This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The example above (/* The present article's topic, mention or not */) is not the egregious one, both tell the person about the other choice, because it is clearly labeled as disambiguation. On the other hand, the {{ Distinguish}} template does not let the searcher know what the choices are at all. The text at Wikipedia:Hatnote for Two articles with similar title correctly, in my opinion, suggests the use of {{ otheruses4}} which does provide that. I think that {{ Distinguish}} should be depreciated for the very reason given by Largo Plazo above, namely so that the searcher coming upon the hatnote doesn't have to ask, "What's the other choice?". -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}}
template actually distinguishes between the two terms by the provision of USE1 and USE2. The {{
For}} template provides only the second use, but at least the information seeker has the article in front of them about the first usage. The {{
Distinguish}} template does neither of those. One possible con is additional length, since providing more information has a cost; however, as most of these are less than a single line long, I don't think that that ought to be dispositive over the purpose of Wikipedia which is to provide information. What other plus and minuses are there? --
Bejnar (
talk) 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Placing a right-justified infobox at the top of a page with a left-justified hatnote arranges the page with both the hatnote and the infobox at the top. I think this results in a more attractive page. See Colorado for example. -- Buaidh ( talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that right-justified infoboxes are no infringment of our hatnotes at top policy since the hatnotes remain at the top of the page. I think we are being at little overzealous on this issue. -- Buaidh ( talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The use of infoboxes in any article pretty much disables screen-readers. Perhaps we should discuss that issue first. -- Buaidh ( talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In reverting the hatnote move mentione in the previous discussion, I've run into a problem with another editor on the Georgia (U.S. state) page. The second part of the note stated For other uses, see Georgia (disambiguation), but the DAB page is at Georgia. I've attempted to correct this to the direct link, but been reverted twice, the second time at this diff, with the reason direct links hinder fixing dablinks. To me, it is confusing not to use a direct link, esp. when the location of the DAB page for "Georgia" is a contentious issue, with the country article having been requested to be moved to the un-DABed page six times. I've read the guideline page here, and the issue of dierect vs. redirect links is not mentioned at all. Are there any existing guidelines on this matter elsewhere? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This brings up another question though, why are there even hatnotes on Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country)? Georgia is a disambiguation page so it's impossible to get to either of these two articles unless you specifically search for them, and they both have what they are about already in the article title so there is no confusion. Furthermore, some people like to make the Google argument for hatnotes, but it doesn't work in this case either because a Google search of "Georgia" returns you both the country and the U.S. state articles. Basically the hatnotes do not aid in navigation at all and this is the sole purpose of hatnotes. So is there any good reason not to just delete the hatnotes from these articles? LonelyMarble ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the situation with hatnoting to links which are already in the article? For example if there is a film adaptation where the article is linked in from the relevant section and mentioned in the lead, as at Watchmen (we don't do the same at Wanted (comics))? Also the question of hatnotes came up at Eddie Brock where it hatnotes to Venom (comics), even though it is mentioned a couple of lines below in the lead. Venom (comics) hatnotes back and to another character who has used the alias even though these are linked in in the relevant areas below and should be linked in from the lead (which should be expanded). In those last two examples it would also make sense to bold the names in the lead which would draw the eye to the relevant links and it seems to make the hatnote redundant. Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
MickMacNee and I are having a discussion about hatnotes on G. MickMacNee has added a hatnote "{{See also|g-force}}" because it is notable enough to not be hidden away on line 50 of a dab. The article already has {{otherusesof}} and g-force is one of the entries on the disambiguation page. I do not see any reason to have the additional hatnote because it is just another use of G that is already on the disambig page and it just clutters the top of the article with the other 2 hatnotes on the article. Any input to the discussion would be helpful. A new name 2008 ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see much greater restrictions placed on the use of hatnotes. To me these are basically low value notes that are taking away valuable real estate from the high value article lead, especially in the case of featured articles. At most the hatnotes should be limited to a single line of text. I've seen hat notes take up two and even three separate lines, sometimes wrapped, and they can become very distracting. It is particularly irksome in the case of "X redirects to this page. See page Y for more..." (for some lesser importance topic X and Y), which basically serves the role of a railway junction. If nothing else, it would be better if they were hidden in an expandable navbox of some type.
