![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Muhandes - A recent hatnote was reverted with the edit summary citing
WP:NAMB (from
WP:HATNOTE) as the reason. Maybe "it is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." but I would like to mention that the
WP:HATNOTE page is an editing guideline which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
My question is this...
Are this
hatnote and the similar version that was at
Dancing in the Dark (Bruce Springsteen song) explaining the possible confusion between - arguably - the two most popular/well-known/notable Dancing in the Dark songs, are these two hatnotes worthy of being the occasional exception? I think so (as the editor who added the two hatnotes) and I'll explain why...
Because I got confused by the identical known titles (before the Wikipedia parentheses). I went looking for the 1931 song but first ended up at the 1984 song then had to go looking for a possible disambiguation page which ended up being
Dancing in the Dark and after that I finally got to the 1931/Dietz & Schwartz composition. So I went through multiple article landings before I ended up where I wanted to be. I think other readers will make the same or similar mistakes. Now I know
Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap is only an essay and doesn't have the weight of an editing guideline or a Wikipedia policy but I think it is applicable for this article and for the other article I mentioned above. So, let's discuss.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
As requested, cited Fordin's assignment of orchestration credits on p. 409. Salinger also did the cut arrangement of Alone Together as reused on Garland's album That's Entertainment liner notes. (Annex p. 532). GBS2 ( talk) 13:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Muhandes - A recent hatnote was reverted with the edit summary citing
WP:NAMB (from
WP:HATNOTE) as the reason. Maybe "it is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." but I would like to mention that the
WP:HATNOTE page is an editing guideline which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
My question is this...
Are this
hatnote and the similar version that was at
Dancing in the Dark (Bruce Springsteen song) explaining the possible confusion between - arguably - the two most popular/well-known/notable Dancing in the Dark songs, are these two hatnotes worthy of being the occasional exception? I think so (as the editor who added the two hatnotes) and I'll explain why...
Because I got confused by the identical known titles (before the Wikipedia parentheses). I went looking for the 1931 song but first ended up at the 1984 song then had to go looking for a possible disambiguation page which ended up being
Dancing in the Dark and after that I finally got to the 1931/Dietz & Schwartz composition. So I went through multiple article landings before I ended up where I wanted to be. I think other readers will make the same or similar mistakes. Now I know
Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap is only an essay and doesn't have the weight of an editing guideline or a Wikipedia policy but I think it is applicable for this article and for the other article I mentioned above. So, let's discuss.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
As requested, cited Fordin's assignment of orchestration credits on p. 409. Salinger also did the cut arrangement of Alone Together as reused on Garland's album That's Entertainment liner notes. (Annex p. 532). GBS2 ( talk) 13:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)