things are working properly, the reader will always arrive at the right page. I think that this assumption is wrong for lots of reasons (see below), and that without a hatnote a reader who arrives at the wrong page will have no easy way of finding the correct article, if it exists; they will either have to search or try eiting the URL. It's much easier for the reader to have a hatnote providing direct, one-click access to the disambiguation page.

Some reasons why readers may end up on the wrong page:

Readers don't all start from wikipedia
  • I think that maybe some editors take too wiki-centric a view of how Wikipedia is used.
    It seems to me that many users will not start on wikipedia, they'll start with a search engine such as Google; and chances are these days that a wikipedia entry will appear at or near the top of the list of search results. They may find in the article title a clue about which particular person the page in question describes, or they may not. If the page is entitled "John Q. Smith", that probably won't tell them whether it's the right John Smith. and a term such as "baron" may be more helpful to some, but not to others such as me who may not know the UK peerage system, and only know from reading the very clear introductory sentence that it's about a politician.
    The problem is that the introductory sentence may not be one that Google displays in the excerpt, so it may not be available when deciding whether to view the page — and the dab page will rarely anywhere the top of a set of Google results.
An editor may create a link to the wrong person
  • Consider the case of John Gilbert, a dab page which currently lists 11 people. Not all of the names explain the career of the subject, so an editor needs to check carefully when disambiguating a link. Sometimes they will get it wrong, as with John Gilbert (actor).
    There is one wikipedia article on a Jihn Gilbert who'd an actor, but an IMDB search for John Gilbert lists 19 of them ... and it would be easy for an editor to link to the wong one.

As more articles get created for John Gilberts or John Smiths, the more likely it is that a reader will end up with the wrong one. Not many names will be as widely used as John Smith, but a name gets to the stage of having more than one John Gilbert in a particular profession, the more important it becomes to have an easy way or fnding the others. Dabs such as John Gilbert (actor) are not necessarily unique.

So the way I see it is that far from it being dificult, it's actually quite easy for a user can to end up on the wrong page when the article name is even a bit ambiguous. And once they get there, they may not even know that there ought to be a dab page. The {{otherpersons}} hatlink takes little enough screenspace and mental bandwidth for the reader that it's no impediment to a user who doesn't need it — but it will be very useful to anyone who does. Some pages may needs the hatlink more than others, but even where it isn't essential, it may be interesting to have a direct link to a list of other people of the same name. It may be useful to some and interesting to others, which is why I added it to all the John Gilberts.

There are lots of ways in which these hatnotes can help, and they take so little space that they do no harm if not needed. Rather than deprecating them, the guidelines should encourage them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. About a year ago I made the same argument (much less eloquently), explaining how Google search can easily lead to the wrong person's article. Good going, BHG. Editors who haven't done much disambiguating of bios can't appreciate how much we need special guidelines for articles about people. Chris the speller 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree strongly with BrownHairedGirl. There are lots of ways to end up at the wrong article. And even if it is the right one having a quick way to get to the dab page is a very useful navigation tool for some people (e.g. me). If a page is parenthetically disambiguated that indicates that there are other pages that would share its title but without a hatnote there is no obvious way to find them. (As an established editor I know how use the search box or address bar to find a dab page but we can't expect that knowledge of new users.) I would have the guideline say Pages with titles which are not ambiguous should generally not have hatnotes. However, if the title would be ambiguous except for parenthetical disambiguation a link back to the disambiguation page may be warranted to aid in navigation. Eluchil404 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. (Sorry, not much to add!) Carcharoth 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagreed, per the previous discussions. None of these points are new. Joe D (t) 12:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BHG. I have never understood what harm the opponents of this idea think will be done by including a short dablink on these pages; I was dismayed when people started removing them from the many John Taylor articles I worked on. Is the mild annoyance of this notice to the person who is in the right place and knows it more important than the serious frustration of a person who is not able to find what they are looking for? Not everyone uses the encyclopedia the same way -- why make information harder to find when it's so easy for us to provide it? — Catherine\talk 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There are not just many ways to end up at the wrong page, there may be faulty assumptions underpinning underlying what happens when people arrive at an unambiguous page:
  • People will remove the disambiguating element which assumes:
    • People are familiar with the way Wikipedia works - people may be new to Wikipedia and not understand the naming protocols we use, especially as this isn't a standard way URLs would be done elsewhere on the Net (general link guidelines tend to suggest not using non-alphanumeric characters in URLs as encoding can make them messy and confusing).
    • People know about URL manipulation - I have taught introductory computer classes to bring everyone entering University up to the same standard and even amongst people starting a degree web fu can be highly variable. One of the things I make sure I include is URL manipulation and this is almost always new to users with medium to poor computer/web skills. Once learned it is very useful but we can't assume people have this skill by default (especially given the previous point)
  • People will just type the name into the search box - leaving aside possible typos leading people astray (or to dead ends) this breaks the flow which is important for usability. Remember Wikipedia is just another site, albeit an important one jam packed with important information. If someone is Googling for something we will be one of many results presented and if someone clicks the Wikipedia link and ends up on a page that is not about the thing they are looking for and there is no obvious navigation above the "fold" then they could just as easily hit the back button and go on looking through the lists of there results little knowing that the answer to their question is just a click or two away. This kind of thing is why link ladders are often put across the tops of pages on a lot of sites (I've found the IMDB one useful just today) and while Wikipedia doesn't lend itself to such obvious structures, as it stands you can often move up the disambiguation ladder but you can't often move down it and we can't assume the entry point to the structure is the ground floor. I have actually used hatnotes to create just such a ladder and you can start here.
  • People will be prepare to go in a big circuitous route to get somewhere - even if we assume people are prepared to do URL manipulation or dig/search you can end up going all around the house. I want to find Merlyn (Marvel Comics) but bad Googling (and experience shows people often need to be taught good search engine use too) leads me to Merlyn (DC Comics). This disambiguates to Merlin the Magician (comics), so I remove the ambigutation and get a redirect to Merlin from where I can click the link to the disambiguation page. I scroll down and spot Merlin (Marvel Comics) which is will eventually take me to the right entry (if I'd scrolled down the long Merlin page I'd have actually found the direct link tagged on the end). So basically we are relying on people knowing about URL manipulation and being prepared to keep digging away to find the right page, they often aren't going to be prepared to jump through so many hoops, they'll just hit the back button and leave.
Most editors on Wikipedia making policy decision can (I'd presume) be classed as medium to expert level in their general web knowledge and the way Wikipedia works but we can't assume everyone is (in fact we should assume they aren't).
There are other reasons for using hatnotes on unambiguous entries:
  • The URL may not lend itself to simple manipulation as in the Merlyn example above. The solution to that would in fact bringing all the comics mentions of Merlin/Merlyn together at "Merlin (comics)" and then add a hatnote up to that from all the relevant pages.
  • Such sub-disambiguation pages have worked well to help resolve confusion - there was a vast amount of confusion over the fact that there were 3 War of the Worlds films released in 2005, it took quite a bit of work to sort the mess out and one of the main things that helped was the creation of The War of the Worlds (film) (with another hatnote up to the main WotW entry) which the 4 WotW films are linked to via hatnotes. I have suggested some further disambiguation might be needed but that itself would require people to know the director or the production company (and could bring in extra confusion) and it looks like sub-disambiguation and hatnotes (the simplest fix) has ironed out the majority of issues.
So to summarise: there may be faulty assumptions about how people navigate the web and the use of hatnotes can help reduce confusion, help people find the right entry and increase usability. The arguement against seems to be that they clutter up the page. Now I have seen messy disambiguation but most of the time, when used properly, they can be unobtrusive and I find my eye is actually drawn to the bold introduction to the lead rather than the disambiguation (which rapidly disappears into the background - more part of the frame of the page rather than body. So a lot of pros and fairly weak cons. If it is largely a visual issue then working on making the links simpler, smaller or moving it further right (the ones I consider messy tend to have a lot of links and the further left they are the more they catch the eye when you want to read the entry) or make some other minor changes. (Emperor 12:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
This has all been discussed before by people who have a very good idea of how people browse the web, and why Wikipedia can't go doing everything for the benefit of Google. Yes, people will end up at the wrong place, but those arguing for hatnotes for these people are asuming, without any evidence, that people ending up at X (Australian band) will only have been looking for something listed on X (disambiguation). What X (Australian band) needs is a hatnote for every term that people who accidently find themselves there are looking for. It needs a hatnote for band (disambiguation) and Australia for a start, and probably several other terms. How do we deal with Google bombs? If somebody did a googlebomb with the phrase congenital moron pointing at somebody's Wikipedia biography, we should put a hatnote on that biography to help those people who found themselves there by accident? Joe D (t) 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
See also, my previous discussion of Google a few months ago. Joe D (t) 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should try and second guess things and anyway link to Australia and punk rock are above the fold on that entry. X (Australian band) is a good example as it does have an X (band) hatnote which would be helpful for people who might have ended up at that entry but were instead looking for something like X (U.S. band) - one click and they are taken to the right place to find the other X bands. That is what I'm talking about. I wouldn't recommend everything should be hatnoted but proper use like that can help people find the right page. (Emperor 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC))
Joe, there are zillions of ways in which people can each a web page that isn't the one they are looking, and you are right that in many cases we should expect users to search again.
However, it's a big leap from saying "we can't cover all circumstances" to saying that we should never use the simple tools at our disposal to assist readers who encounter a genuinely ambiguous article title. The Dictionary of National Biography helps its readers in this way by providing above each article a few small and unobtrusive links to similarly-named people. Why shouldn't we do the same? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. While we can't possibly try and second guess all the ways people end up at a page it is no big leap to suggest that someone looking for the band X might end up at the wrong one and a quick link sorts it out. I have had real problems with the comic artist Matt Smith. Everyone was dumping information into Matt Smith (comics) but people could easily be turning up at Matthew Smith (artist) or Matt Smith (illustrator) (and looking at those disambig pages there are 4 journalists of the same name). The application of hatnotes has helped sort things out. The bottom line is we assume people will change the URL or search for the terms but we really can't assume that. Editors should be given the flexibility to use hatnotes where it seems they can be useful and the payoffs, in just the small number of examples I have worked on, outweigh the very small bit of extra text: one man's clutter might be someone else's invaluable aid. (Emperor 01:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
Also it is worth noting that if the concern is about clutter then hatnotes can help reduce this. The War of the Worlds (film) didn't just help reduce confusion (although it did as part of a well thought out plan to fix the disambiguation problems with WotW), the use of a sub-disambiguation helped declutter the entry which needed some kind of hatnote but to do the job right it would rapidly have got large and unwieldy. While disambigutaing to a very general disambiguation page may not be that helpful (it'd involve nearly as much digging as URL manipulation or using the search box - although it has some pluses as it just relies on clicking) sub-disambiguation pages and the appropriate hatnotes can help people (a bit like hatnoting to a full name disambiguation compared to just a surname). For example, the link on this entry Nemesis (Transformers) goes to the main disambiguation and isn't really a useful link compared to the one at Nemesis (DC Comics).
WP:NAMB is a guideline and "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". So I'd suggest that the exceptions to this guideline are when linking to sub-disambiguation pages (that includes full name ones, like Matt Smith) as these types of articles are tightly focused and of more use than more general disambiguation page. So no need to actually change the hatnotes guidelines just make it clearer what the acceptable exceptions to WP:NAMB are, which wouldn't need more than a sentence of explanation (and a general consensus, of course). (Emperor 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