My $.02 worth. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
SomeTemplateName|X|Y|Z}}
to produce a message like:I think the user-specific hatnote based on the search term would be pretty useful but I'm not sure it is that necessary. One of the things I like doing is maintaining hatnotes so they aren't intrusive and are kept to one line as much as possible, if you could give some examples of where hatnotes are becoming a problem that would be helpful, I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately but I haven't noticed a problem with hatnotes. My guess is this section might have been spurred by the "First planet redirects here", etc. on the planet articles, which I agree, was a bad idea and the redirect hatnotes for these are of a very limited usage. I removed the last one that I saw on the Mercury (planet) article. Problems with hatnotes like that can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Are there any other examples of problems with hatnotes? A user-specific hatnote wouldn't even be desirable or that helpful in a lot of cases because you'd still want to keep the main page (disambiguation) link so any redirects could probably just as easily be added in a one line hatnote without any additional technical changes. LonelyMarble ( talk) 09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there interest here in developing the idea I proposed here? That is, allowing us to change the "(Redirected from Foo)" message to something like "(Redirected from Foo. For X, see Y)". This could potentially remove one of the main source of hatnotes; those that explain redirects. Thoughts? Happy‑ melon 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed "Hat note" and Hatnote" from soft redirects to hard redirects. I did this because, the link wasn't to a Wiki sister project. ask123 ( talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This project is filled with red links, due to past changes. The problems are in transduced template documentation. This should be fixed. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
At Template:See_also, it says that this template is "used for small sets of see also information at the head of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout." However, Wikipedia:Layout doesn't actually say this. Could you please clarify whether these templates can be used at the top of an article? As an example, I have in mind Judicial_review_in_the_United_States. Agradman ( talk) 05:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify: what I had in mind was to mention this somewhere in the policies and guidelines (i.e. which templates may ONLY be used under sections, vs. which ones can also be used at the tops of articles). Agradman ( talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The Atheist dab with 4 links that was created to prevent a hatnote to a unimportant band was deleted. Now, Atheism, which is a featured article about a very important and basic philosophical concept, has a hatnote to a band that would never be in a real encyclopedia (one where notability is not decided on by people who've never even seen an encyclopedia, but base notability on blog posts and twitters). This would be like having an article like death start with a hatnote to a band called "Death". Can we add to this page that real encyclopedic articles should link to dab hatnotes instead of starting important subjects with links to silly pages no one will care about in 10 years? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-07-18t20:33z
It is a sign of Wikipedia's progress that we no longer see things like the following. Someone creates a page titled Bishop. It says (1) A bishop is a certain ecclesiastical official; and (2) A bishop is a chess piece. Then someone expands point (1) so that there's a long long long article on bishops, the ecclesiastical officials, and after you scroll down through many many screenfuls of material on that, you find a lone paragraph that says only that a bishop is a certain chess piece (with a link to that article). Down there at the bottom, where it will not be seen by those arriving at the article. Nor do we still frequently see articles consisting of several paragraphs on each of several unrelated topics (e.g. a section on ordained bishops, then a section on chess pieces, then a section on Alfonxe Bishop, a rock star, etc. Back in 2004 and 2005, I used to clean up situations like that all the time. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do editors here feel the hatnote at Scientific opinion on climate change is appropriate (I do, but it's not really covered by this WP:HATNOTE article)? In this case, the article title is refined, and limited, for what is essentially a list article - to specifically 'disambiguate' (dictionary def'n) what is or isn't suitable for inclusion in the list. If this is a valid use (and I think it should be) then perhaps this type of usage should be included in the article here. -- Jaymax ( talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the about template kicks off This page is about is there advantage in having a syntax-identical variant with the leadin text This page lists or similar. Just a passing thought - I suspect the usage would be too low to justify implementation, but after I saw there was an otherhurricaneuses template, I thought I'd mention it... --
Jaymax (
talk) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) or maybe not - on reflection, this idea is too friendly to the kind of stuff that
User:LonelyMarble talks about avoiding above, and might promote same --
Jaymax (
talk) 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm requesting approval for bot-assisted editing to help enforce WP:NAMB by removing article name disambiguation templates on articles with names that are not ambiguous. The relevant request is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 3. Any comments, etc. would be appreciated at the request page. -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The content of Na'vi language was moved to Wikibooks, and the WP article rewritten to cover the history and reception of the language rather than the language itself. The WP article had been a popular reference for fans learning the language (for example a basic reference at LearnNa'vi.org), and so an editor added a hatnote directing them to WB for language info. This was then removed with the argument that the policy on hatnotes prohibits "external links".
Is that what is meant? It would seem to me that an ex-Wikipedia article now at a sister project is not exactly "external", esp. when we're redirecting readers who come to WP specifically for that article—indeed, a moved WP article would seem to be the perfect use for a hatnote. kwami ( talk) 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 174.3.98.236 ( talk · contribs) has been going around replacing one hatnote template with another, and nominating hatnote templates for deletion at WP:TFD for the last few weeks.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 08:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with an editor who insists on using
as a main-article-link instead of a hatnote. Please help resolve. 174.3.99.176 ( talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
for2}}
to link a subsection in one article with an equivalent subsection in a second article. Neither article is 'main' relative to the other, and neither subsection is a summary (in the 'main' sense). The two articles present different sides of the same characters -- this arrangement was reached through consensus of a group of editors several years ago. The particular template is used since it allows the anchor link to be hidden, a requirement of
WP:LINKING and none of the other templates, including {{
details}}
allow this. It is appropriate in a disambiguating sense, since each character section acts as an anchor point from external articles -- a user may find themselves arriving at any section depending on the link in the original article. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is!There is now a hatnote at the top of Meet the Parents linking to Meet the Parents (soundtrack). I say it should not be there because clearly links to an article that is highly WP:RELATED to the topic. There is already information in the main article that "summarizes [the subarticle] in a subsection in conjuntion with the {main} template" at Meet the Parents#Soundtrack. Another user claims that the tag should be there because it has a similar title. Your opinions are welcome at Talk:Meet the Parents. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 16:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion on the need for hatnoting at Talk:Full Metal Jacket. 70.29.210.155 ( talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that {{ Korean name}} and {{ Chinese name}} should not be hatnotes. The information they contain is not so important that they should be allowed to occupy such an prominent/intrusive position. __ meco ( talk) 07:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently had a discussion on my user talk page about the "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" section of Wikipedia:Hatnote (aka WP:NAMB). Basically, the idea was that the example given (tree) was not a good one - it failed to convey the point. Considering that I encounter this a lot with place articles (e.g. on an article for One Horse, Nevada, a hatnote would say, for other places by this name, see One Horse (disambiguation).), supplementing or replacing the existing example with a place name would be quite helpful. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a situation wherein a term links to a disambiguation page, but I feel it would be more appropriate for the term to link to one of the specific pages, and to include a hatnote linking to the disambiguation. Then again, it might be construed as bias, but I truly feel one article is more appropriate - or at least more popular - than the other. Thoughts? -- Arielkoiman ( talk) 10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose the following:
From:
Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article Honey, one might use the template {{ about|the insect-produced fluid}} to produce:
Alternatively, one might use {{ other uses}} to produce:
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.
To:
Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article Honey, one might use the template {{ about|the insect-produced fluid}} to produce:
Alternatively, one might use {{ other uses}} to produce:
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.
If the first style is chosen, keep the summary as short and succinct as possible. For example, instead of using:
use
This also avoids pov issues. 199.126.224.245 ( talk) 02:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
We are debating something posted by a banned user?