"Dabs such as John Gilbert (actor) are not necessarily unique." Yes they are, because if there are multiple John Gilberts who are actors with an article, further disambiguation will be used in the titles (e.g. John Gilbert (American actor), John Gilbert (British actor)), and a hatnote would link to the other actors, not to the disambiguation page (or John Gilbert (actor) would be a redirect to the disambiguation page). Melsaran (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus in this section is clearly that such hatnotes are useful, despite the fact the there is one way of looking at the situation in which title could be described as unique. Therefore the section in question does not describe current practice and should be removed. Please do not edit policies and guidelines against clear consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the consensus is that those hatnotes may occasionally be used and that this rule should contain some exceptions. I don't think anyone thinks that we should, for example, add a hatnote at Tree (set theory). Melsaran (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not how I read it at all. BHG made extremely good observations, and editors Chris the speller, Eluchil404, Carcharoth, Catherine, Emperor, and myself agree. Only yourself and Joe D object, and I must say i don't find the argument that Joe still disagrees with the points based on previous discussion very compelling. After all, consensus can change and it appears that it has. IPSOS (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There are cases where these hatnotes are appropriate, so we should line them out in the section, rather than removing it altogether. Do you think that we should have a hatnote at Tree (set theory)? Obviously not. Melsaran (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that it doesn't hurt to have a hatnote there, and that it is more harmful to remove a useful one than to have one that is unneeded. Therefore any guideline like this, especially if the formuation is complicated, does more harm than good. You are welcome to propose a simple formuation and get agreement for it on the talk page, of course. But I will object to anything that would result in the removal of hatnotes from Magic (illusion) and Magic (paranormal)). I also object to previous characterizations that hatnotes "are only for Wikipedia searches" and not intended to help users coming in from other search engines. That's a silly argument. IPSOS (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
From this time-lagged discussion, I do not see that there is any clear consensus for removing the section under discussion. What is clear is that there are cases where hatnotes are helpful even though the ambiguity of the title is not immediately apparent. Some refinement of the guidance might be warranted, but I don't see any clear-cut consensus for removing the section altogether. older ≠ wiser 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't technically arguing that NAMB should be removed (or that all non-ambiguous pages should link to a disambiguation page) but I do think there are good arguments for the use of hatnotes on non-ambiguous pages in certain circumstances and NAMB should be reworked to be more "positive" and offer examples of the exceptions to the guidelines were intelligent use of hatnotes can be helpful to people. As it is currently worded it can be used to remove all hatnotes from non-ambiguous pages (I've seen it used in such a manner in cases where hatnotes make sense) and it doesn't reflect the flexibility that guidelines on Wikipedia should have. (Emperor 15:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Errors on this page

Section "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous"

The example featuring "Tree (set theory)" contains a heading that erroneously ends up in Hatnotes' Contents (and breaks it). --AlastairIrvine 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by using an html tag instead of wiki markup. heqs ·:. 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Heqs, it was still broken after your fix, I guess the wiki software sees h1 tags as being the same as a section header. I have temporarily fixed it so that it doesn't break the table of contents, but someone who understands wiki markup better will have to make a final fix.--HarryHenryGebel 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, made a little better fix. Also, I confirmed at WP:SECT that the wikipedia software does count h1 tags as being section headers.--HarryHenryGebel 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAMB

Please see the section above, ""Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" for a very recent discussion of this. Some editors (myself included) have argued that hatnotes are sometimes useful to readers, especially when two similarly named people are in similar fields, but such hatnotes are obviously not as useful with Tree (set theory) and Shoe tree. Chris the speller 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony Rupert. This section makes the invalid assumption that the user searched using the searchbox on Wikipedia. They may have used some other search engine and not realized that they selected the wrong meaning. I believe that all articles listed on the disambiguation page should point back to it for ease of navigation. It's not confusing and improves the encyclopedia. IPSOS (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That ("all articles listed on the disambiguation page should point back to it for ease of navigation") is not currently supported by guidelines or actual practice. It is used in cases where confusion may be likely and occasionally in cases where editors have applied hatnotes a little too liberally and no one else noticed or cared sufficiently to remove them. older ≠ wiser 14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose removal of WP:NAMB

There appears to be a consensus above at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#The case for hatnotes at the section WP:NAMB may do more harm than good and that it should be removed. Discuss. IPSOS (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see that there is actually any consensus above for removing that section. Perhaps there is some justification for refining the guidance, but not for removing it altogether. older ≠ wiser 15:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire section is based on an erroneous assumption. It says "the problem is that the user would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if they were interested in other types of trees, as tree does not redirect there." This is simply not true. There are many ways that the user could have ended up there, including but not limited to using an external search engine or following a bad link. Something based on a false premise is itself false. This section is both untrue and misguided. An unneeded hatnote doesn't hurt anybody or anything. In addition, it is quite common for users to want to compare other metaphorical uses of a term in a case like this. The other uses at the disambiguation page are related and it is redundant to require them to be listed in see also, where surely someone would also remove them. The simplest, shortest method is to allow for linking to the disambiguation page from one of the pages linked from that disambiguation. I agree that if a long complicated hatnote is used to refer to multiple disambiguated terms that would be overkill, but a hatnote is neither ugly nor distracting in itself, and not liking them is not a valid reason for artificially limiting their use when that use would actually be useful. IPSOS (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't go as far as IPSOS (as linking every non-ambiguous page to the disambiguation is probably unnecessary and possibly unhelpful) I do think they might be right in there suggestion that NAMB is overly proscriptive and should be reworked to focus on good practice. As it stands NAMB can be used (and has) to remove every disambiguation link from non-ambiguous pages where the links can be potentially useful, and I think such an approach isn't really supported by NAMB and is unhelpful.
I've outlined my thinking in more detail above [3] but some quick points:
  • It is a guideline not a rule and should be open to a more flexible interpretation.
  • Given that I feel we should provide examples were the intelligent use of hatnotes is appropriate on non-ambiguous pages.
  • For example disambiguating Nemesis (DC Comics) to Nemesis is pointless and confusing but linking up to a sub-disambiguating can help rapidly resolve any confusion e,g,: Nemesis (comics). This is a big issue in comics where each publisher might have one or more characters of the same name but it also helped us in fixing the big issues we were having with War of the Worlds films e.g.: The War of the Worlds (film) (the product of a big discussion on the broader issues of disambiguating WotW).
  • While I can see an argument for disambiguating people's names (as I think the assumption people will manipulate the URL is a shaky one) I think it is vital in cases where simple URL manipulation (like the removal of the disambiguating part in parenthesis) won't work, for example: John M. C. Smith (one of many John Smiths who would need this treatment). See also: Hunger Artist where the articles need disambiguating but URL manipulation is often not intuitive or helpful.
  • Equally if there were actors or artists of the same name I'd support disambiguating to a sub-disambiguation page: e,g, "John Smith (actor)".
  • The use of sub-disambiguation pages often helps clean up messy (but necessary) hatnotes when there is more than one thing of the same name/type - as in the examples given above - we are able to disambiguate all WotW films with a small simple link is not only more helpful but a much tidier solution)).

So that is really where I stand (examples given above are just a sample of hundreds I could use). We should refocus NAMB to reflect its flexibility and offer a couple of examples where disambiguating non-ambiguous pages can be helpful: linking to sub-disambiguation pages and in circumstances where URL manipulation is potentially going to get the user to the right place. (Emperor 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I took care of the unneeded Nemesis dabs. The guideline is very much clear on this, there is no reason why one should stuff up a page with hatnotes just because they are WP:RELATED or for anything else. Hatnotes should only be used in most obvious cases, see Goku for instance. I see nothing of WP:CONSENSUS reached above and it would appear to me that IPSOS is attempting to prove a point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And such edits (invoking NAMB) are exactly the reason a lot of people are arguing that NAMB needs to be clarified - cases exactly like that are the kind of exceptions to the NAMB guideline [4]. it is that use of NAMB to remove all hatnotes from non-ambiguous pages that has brought us to this point. (Emperor 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Your edits, Sesshomaru, look like attempting to prove a point to me as well. Robotic implementation of dubious guidelines just because you don't like the look of hatnotes is misguided. IPSOS (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just following the WP:HAT manual of style, something we all should abide by. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement relative to other metadata

The placement section currently recommends placing hatnotes at the top of the article, before images and templates, to separate meta content from article content. Should we also include a guideline about where to place hatnotes relative to temporary meta content (i.e., cleanup, dispute, deletion and maintenance templates)? My feeling is that since a) they are temporary notices while the hatnote is a permanent part of the article, and b) the temporary templates are drawing attention to pressing and often critical issues, the guidelines should recommend placing temporary meta content above hatnotes. --Muchness 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Chris the speller 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that you mention it, I agree. Cleanup templates and the like aren't really "part of the article" (they're not encyclopaedic content), whilst infoboxes and images are. Melsaran (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've always placed templates in that order, and when I see an article whose hatnote is on top of temp. meta-templates I correct them. My reasoning is that: (1) hatnotes are actually part of articles (they aid navigation); meta-templates are not. (2) hatnotes are permanent additions to articles; meta-templates are only temporary; and (3) the meta-templates may contain some important information about the article which the user should be aware of before reading any part of it, such as verifiability, lack of sources, AfD, NPOV, etc., which should take priority over the article's content, even hatnotes. So, yes, I'd agree with amending this guideline to include this precedent. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about this much before, but I have to disagree. The function of the hatnote as a navigational device is impaired by placing it below the other meta-templates. The other meta-templates in general are specifically about the actual content of the article and not about the hatnote itself. That the other meta-templates are intended to be temporary seems to make little difference that I can see. The hatnote is not really an integral part of the article's content -- it is a different type of meta-content. And I'd argue that it's function as a navigational aid takes precedence over the templates that address the substantive content of the article. older ≠ wiser 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hatnotes above everything

Since it isn't 100% clear on maintenance tags, can I change the sentence where it says:

"Place hatnotes at the very top of the article, before images and templates (like navigational and "series" templates)"

to the following:

"Place hatnotes at the very top of the article, before images and templates (like navigational, maintenance and "series" templates)"?