Banned for making a huge fuss over trivial issues [1]
We don't need this instruction creep. Banned == banned. No discussion needed. Chzz ► 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As visitors don't exclusively come from within Wikipedia but commonly come from search engines this section is nonsense. I propose it's removal entirely. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose a maximum number of hat notes (or at least a reference to some common sense...) or even a new lay-out for the hat notes. The articles: Mother, Father and Danube have four hat notes. I personally notice I start reading all the hat notes without thought because they seem part of the article, which is very annoying. Compare the English en:Danube with the German de:Donau. The German version seems much clearer to me. Any thoughts? Joost 99 ( talk) 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose this addition -
When an article’s subject is nearly synonymous with another article’s subject, or when it is sometimes but not always used as a near synonym, placement of a hat referring to that other subject should be made. When a subject is a part of another subject, that other subject should be in a hat, but if the subject has parts, the parts should be in hats for that part's section in the article. When the other subject is only very relevant to the article’s subject, but not nearly synonymous or does not fully contain the article’s subject, it should go in the “See also” section, not in the hat.
This would have helped avoiding the same discussion being repeated on different talk pages of several pages I made edits to. PPdd ( talk) 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)Must say, and can say: no more hatnotes, no more rules. The Guideline should be:
If there might be confusion about meaning or content, place a hatnote.
From there on, do disambiguation, redirects, main articles ad more.
Confusion can come from:
Now this could be at article or section level. All in all a dozen of hatnotes could do. Now what happens? Today, there are ~70 hatnote templates. Imagine an editor wanting to use one (as I was). (Background: recently I started to round up & cleanup the Hatnote template world. Already 20 are removed for being duplicates &tc. Documenting (inccluding: help finding the right template) is a horror. - DePiep ( talk) 22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Why make a reader (like me) read an article I did not intend to read, or hunt down links, when a simple hat at the top can easily fix this? Another example is the article
Feminism; I had my edit about
bad faith there reverted as being best of
Feminist theory, for which feminism is a synonym in academia. So no one made the same "sometimes a synonym" mistake, I put a hat on top, not in "see also", which included related articles, but not "near synonyms".
PPdd (
talk) 23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Modified proposal -
If there might be confusion about meaning or content, place a hatnote. Confusion can come from:
- - Same spelling of the title, different meaning (disambiguation)
- - Associated meaning of the title (use {{ see also}})
- - More elaborate article of the title (use {{ main}})
This can be at article or section level. Related topics with titles that are unambiguous to everyone are better summarized in the article or listed in a see also section rather than placed in a hatnote.
PPdd ( talk) 23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think clarification is needed to show that "main" is only going to be used on sections, not on full articles. PamD ( talk) 06:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated regarding {{ further}}, which is currently at TfD. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the lead, "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article." But hatnotes are frequently also placed at the top of sections. Is this frowned upon? Either way, the article should make this point clear.— Biosketch ( talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion at the help desk regarding hatnote usage that I am vague about. If anyone would be willing to skip over there and take a look, I would appreciate it. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone jump in at Talk:Physical education#Hatnote for Community episode by the same name? I am at a loss for why this user opposed the hat-note for Physical Education (Community) on Physical education, besides that the user doesn't appear to like the show. Thanks. Xeworlebi ( talk) 11:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ Navbox hatnote templates}} is duplicated at the bottom. This seems to be because it's also included in {{ Hatnote templates documentation}}. I was going to remove it from here, but perhaps it'd be best removed from there instead. Therefore, I've not touched it. Maybe someone who was involved in setting these things up knows the best way to handle this. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User:JesseRafe has seen it fit to add disambiguation hatnotes to the articles on former New York mob boss John Gotti and Biblical figure John Gaddi. At first I thought it was a bad accent joke and reverted on the former article, but he's serious.
Do we have a policy for this? Is this a likely point of confusion in a text-based medium? -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Can the hatnotes on the Century article be considered "short"? How about on the article Man? To me they strike me as excessively bloated and distracting from the main article. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
HN for "Breaking story" is my specific problem, but think it used commonly enough for mention in the article. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 10:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
Current}}
. Also, I don't know which hatnote template would be used. -
DePiep (
talk) 10:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)See Category talk:Hatnote templates for lists. Proposal to separate hatnotes from maintenance notices. - DePiep ( talk) 20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a discussion here. I believe the notices about surnames/given names should not be hatnotes, as they're not disambiguation-related and they are not critical enough to be above the lead. They could be footnotes or built into the article, etc. Please check out that discussion and voice your opinion. Designate ( talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This really needs to get removed it's getting on my nerves, I'm sorry but do it for all or none at all. That's how it needs to go I'm getting sick of arguing that on the LeAnn Rimes song " I Need You" that there needs to be one as there are SEVERAL songs that go by that name (and a lot of them DON'T have pages), regardless if they got this (Artist song) beside there name or not PLEASE REMOVE THIS. It needs to be for all or none no half or pick and chose cause that's ridiculous. It does nothing but cause problems and edit wars. JamesAlan1986 * talk 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Another point I want to make here is this. There's an article for the album Speak Now by Taylor Swift and the song by the same name by her too. The Speak Now album has a hat because the same name and same artist thing. I Need You is an album and a song by LeAnn Rimes both using the same name but they can't have a hat over there's no other album under that name WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? It should need a hat as there's the album by Rimes and the song by Rimes JUST LIKE Speak Now. Like I've said this pick and chose stuff is dumb and it needs to be all or none. JamesAlan1986 * talk 19:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hatnotes are only needed for examples such as Speak Now. They are used to show direction in which is which. I Need You (album) separates itself with (album). — Status { talk contribs 21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|I Need You (album)}}
on the song article and {{
distinguish|I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song)}}
on the album article, that would likely be unobjectionable. Though it seems overkill since both are prominently cross-referenced in each article.
older ≠
wiser 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)That seems to make more sense to me but I'm still not understand where the section says it's inappropriate cause the example nor anything on there says it's misuse to me. JamesAlan1986 * talk 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
So going by what you're saying then Speak Now probably shouldn't have a hatnote as if they were looking for the song it wouldn't be likely that it might be unlikely that they'd do that as the other one is " Speak Now (song)"? JamesAlan1986 * talk 22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm getting it a little. But I do think they need to post that better on there so there's no confusion on it. And CTJF83. You're awesome dude! JamesAlan1986 * talk 22:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I figured that because of Speak Now because if you were looking for the Speak Now song you'd type that in in the search right. Though I do wanna point this out there are those like me (and I've done this goof up a lot) who type it but not in full as the search usually pulls up all pages associated with the search and I've accidentally hit the wrong one cause the mouse wasn't actually on the one. Speaking of redirect I Need You (album) was originally on I Need You (LeAnn Rimes album) but got redirected to I Need You (album). JamesAlan1986 * talk 22:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly that's why they should have them in case of that type of accident. LOL! LeAnn Rimes should have a hatnote though right? As there is also LeAnn Rimes (album). JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Okay. Let me try another one Sparks Fly (album) by Miranda Cosgrove & Sparks Fly (song) by Taylor Swift? JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
From what you said on your talk page album/song no lol JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I accidentally mistaked them once. But that's when Sparks Fly (album) was just Sparks Fly. JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It'd seem that {{distinguish}} would be appropriate for it though cause of one of them being an album and the other a song and by 2 different people. JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well if you're not a fan of Taylor Swift you wouldn't know that she had a song out called "Sparks Fly" and might mistaken it as a song by Miranda Cosgrove or vise versa. JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
True, but I do have a feeling those don't get used much I know I never use the disambiguation page and half the times I forget they exist. I also want to note that the disambiguation pages aren't always reliable, I've noticed things missing on them that should be on there and have existed for awhile. JamesAlan1986 * talk 00:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, that's not my point. My point is that there are some of the disambiguation pages that are unreliable because they are incomplete. JamesAlan1986 * talk 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay slow down here, two confusing things what is WP:SOFIXIT suppose to do? And what is FA/FL? JamesAlan1986 * talk 00:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This one is (hopefully) simple: Do we use hatnotes to link to similarly spelled words? Say, a hatnote linking to Furies from Furries, or (assuming those would be actual articles) one linking to Grove from Groove? There's a silly dispute going on currently and I'd like some general opinions on this. -- Conti| ✉ 08:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Distinguish}}