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure whether there is a consensus to place them above maintenance tags. I think it would be good to have a little discussion about this, since there are solid arguments for both sides (placing them below maintenance tags looks less awkward and is a little more readable, placing them above maintenance tags is more consistent). Melsaran (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
My personal take on this is that maintenance tags that go on the top are like an extra layer outside the article as they are temporary and that the hatnote should be above the article/images/infobox as the first part of the core of the article with the templates slapped on above. (Emperor 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
Maintenance templates should be above all article content, including hatnotes (except the obvious FA, protected, and Geo templates; far right corners). See my reasoning in the previous section. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the maintenance tags should generally be above the hatnotes, but can understand if some editors feel that if there are a lot of maintenance tags, a reader might have to scan past a screenful of them before realizing it's not the article being sought, and that's not an ideal situation. Chris the speller 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I raised this issue in the discussion directly preceding this one (Placement relative to other metadata), and gave my preference and reasoning there. I'm happy to let this discussion play out and amend the guideline based on whatever consensus emerges. --Muchness 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with having maintenance templates above all else is that one could easily miss the hats, but then again, maybe not. Take a look at Hulk (comics). Does it not look a bit awkward? I agree with Melsaran, we should be consistent and have hats on top of all tags save for the ones like Mtmelendez mentioned: FA, protected, and Geo templates. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Other than questioning the need for a hatnote there (there are a number of films, all of them mentioned later, so why that one is chosen is beyond me), I think having things that way round is preferable. I switched it around and previewed it and it doesn't look good with the hatnote above everything else and it breaks the "link" between the hatnote and the actual article. So it makes things messier and more confusing for no added gain. (Emperor 16:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
That one was "chosen" becaue it share a title with one of the redirects pointing to the Hulk (comics) page. Since someone looking for "The Incredible Hulk" by that name would be redirected to the page, the hatnote serves to direct them to the article they were looking for. -- JHunterJ 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We could fuse the maintenance tags there into one shared box with {{Articleissues}} and then use a specific hat(s) above the tag. Mind if I try or would you do the honours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea no matter where we put the hatnote but with hatnotes above everything it still fails to work conceptually and you are only making some bad slightly less worse. Whether it is one or more maintenance headers the hatnote looks and works better as part of the article.
I was thinking of the best analogy for this and came up with the idea that you can see the article as the equivalent to a draft copy of an essay someone has asked you to proof-read. You'd note minor issues with notes in the text or in the margin and address larger concerns by writing in the space at the top or sticking a post-it on the top. The maintenance tags are the post-its and the hatnote is an element of the article which stays when the temporary tags are addressed and removed and should be grouped with the main article.
The bottom line is I don't see any reason why it should be at the very top and grouping the maintenance tags together addresses the concerns raised above about possibly having to scroll a bit down the page to get to the tag. (Emperor 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
I'm afraid you lost me, what change are you proposing for the guideline? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing changes to the guidelines - at least no changes beyond the consensus of the previous discussion above (i.e. hatnotes should be below maintenance tags). (Emperor 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
If they're in one shared box, the problem remains the same: temporary meta-content that is not part of the encyclopaedic content, i.e. cleanup templates, should be separated from permanent content that helps the reader navigate around the encyclopaedia. Melsaran (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The meta-templates are applicable only to the actual content of the article. The hatnote as a navigational device is a different type of meta-content, it it not a part of the article's content. The various cleanup and other meta-templates are not applicable to the hatnote. That is, it is exceptional that a cleanup, or POV or deletion tag is concerned in any way with the actual content of the hatnote (there are some rare cases where the hatnote is precisely the point of contention, but these are unusual). The function of the hatnote as a navigational device is impaired by being below the other meta-templates, therefore AFAIC, the hatnote should go above the other templates which are concerned with the actual content of the article and not the ancillary meta-content of the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we just need to rework the hatnotes so that they are boxed and look like the other meta-content templates... -- JHunterJ 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this (being at the top of the page) really apply to a redirect that redirects to a list page, where the target is some way down the page, it seems counter-inituitive to me and expects all readers 'just to know' to scroll to the top of the page for the link to the article they are looking for? Example - if you are after a footballer named Iván Cuéllar Sacristán, better known as Pichu, you get redirected to a pokemon list page.--Alf melmac 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a very good illustration of the dangers of implying that a rule is universally applicable. The redirect hatnote belongs in the section that is the target of the redirect. That sort of thing should be taken into account in the guideline. older ≠ wiser 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything said, we should specify in WP:HAT that the dab should go in the area where it targets, and let's have mention that hatnotes at the very top should be placed under maintenance tags. Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to our attention as I can't think I've seen anything like that. That does make me uncomfortable and a better solution to that would be to turn Pichu into a disambiguation page that links to both (I'm pretty sure I ran into something similar, just without the hatnote, with something like a Ben Ten character). That said some things are never going to be ideal and the hatnote does help solve the problem (even if the solution itself isn't ideal) so I agree it should be included, although as it is a guideline there will be exceptions and that is clearly one of them so you could leave it up to people to use their best judgement. So I'd go for something like: "Hatnotes should be placed above the article and the infobox but below the maintenance tags. Exceptions to this include times when links redirect down a page (like a list of characters) where the hatnote should be placed below the section header." That would show that there can be exceptions we haven't thought of and gives an example of it so leaving it more open and helpful (and less proscriptive). (Emperor 13:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
Seems like you've thought it through. We should be as clear as possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well not that much ;) Looking at the placement as it stands it makes a good point about it not being desirable to have article-meta-article. That said what I'd like to aim at is something that explains best practice but leaves the door open for people to use their initiative if it is required and doesn't break things or look nasty. I'm afraid though that on reflection Pichu is actually an example of bad practice so if expand the diagram to show hatnotes go under maintenance tags we should probably expand the first point to look at Pichu as an example of something that can and should be avoided. Creating a disambiguation page from the redirect is the best solution to that problem - adding hatnotes there is a clunky solution to a problem. I don't want to rule it out entirely (as there might be good reasons for this I can't think of at the moment) but promoting it as an exception is a bad idea. So perhaps go for:

Place hatnotes at the very top of the article, before images and templates (like navigational and "series" templates) but below temporary maintenance tags (like notability or reference ones). For example: 

{{notability}}             <-- meta content
{{otheruses}}              <-- meta content
[[Image:Frog.jpg]]         <-- article content
A '''frog''' is an animal  <-- article content
And then adjust the first point:
  • *In terms of document structure, it is awkward to have article content, then meta content, then article content again. Analogously, in HTML it would be bad form to put <title> and <meta> tags within <body>. Hatnotes have been placed deep in a page to assist after a redirect, like this version, but the solution to this problem would be to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page.
Something like that - it doesn't need much. (Emperor 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
Well, I still disagree that hatnotes should go below maintenance tags -- AFAIC, the function of a hatnote is impaired by placing them anywhere other than the top of the article (and I mean hatnote in the sense of that neologism, coming at the head of the article, rather than the rather exceptional case where the target of a redirect is a section). older ≠ wiser 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that maintenance tags are meant to go at the top of the article. The wording of this guideline is clear that it is talking about template that are part of the article, such as infoboxes and navigation templates. Some people have been intentionally misreading it and keep moving maintenance tags below the hatnotes. This is not correct and repeatedly doing it when informed otherwise appears to be a WP:POINT violation. IPSOS (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's do that then, have hats on the very top of the article. And what about a redirect that targets a section? Are we clear on what to do with those? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As I say I think we should discourage it and encourage the creation of a disambiguation page which then links to the section and the other article. If someone must link through to another section then possibly there is another template that can be used (similar to see also?). The guidelines as they stand are against article-meta-article and this makes a lot of sense and it wouldn't be wise to encourage it. (Emperor 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
Understandable. Do you concur with hats above all else when written on the top? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No. I still stick by what I said above - hatnotes are part of the article and not the temporary maintenance tags so should be below them. Which, looking through the above, seems to be the consensus. (Emperor 04:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
Very well, I agree with you. Has consensus been reached? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
While not 100% I think it means the majority support the idea of maintenance tags above hatnotes. Although I'd not want to be overly specific I also wonder if a note is worth adding about using {{Articleissues}} to reduce the height of the maintenance tags so hatnotes are always "above the fold" of the page (i.e. people don't have to scroll down the page). (Emperor 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
Can we also agree that the redundant hatnotes at Magic (illusion) and Magic (paranormal) be removed per WP:NAMB and/or WP:RELATED? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a different issue and one that should probably be raised over there. For the record I think it is important to make the distinction but that hatnotes are really just a quick shorthand and I'd be happier with the link in the text (preferebly in the lead) along the lines of: "This form of magic is distinct from the more 'paranormal' types of magic, in that trickery is used to produce the effect." (Emperor 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