covers the need, while Distinguish can apply to both meaning and spelling. The same can be said about: {{
Distinguish2}}
, {{
Redirect-distinguish2}}
and {{
Redirect-distinguish}}
(four alikes is a lot, but out of this topic).{{
Other people5}}
, which allows for differently spelled names.This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The example above (/* The present article's topic, mention or not */) is not the egregious one, both tell the person about the other choice, because it is clearly labeled as disambiguation. On the other hand, the {{ Distinguish}} template does not let the searcher know what the choices are at all. The text at Wikipedia:Hatnote for Two articles with similar title correctly, in my opinion, suggests the use of {{ otheruses4}} which does provide that. I think that {{ Distinguish}} should be depreciated for the very reason given by Largo Plazo above, namely so that the searcher coming upon the hatnote doesn't have to ask, "What's the other choice?". -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}}
template actually distinguishes between the two terms by the provision of USE1 and USE2. The {{
For}} template provides only the second use, but at least the information seeker has the article in front of them about the first usage. The {{
Distinguish}} template does neither of those. One possible con is additional length, since providing more information has a cost; however, as most of these are less than a single line long, I don't think that that ought to be dispositive over the purpose of Wikipedia which is to provide information. What other plus and minuses are there? --
Bejnar (
talk) 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Placing a right-justified infobox at the top of a page with a left-justified hatnote arranges the page with both the hatnote and the infobox at the top. I think this results in a more attractive page. See Colorado for example. -- Buaidh ( talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that right-justified infoboxes are no infringment of our hatnotes at top policy since the hatnotes remain at the top of the page. I think we are being at little overzealous on this issue. -- Buaidh ( talk) 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The use of infoboxes in any article pretty much disables screen-readers. Perhaps we should discuss that issue first. -- Buaidh ( talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In reverting the hatnote move mentione in the previous discussion, I've run into a problem with another editor on the Georgia (U.S. state) page. The second part of the note stated For other uses, see Georgia (disambiguation), but the DAB page is at Georgia. I've attempted to correct this to the direct link, but been reverted twice, the second time at this diff, with the reason direct links hinder fixing dablinks. To me, it is confusing not to use a direct link, esp. when the location of the DAB page for "Georgia" is a contentious issue, with the country article having been requested to be moved to the un-DABed page six times. I've read the guideline page here, and the issue of dierect vs. redirect links is not mentioned at all. Are there any existing guidelines on this matter elsewhere? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This brings up another question though, why are there even hatnotes on Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country)? Georgia is a disambiguation page so it's impossible to get to either of these two articles unless you specifically search for them, and they both have what they are about already in the article title so there is no confusion. Furthermore, some people like to make the Google argument for hatnotes, but it doesn't work in this case either because a Google search of "Georgia" returns you both the country and the U.S. state articles. Basically the hatnotes do not aid in navigation at all and this is the sole purpose of hatnotes. So is there any good reason not to just delete the hatnotes from these articles? LonelyMarble ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the situation with hatnoting to links which are already in the article? For example if there is a film adaptation where the article is linked in from the relevant section and mentioned in the lead, as at Watchmen (we don't do the same at Wanted (comics))? Also the question of hatnotes came up at Eddie Brock where it hatnotes to Venom (comics), even though it is mentioned a couple of lines below in the lead. Venom (comics) hatnotes back and to another character who has used the alias even though these are linked in in the relevant areas below and should be linked in from the lead (which should be expanded). In those last two examples it would also make sense to bold the names in the lead which would draw the eye to the relevant links and it seems to make the hatnote redundant. Thoughts? ( Emperor ( talk) 14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
MickMacNee and I are having a discussion about hatnotes on G. MickMacNee has added a hatnote "{{See also|g-force}}" because it is notable enough to not be hidden away on line 50 of a dab. The article already has {{otherusesof}} and g-force is one of the entries on the disambiguation page. I do not see any reason to have the additional hatnote because it is just another use of G that is already on the disambig page and it just clutters the top of the article with the other 2 hatnotes on the article. Any input to the discussion would be helpful. A new name 2008 ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see much greater restrictions placed on the use of hatnotes. To me these are basically low value notes that are taking away valuable real estate from the high value article lead, especially in the case of featured articles. At most the hatnotes should be limited to a single line of text. I've seen hat notes take up two and even three separate lines, sometimes wrapped, and they can become very distracting. It is particularly irksome in the case of "X redirects to this page. See page Y for more..." (for some lesser importance topic X and Y), which basically serves the role of a railway junction. If nothing else, it would be better if they were hidden in an expandable navbox of some type.