I still very much disagree that hatnotes are "article content". They most certainly are not part of the content of the article. While I don't care so much as to raise a fuss bout such a minor issue -- I want to make it clear that I think it is mistaken to treat hatnotes as article content. older ≠ wiser 03:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that hatnotes should be placed above maintenance templates. They're directing the user to a different subject, so how are they part of the article? Anthony Rupert 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. The consensus appears to be that maint templates go at the top, then hatnotes, then navigational templates, infoboxes and images. IPSOS (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you disagree with, my opinion, or my interpretation of the consensus? If it's the latter, it doesn't make sense because I never stated what I thought the consensus was, but if it's the former, please explain how hatnotes that direct to different articles are part of the article at hand. Anthony Rupert 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with older ≠ wiser (Bkonrad). Hatnotes should be placed at the TOP and maintenance tags directly below them. I disagree with the reasoning that hatnotes are part of the article content, they are definitely not. The purpose of hatnotes is to direct readers to other articles that they may be looking for instead of the one they are on. They work best at the very top and have nothing to do with the actual article. Maintenance tags have everything to do with the article and nothing to do with hatnotes. It doesn't really matter if they are temporary or not. Hatnotes are at the very top so the reader can find what the page they are looking for right away. When they are sure they are on the right page, next comes warnings about the article the reader should be aware of like lack of sources, after these warnings is the actual article.

The binding logic of temporary meta content, meta content, article content is flawed logic because maintenance tags are actually more about article content than hatnotes and also hatnotes should be at the very top of the page so readers can navigate the easiest. Readers don't want to read a bunch of warnings about an article to then find it's not even the article they want to read. There was never any real concensus for this policy because not many people weighed in on this discussion. I think there should be a note on the Hatnote page section of Placement that there's no concensus as to if hatnotes should be placed above or below maintenance tags, unless a lot more people weigh in and a consensus is reached.

As to the aesthetics part of it, I agree that hatnote-maintenance tag-article content doesn't look so pretty, but maintenance tag-hatnote looks just as bad in my opinion. To improve aesthetics I've been occasionally double spacing between the hatnote and the tags to look like hatnote-space-tags, which looks better without the space in my opinion but still not so great because of a little too much added white space. I've seen some people do hatnote-horizontal line-tags, which is another possible aesthetic alternative. I'm not a fan of horizontal lines below hatnotes and I've never placed one, but for aesthetic purposes if there are hatnotes and maintenance tags having a horizontal line there could be an exception to the no horizontal line rule. But anyway, my point is I think hatnotes should be at the very top of articles. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking over this discussion, I don't see that there was clearly established consensus for the guidance to place hatnotes below maintenance tags. A very, very, quick perusal of the first 150 pages that link to the template dablink, showed 30 pages that had both hatnotes and some form of maintenance template. In 12 articles, the hatnotes were above the maintenance templates and in 18, the hatnote was below. So there is no conclusive evidence that the guidance is a codification of common practice. IMO, this bit of advice should not be codified at this time. older ≠ wiser 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be codified at this time and I waited a couple days after I made my comment here before changing the main page when no one had responded yet. I commented at and linked to this discussion so that new participants in it could see the old comments and that there wasn't really any consensus in the first place, and there were only a handful of users in the discussion. This is a relatively minor policy to establish but I deal with it often enough that I was curious to see which was the "correct" order in which it should go. After seeing this page that advised maintenance templates go above hatnotes I disagreed and sought out where this was established, which brought me to this section. After reading the discussion here my opinion was there were too few users that commented without any real consensus among them being established to make this rule set in stone at this time. That is my rationale for making the change I did and also why I did not start a whole new discussion about it. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"hatnotes should be at the very top of the page so readers can navigate the easiest."

+1
Coincidentally, I had occasion very recently to add a redirect hatnote to an article with maint tags on it, and hadn't realized there was a policy stated anywhere on this, so I went ahead and used my standard rule of thumb: "what benefits the reader"?
  • The reader who has just come to the wrong page wants to know that they're at the wrong place ASAP. They don't want to wade through all the "Post-Its" associated with the wrong page. We want to move them along. Thus, they're best served by seeing the hatnote first.
  • The reader who has just landed on the right page is going to see the hatnote and the maintenance tags no matter what, before they get to the article content. Thus, the order doesn't matter to them.
So, for all readers, hatnote first is either a win or a wash. Right?--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably right, but incomprehensible! What's "a win or a wash"? It's not a phrase I've come across (I'm a native speaker of UK English), and Google doesn't help! PamD (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If the hatnote is placed above the maintenance tags, it is either a "win" for the reader who is looking for a different page or a "wash" ([5] n. sense 11, [6] n. sense 13) in that it make little difference to the reader who has come to the right page. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - on looking closely at the online OED for "wash (n)" I find that within section VIII, "Senses of obscure or doubtful origin.", meaning 20(c), added in 1993, is "A balanced outcome; a situation or result which is of no net gain or loss. U.S. colloq. (orig. Comm.)." The earliest quote given is 1976. So I've just increased my vocabulary. I'd assumed it was a standard phrase like "six and half a dozen" (short for "six of one and half a dozen of the other", ie no difference). Thanks. PamD (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the assessment that hatnotes go at the very top as readers may or may not understand the various temporary templates, and indeed may not need to if they haven't found the subject they are seeking. There is also an accessibility issue which I feel may trump other concerns as well and I will almost always want to favor making content more accessible. Benjiboi 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As this has not been discussed for awhile I want to get some closure on the issue. Wikipedia:Accessibility#Article structure says that hatnotes should be at the very top of articles so I think this page should agree with it. The consensus after I brought the topic up again seems to be that hatnotes should indeed be at the very top of articles as they are solely for navigation to other articles and should be the first thing readers see. If no one has any objections within a couple days I'm going to change the section on this article to recommend that hatnotes be the first thing on all pages, above maintenance templates and all else. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no such consensus at all. Hat notes belong below temporary maintenance templates, not above them. Auto templating systems will always put them above, and for the vast majority of articles, this is how it is done. There is no reason at all to change this to start putting them above, not to mention it just looks dumb. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:ACCESS does indeed support LonelyMarble's claim. This guideline should also say that right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It also says not to float the menus, which people do with hideous regularity :P An argument can be made for the accessibility issue, though honestly I don't see it being that much more accessible and I wonder how much input the affected readers had in that decision. I think something like this, which would require the reprogramming of various programs (like Twinkle, Friendly, and likely every other script at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Tagging), should be something opened up to much larger discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of article vs. URL

Shouldn't the name of the article and the URL both be singular or both be plural? Libcub (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example of the problem? PamD (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops--I posted this on the wrong page. Sorry! Now that I realized what I did, do I leave my comment-in-error, or delete this whole item, or what? Libcub (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAMB again

When this was last discussed I hadn't had much to do with hatnotes and dabs. I've since spent a lot of time working on WP:Suggestions for name disambiguation, and am convinced that adding {{otherpeople|name1 name2}} hatnotes to articles for either [[name1 name2 (something)]] or [[name1 initial(s)/middlename(s) name2]] is beneficial to Wikipedia. (ie add the hatnote "For other persons named Shula Archer see Shula Archer (disambiguation)" to both Shula Jane Archer and Shula Archer (philosopher)). It helps readers who have landed on the wrong page (eg through external search engine or incorrect link) to find the article they want. It also helps inexperienced editors, who might otherwise start a duplicate page, to find that the article they plan to create already exists. It does no harm, beyond adding a very small amount of clutter which can easily be scanned past (I'm talking simple {{otherpeople|name1 name2}} hatnote here, not the ones which repeat half the lead sentence) (Not "This article is about a character in The Archers. For other persons named Shula Archer see Shula Archer (disambiguation)").

I have less experience of exploring disambiguation in areas such as "Tree", but can see no harm in allowing a simple link to a single appropriate dab page from any article which is disambiguated therein.

So, I would like to suggest that WP:NAMB should be removed from WP:Hatnote, allowing editors to add these helpful minimal hatnotes without the risk of them being deleted by editors citing "WP:NAMB". PamD (talk)

I second the idea that hatnotes can be very useful for articles about people. I'd also like clarification on how it applies to romance novel and romance (genre). Sesshomaru removed the hatnotes at the top of both of these pages (pointing towards each other), citing WP:NAMB. To me, this is one of the obvious places you'd need one. There are two very different literary genres called "Romance": the Romance (genre) of the middle ages through Renaissance, and the modern-day romance novel. The two genres look nothing alike. I think it would be fairly easy for someone searching for the modern-day romance genre to end up at the wrong article and vice versa (I did the first time I used the wiki search for it). I reverted the changes once with a brief explanation that it is a fairly common mistake, and Sesshomaru removed the hatnote again. I'd like more input here, because I think this policy is extraordinarily flawed if hatnotes wouldn't be allowed for these two articles. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a more temperate change rather than outright removal. I think it's still appropriate to counsel against adding hatnotes where they're not needed; "what's the harm?" is an invitation to death by a thousand cuts. (I recently cleaned up an article about a train station where someone had felt it useful to link wood and milk; one might argue "what's the harm?" in such links, but I think most would agree it's just clutter. Unnecessary hatnotes are even more distracting.)
Having a link that helps someone studying trees in set theory learn more about tall woody plants is not necessary. However, I can see where there might be cases where a person visiting a "John Q. Public" page might want to know there's also a "John X. Public." The appropriate thing to do, then, is to craft an explanation of what those circumstances would be and add it to WP:NAMB. In fact, there's already a specific note that points out that ambiguous names should be disambiguated.
There's nothing that I see currently in WP:NAMB that warrants removal.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. I don't believe the guideline can specify this any further; a complete removal of WP:NAMB is absolutely out of the question. However, I could agree to a modification, but to what? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated above I feel NAMB should be adjusted but I think it would be unwise to scrap it as we just don't need to hatnote everything and I think that if we did it would end up being less helpful. I should also note that we have changed NAMB and it is more flexible. Also as NAMB is a guideline people should consider the examples as purely that and not as a prohibitive "this is the only way it can be done" statement.
Interestingly the solution seems to have presented itself. One of the examples I used earlier has had the disambiguation template removed from it: The War of the Worlds (film). This is, apparently because it is actually a set index. Most of the articles I was using as examples above are similar which suggests the fix is to redefine such things. This might be more like semantics but it actual works well because what I was calling a sub-disambiguation page are actually site indexes. So John Smith isn't a disambiguation page (or actually a sub-disambiguation page for Smith (surname)) but a site index.
This means we can make the simple change and change NAMB to allow hatnotes to site indexes. This would allow you to hatnote John Smiths up to John Smith but it would stop someone from trying to hatnote Franklin D. Roosevelt to Roosevelt, but you might be able to hatnote Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (disambiguation) (although that might be a bad example as you' probably want a general page there covering schools, libraries and a specific Franklin Delano Roosevelt (name).
Anyway that is the fix that I think will work in that it will allow hatnoting to very specific indexes while stopping unhindered use of hatnotes everywhere. The good thing is that the site index allows more information which would be handy for entries like Hercules (comics). (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Clarification on hatnotes for romance novel/romance (genre)

I was hoping for more clarification above on whether WP:NAMB applies to romance novel and romance (genre) and I think that got lost. The two articles had hatnotes directing to the other article for quite some time, but these were removed with no discussion and two attempts to restore them have been reverted. I believe these are exceptions to NAMB because both "romance novel" and "romance (genre)" are literary genres with extremely similar names (both have "romance" in the title). The user who removed the hatnotes has told me that a novel is not a genre, which I feel reflects a lack of understanding of the romance novel article (it defines itself as a literary genre, as does the article romance (genre), which should be good enough). NAMB allows exceptions in cases of people who can be ambiguous, and I feel that this should also apply to concepts which can be ambiguous. I welcome further discussion on this issue. Karanacs (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a tricky one. One would imagine that the bulk of people looking for either would arrive at Romance or they might search for "romance fiction", which neatly redirects to within the page (an excellent solution I'd recommend). If people arrive at Romance novel they are unlikely to be looking for Romance (genre). The main problem seems to be searching for "romance genre" and it might be that this could be fixed by doing the same redirect as "romance fiction."
It could be that you can treat this as an exception (it is only a guideline and as such allows you flexibility to make commonsense calls like that) but I wonder if fixing "romance genre" would help resolve most of the problems. The rest could be picked up in the see also section perhaps. It might be that you'd want to move the redirects to Romance (fiction) and then create a set index (as explained above) - this would allow you to go into more detail than an ordinary disambiguation page would allow - you could then drop Romance (novel) but perhaps include Romantic poetry. This could then help straighten things out and avoid confusion. As I mention above it is probably then legitimate to use hatnotes to point to site indexes and the chance for confusion evaporates.
However, you are the expert on that area so it might be best to put your head together with others who also know the area and the potential for confusion and if you all think the best solution is a hatnote then there is nothing about NAMB that should stop you (I can certainly see your point). However, I do think there are better solutions that could provide a better more flexible solution (as you are going to be limited in what you can put in a hatnote). (Emperor (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
I have asked for comments on the romance (genre) page about moving that article to a different name so that we can use romance (genre) as a set index. Thanks for the idea. Karanacs (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like the best plan - there is clearly room for confusion here so something like that would be the best approach. You can then point the various redirects at it and then you have the flexibility to go into detail (and use references and the like if need be). I'll look in on this as I'll be interested to see how it goes. I am happy to see the set index idea come up as it is does formalise fixes that largely involved using a basic disambiguation page which felt a little clunky.
One side note - I suspect we need a set index footer to replace the disambiguation one - at the moment they are just removed (or, as in the case of ships, they have their own specialist one). We don't need to get it right first time but as long as we have it there we can adjust it. We can use Template:Shipindex as a basis and take it from there. (Emperor (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

red-linked hatnotes

I am currently involved in an editing dispute with an IP who is adding or changing hatnotes to point to nonexistent disambiguation pages in the hopes that someone will create that page. Would it be wise to amend this guideline to state that hatnotes should never point to a red link? The disambig page can be requested in other places and the hatnote corrected after it has been created. Karanacs (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The point of hatnotes is to direct readers to other existing articles that might be confused with the article containing the hatnote, not to provide a directory of potential articles. If the articles are created and are encyclopedic, that is another matter. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the only time a hatnote should be a redlink is if you intend to immediately create the disambiguation page. In fact when I do this I hatnote the main page, preview the edit and open the disambiguation page in another tab, create that and then post the first page (a bit belt and braces but it works for me and avoids any mess). I have to say it can't take much effort to start a disambiguation page and if there is a genuine need for one then they should start it. (Emperor (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