My $.02 worth. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
SomeTemplateName|X|Y|Z}}
to produce a message like:I think the user-specific hatnote based on the search term would be pretty useful but I'm not sure it is that necessary. One of the things I like doing is maintaining hatnotes so they aren't intrusive and are kept to one line as much as possible, if you could give some examples of where hatnotes are becoming a problem that would be helpful, I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately but I haven't noticed a problem with hatnotes. My guess is this section might have been spurred by the "First planet redirects here", etc. on the planet articles, which I agree, was a bad idea and the redirect hatnotes for these are of a very limited usage. I removed the last one that I saw on the Mercury (planet) article. Problems with hatnotes like that can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Are there any other examples of problems with hatnotes? A user-specific hatnote wouldn't even be desirable or that helpful in a lot of cases because you'd still want to keep the main page (disambiguation) link so any redirects could probably just as easily be added in a one line hatnote without any additional technical changes. LonelyMarble ( talk) 09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there interest here in developing the idea I proposed here? That is, allowing us to change the "(Redirected from Foo)" message to something like "(Redirected from Foo. For X, see Y)". This could potentially remove one of the main source of hatnotes; those that explain redirects. Thoughts? Happy‑ melon 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed "Hat note" and Hatnote" from soft redirects to hard redirects. I did this because, the link wasn't to a Wiki sister project. ask123 ( talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This project is filled with red links, due to past changes. The problems are in transduced template documentation. This should be fixed. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
At Template:See_also, it says that this template is "used for small sets of see also information at the head of article sections according to Wikipedia:Layout." However, Wikipedia:Layout doesn't actually say this. Could you please clarify whether these templates can be used at the top of an article? As an example, I have in mind Judicial_review_in_the_United_States. Agradman ( talk) 05:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify: what I had in mind was to mention this somewhere in the policies and guidelines (i.e. which templates may ONLY be used under sections, vs. which ones can also be used at the tops of articles). Agradman ( talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The Atheist dab with 4 links that was created to prevent a hatnote to a unimportant band was deleted. Now, Atheism, which is a featured article about a very important and basic philosophical concept, has a hatnote to a band that would never be in a real encyclopedia (one where notability is not decided on by people who've never even seen an encyclopedia, but base notability on blog posts and twitters). This would be like having an article like death start with a hatnote to a band called "Death". Can we add to this page that real encyclopedic articles should link to dab hatnotes instead of starting important subjects with links to silly pages no one will care about in 10 years? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-07-18t20:33z
It is a sign of Wikipedia's progress that we no longer see things like the following. Someone creates a page titled Bishop. It says (1) A bishop is a certain ecclesiastical official; and (2) A bishop is a chess piece. Then someone expands point (1) so that there's a long long long article on bishops, the ecclesiastical officials, and after you scroll down through many many screenfuls of material on that, you find a lone paragraph that says only that a bishop is a certain chess piece (with a link to that article). Down there at the bottom, where it will not be seen by those arriving at the article. Nor do we still frequently see articles consisting of several paragraphs on each of several unrelated topics (e.g. a section on ordained bishops, then a section on chess pieces, then a section on Alfonxe Bishop, a rock star, etc. Back in 2004 and 2005, I used to clean up situations like that all the time. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Do editors here feel the hatnote at Scientific opinion on climate change is appropriate (I do, but it's not really covered by this WP:HATNOTE article)? In this case, the article title is refined, and limited, for what is essentially a list article - to specifically 'disambiguate' (dictionary def'n) what is or isn't suitable for inclusion in the list. If this is a valid use (and I think it should be) then perhaps this type of usage should be included in the article here. -- Jaymax ( talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the about template kicks off This page is about is there advantage in having a syntax-identical variant with the leadin text This page lists or similar. Just a passing thought - I suspect the usage would be too low to justify implementation, but after I saw there was an otherhurricaneuses template, I thought I'd mention it... --
Jaymax (
talk) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) or maybe not - on reflection, this idea is too friendly to the kind of stuff that
User:LonelyMarble talks about avoiding above, and might promote same --
Jaymax (
talk) 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm requesting approval for bot-assisted editing to help enforce WP:NAMB by removing article name disambiguation templates on articles with names that are not ambiguous. The relevant request is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 3. Any comments, etc. would be appreciated at the request page. -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The content of Na'vi language was moved to Wikibooks, and the WP article rewritten to cover the history and reception of the language rather than the language itself. The WP article had been a popular reference for fans learning the language (for example a basic reference at LearnNa'vi.org), and so an editor added a hatnote directing them to WB for language info. This was then removed with the argument that the policy on hatnotes prohibits "external links".