More than one hatnote

Is it safe to say that it is always improper for an article to have more than one hatnote? Can this be added to the guideline? — Swpbtalk.edits 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is always improper. A little less common perhaps, but certainly not always improper. older ≠ wiser 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you give an example of when this would be preferable to all alternatives? And if there is such a case, would it still make sense to add to the guideline that the practice should be avoided whenever possible? — Swpbtalk.edits 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Not offhand. There are articles which are the target of multiple redirects, not all of which have disambiguation pages named as Title (disambiguation). I don't see the benefit of making a new rule to cover something that should be covered by common sense. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the pair of hatnotes at Leeds are justified (admittedly not so sure about 2nd half of 1st one): there's a dab page, but also a need for a signpost to the metropolitan district (we have a very confusing situation here where there's a met district called "City of Leeds" which includes the city of Leeds and a whole lot more, and it needs to be flagged up by a hatnote). Let's stick with common sense. PamD (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot be sure, but it seems to me that, as in entries in disambiguation pages, each hatnote should only have on link, namely to the target page. Is there consensus on such a practice? The Hatnote page does not really clarify this, and I read it twice. Waltham, The Duke of 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. The only links should be to target pages (not to additional or ancillary pages). But some hatnotes by design display multiple targets. Not that I use the specialized templates much -- I find it much easier to simply use {{dablink}}. But a fully specified {{otheruses4}} could include up to four alternate target pages. older ≠ wiser 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It is still possible that we are both right at the same time. I was indeed referring to links that are not targets. Surely this must be made clear in the page? Most people are unaware of this practice, which is something we certainly ought to try and change. Waltham, The Duke of 02:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree this needs to be written in to discourage such edits as this which included a link to "Hickory, North Carolina" in addition to the possible desired target (the editor in this case was going off what he had seen done in other places). –xeno talk 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Added at Wikipedia:Hatnote#Extraneous links. –xeno talk 16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Converting hatnotes to templates

Would anyone object if a bot would change unformatted disambiguation hatnotes to an appropriate template ({{dablink}}, {{for}}, {{otheruses}})? As a first step, I have identified about 600 articles containing a hatnote of the form "For other uses, see ... (disambiguation)", which could be converted to the otheruses template.

Why would I like to do that? There are thousands of "orphaned" disambiguated pages on wikipedia: pages of the form Something (foo), that are not linked with a hatnote from Something. I want to make a list of these pages, and add the appropriate hatnotes. To do that, I have to be able to recognize these hatnotes easily, so they all have to be formatted as a template.

Comments welcome. Are there any reasons why edits like these are not wanted? I will make sure that the actual text displayed will not change. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a nice idea. Good luck! --Tesscass (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I do this myself every time I find a hatnote that has not been converted to a template so I fully support this. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Bravo! --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I was curious as to why it would be necessary, but it sounds like the use of it would be helpful - go for it! As long as the more complicated hatnotes are correctly formatted, of course. :) -- Natalya 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Support --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Support -- yep, since WP should have a consistent way format these templates are the way to go. — MrDolomite • Talk 05:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
signing in agreement (with caveats - see below) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Major objection to changing disambiguation pages, such as this edit. Any disambiguation page changed like this will show up forever on WP:DEP, because it will appear to have no links. Please, do not change any more disambig pages. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Or alternatively the bot could usefully produce a listing of dab pages which appear to have hatnotes, as needing cleanup, as you've now down to this one! PamD (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of 244 disambiguation pages with hatnotes. Only those pages with a hatnote template are included, because these are the easiest to find (and not all hatnote templates are included in the search). If this page is useful for you, I can do a more extensive search for you. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
We're having a bit of a chat about what to do with most of these hatnotes over at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Dab_pages_with_hatnotes. -- Natalya 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
comment I agree that the diff Fabrictramp pointed out is a poor use of such a bot. However, I would add that if I ran across the _before_ page, I would rewrite it into "standard" dab format (i.e. dropping the italics, dropping the "For" syntax, etc.).
continued A rule that could be imposed on the bot is that it would count the number of potential changes and only change if that number is '1'. This would cover the vast majority of hatnote uses; i.e. the most common finding is for an article to have a single hatnote.
signed --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it is very common for a page to have two hatnotes; more than that is more rare. In this case, my bot changed a badly formatted page to a differently badly formatted page, causing the page to show show up on a list of bad pages. I do not see the problem. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Actually the handcrafted hatnotes can often be more grammatical that template generated ones. --Bejnar (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote dispute: input required

Could we have input at Talk:Da Costa's syndrome? An editor is insisting against consensus that a hatnote is equivalent to a reference, and that Soldier's Heart (novel) should not be a disambiguation hatnote to Da Costa's syndrome (a.k.a "soldier's heart"). Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In general I'm all in favour of hatnotes galore, but I think that the other editor is probably arriving at the right conclusion by way of the wrong reason. If "Soldier's heart" was a redirect to the DCS page, then you would be right to insist on there being a "redirect" hatnote ("Soldier's heart" redirects here; for the novel see... ). But there's a dab page at "Soldier's heart", so here he can argue WP:NAMB, that there isn't a justification for the hatnote. Not because the novel is nothing to do with the syndrome (that's no reason to reject an otherwise needed hatnote), but because someone searching on "Soldier's heart" shouldn't reach the DCS page. Arguments about Google searches ("If someone googles SH and finds the DCS page, they need to be helped to find the SH(novel) page") have not been successful in the past, though I think they may be valid in many cases. PamD (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There is actually at least one other "Soldier's Heart": a modern movie that looks arguably notable [7]. So adding that, and having a standard hatnote to the disambiguation page Soldier's heart would be a good way to handle things. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the movie changes anything: you've got a dab page, no primary usage for "Soldier's heart", no redirect to DCS, so can't really justify the hatnote. Now if the redirect to DCS was taken as being the primary usage of SH, then having the movie deemed notable would make the difference between (a) scrap the dab page and have a hatnote at DCS pointing to the novel, or (b) add the movie to the dab page and have a hatnote at DCS pointing to the dab page. PamD (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Pam -- a hatnote of this kind is only appropriate when there's more than a slight chance someone looking for one page will land another page by accident, which does not seem to be the case here. As always, anyone who wants to learn more about other unrelated meanings of "soldier's heart" can type it into the gobox.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops... I should RTFM. I haven't read WP:HATNOTE for years and wasn't aware of WP:NAMB. I stand corrected on the guideline. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, I've reverted Zahd (talk)s changes because(a) they hadn't been discussed, so certainly hadn't got any consensus, and (b) I couldn't understand quite what they meant anyway. If you think something needs to be said about the case where there are two headings to distinguish, please discuss it on the article's talk page before making any changes. Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Copied to here by Zahd from User talk:Zahd where I had made this comment. PamD (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes I made addressed an issue which in the lede and is at the core of the policy - namely to counter any trivial usage of hatnotes. This applies to single topic links. -Zahd (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you give some examples of the problem? I'm still not clear what you mean. PamD (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a diff from an improper hatnote that I changed. The hatnote is trivial (music) with respect to the subject of the article (religion).Here is a case where the disambiguation is due to a phonetic similarity between vastly different concepts - the proper form is to use disambiguation. Here is another trivial hatnote on a philosophy article. Fourier transform is an acceptable case, because all the links are within mathematics. -Zahd (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Two-article disambiguation pages usually are counterproductive. In the Sola scriptura example, you accomplished nothing other than forcing users to follow an additional link. —David Levy 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, please see Help:Edit summary. —David Levy 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
David: "Two-article disambiguation pages usually are counterproductive." I disagree completely. They are beautiful in their simplicity and elegance, keeping serious articles free of trivial (hence distracting) links. David: "In the Sola scriptura example, you accomplished nothing other than forcing users to follow an additional link." Poor baby. All those people were looking for Neal Morse albums by way of our theology section, and had to *gasp* click on another link. <obvious>Trivia belongs on a disambiguation page.</obvious> -Zahd 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1. "Poor baby"? That's quite uncivil.
2. On what do you base the belief that certain topics are to be deemed "trivial" or less "serious" than others, that you're the arbiter of this (and may unilaterally rewrite relevant rules without discussion or even edit summaries), and that the correct response is to make these articles less accessible to readers (because you've decided that the longstanding disambiguation method is "improper")?
3. No, people seeking the album arrive at that article not "by way of our theology section," but simply by typing its name into the search field. —David Levy 03:44/03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Nothing personal. You simply seemed to be complaining about having to click a link.
2. An article about a music album, by almost any definition, is less substantial than an article about a theological and historical concept. There's no comparison. I can't see why people such as yourself like to argue with this point.
3. That's not generally the way one searches for personal works - generally they search the persons name and within that context will expect a list of their works. I'll have to ask that you show me evidence of people even searching for the particular album in question - I have a feeling you would simply oppose all two-term disambiguation pages outright. -Zahd (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1. "Poor baby" certainly is personal. It's a personal attack, in fact.
And no, I'd never even heard of this album before; I'm complaining about you unilaterally deciding that we should add a completely unnecessary navigational step.
2. The theological concept clearly is the primary usage of the term, but that doesn't mean that a mention of a secondary usage "defaces" the article and should be relegated to a separate page that serves absolutely no other purpose (because we lack articles on any other uses of the term).
3. Are you serious? You don't think that people type in the names of personal works? Wow.
I do, indeed, oppose most (not quite all) two-article disambiguation pages outright. This is because they usually serve no purpose other than to hinder navigation of the encyclopedia. One with "(disambiguation)" in the title (linked from one of the two articles listed) is especially counterproductive. —David Levy 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Then you admit your bias, and I admit mine - that disambiguation pages, even with just two terms, are a wonderful compromise between even articles like Good and Evil and Goodness (band). If you won't admit that its plain evil to link to trivial articles from articles on, say, science or medicine, then theres no hope for you. What you call "counterproductive" is in fact the only way Wikipedia can appeal in legitimacy to serious people looking for serious articles. -Zahd (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing "evil" about assisting readers in finding their desired articles. A hatnote is a Wikipedia navigational tool, not something that somehow cheapens the article proper.
My "bias" reflects consensus. Yours (the opinion that certain articles are not "serious," and therefore should be demoted to a lower navigational status) does not. Please refrain from unilaterally altering the meaning of a guideline, deeming noncompliant articles "improper," and editing them accordingly. —David Levy 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the examples, Zahd. I'm afraid I too disagree with you: hatnotes are quick navigation, not in any way demeaning or trivial, and are the standard procedure where there are only 2, or occasionally 3, uses of the term. WP:DAB says "When there are several articles associated with the same ambiguous term, include a link to a separate disambiguation page", which implies that if there are fewer than "several", you don't need a dab page but use the alternative of hatnotes. If there's a possibility the person looking for the main article might get distracted, the hatnote can begin with "This article is about.... " (as in the example you deleted at Arianism, along with the helpful "Distinguish" hatnote to a very plausible mis-spelling: I've reinstated them both now). PamD (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
"An article about a music album, by almost any definition, is less substantial than an article about a theological and historical concept" - precisely. That's why the theological concept is at Sola scriptura and the album at Sola Scriptura (album). If they were equally substantial and significant, the concept would be at Sola scriptura (theological concept), the album would be at Sola Scriptura (album), and Sola scriptura would be the disambiguation page. But that's not the way it is, of course.
Now, given that arrangement of article titles, our hatnote policy is quite simple, and crafted to avoid any subjective arguments about whether a usage is trivial or not. "When two articles share the same title, the unambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page. When a word has a primary meaning and three or more additional meanings, the hatnote should show a link to a disambiguation page." At least as far as Wikipedia's current coverage goes, there are two articles on "Sola Scriptura". Hence, the unambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article.
As PamD has explained, hatnotes are quick navigation, not in any way demeaning or trivial. People do type album titles, etc., straight into search boxes, and if that title takes them to an article other than what they were seeking, we owe it to them to direct them to their desired article as quickly and efficiently as possible. --Stormie (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Placement

Let's sort out this placement thing so we don't have a reference in the guideline to ongoing disputes that are not ongoing. Most of the arguments listed there (WP:HATNOTE#Placement) imply that hatnotes should go before maintenance templates. The thing about metadata seems unconvincing, since the hatnote isn't really part of the article either (in fact it is less related to the article than the maintenance template is). So can we agree that hatnotes precede maintenance templates? It doesn't seem a huge issue, but it's the sort of thing the guideline should be clear about, in order to settle pointless disputes.--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the recommendation from Wikipedia:Accessibility#Article_structure that Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any image or infobox; if a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first. Text-only browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially is crystal clear. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. There is no "ongoing" debate but there are users that disagree, which is why this policy has never been made clear. I also agree that the arguments for disagreement are not as good as the ones for agreement that hatnotes should be above maintenance templates. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I too agree. Hatlinks should be at the very top of the page, before anything else of course. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'm going to make the change.--Kotniski (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The present article's topic, mention or not

Per the article,

Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not .... Either of these two styles is acceptable; the choice of style in a given article is based on editors' preference and what is likely to be clearer and easier for the reader. Where an article already has a hatnote in one of these styles, editors should not change to the other style without good reason."

So we've got two options:

Under what circumstances would the first of the two notes above be clearer than the second note? When would "so the reader doesn't have to ask 'other than what?'" not be a good reason? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When the primary topic is pretty self-evident and the other uses are either derivative or considerably less familiar that the primary topic. For example George Washington and George Washington (disambiguation). In cases where the primary topic is not especially well-known, that is it may be a big fish in a small pond, and hence be a primary topic, but since relatively few people may be familiar with the topic, some introduction may be helpful.
All right:
In what way is the first version clearer than the second? How many editors would bear a serious resentment toward the second version? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the question is more accurately Who cares? Seriously. Is there a point to these hypothetical questions? The first version has the advantages of less clutter, being easier to create, and avoiding potentially contentious editing over precisely how the subject should be capsulized. Is there a significant increase in clarity with the more verbose version? Doubtful. I think leaving the guidance to a case by case determination of whether additional clarification is needed is best. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:HNP

I brought this issue up at Talk:Charlemagne: hatnotes aren't meant to be centred, are they? That article is, to date, the only example I've ever seen of a centred hatnote, and I removed the centering tags thinking that hatnotes should be left-aligned, but thought I should check. It Is Me Here (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You were right. Hatnotes should not be centered. -- Ϫ 02:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote/Archive_1&oldid=1136060147"