Is that what is meant? It would seem to me that an ex-Wikipedia article now at a sister project is not exactly "external", esp. when we're redirecting readers who come to WP specifically for that article—indeed, a moved WP article would seem to be the perfect use for a hatnote. kwami ( talk) 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 174.3.98.236 ( talk · contribs) has been going around replacing one hatnote template with another, and nominating hatnote templates for deletion at WP:TFD for the last few weeks.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 08:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with an editor who insists on using
as a main-article-link instead of a hatnote. Please help resolve. 174.3.99.176 ( talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
for2}}
to link a subsection in one article with an equivalent subsection in a second article. Neither article is 'main' relative to the other, and neither subsection is a summary (in the 'main' sense). The two articles present different sides of the same characters -- this arrangement was reached through consensus of a group of editors several years ago. The particular template is used since it allows the anchor link to be hidden, a requirement of
WP:LINKING and none of the other templates, including {{
details}}
allow this. It is appropriate in a disambiguating sense, since each character section acts as an anchor point from external articles -- a user may find themselves arriving at any section depending on the link in the original article. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is!There is now a hatnote at the top of Meet the Parents linking to Meet the Parents (soundtrack). I say it should not be there because clearly links to an article that is highly WP:RELATED to the topic. There is already information in the main article that "summarizes [the subarticle] in a subsection in conjuntion with the {main} template" at Meet the Parents#Soundtrack. Another user claims that the tag should be there because it has a similar title. Your opinions are welcome at Talk:Meet the Parents. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 16:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion on the need for hatnoting at Talk:Full Metal Jacket. 70.29.210.155 ( talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that {{ Korean name}} and {{ Chinese name}} should not be hatnotes. The information they contain is not so important that they should be allowed to occupy such an prominent/intrusive position. __ meco ( talk) 07:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I recently had a discussion on my user talk page about the "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" section of Wikipedia:Hatnote (aka WP:NAMB). Basically, the idea was that the example given (tree) was not a good one - it failed to convey the point. Considering that I encounter this a lot with place articles (e.g. on an article for One Horse, Nevada, a hatnote would say, for other places by this name, see One Horse (disambiguation).), supplementing or replacing the existing example with a place name would be quite helpful. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a situation wherein a term links to a disambiguation page, but I feel it would be more appropriate for the term to link to one of the specific pages, and to include a hatnote linking to the disambiguation. Then again, it might be construed as bias, but I truly feel one article is more appropriate - or at least more popular - than the other. Thoughts? -- Arielkoiman ( talk) 10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose the following:
From:
Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article Honey, one might use the template {{ about|the insect-produced fluid}} to produce:
Alternatively, one might use {{ other uses}} to produce:
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.
To:
Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article Honey, one might use the template {{ about|the insect-produced fluid}} to produce:
Alternatively, one might use {{ other uses}} to produce:
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.
If the first style is chosen, keep the summary as short and succinct as possible. For example, instead of using:
use
This also avoids pov issues. 199.126.224.245 ( talk) 02:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
We are debating something posted by a banned user?
Banned for making a huge fuss over trivial issues [1]
We don't need this instruction creep. Banned == banned. No discussion needed. Chzz ► 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As visitors don't exclusively come from within Wikipedia but commonly come from search engines this section is nonsense. I propose it's removal entirely. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose a maximum number of hat notes (or at least a reference to some common sense...) or even a new lay-out for the hat notes. The articles: Mother, Father and Danube have four hat notes. I personally notice I start reading all the hat notes without thought because they seem part of the article, which is very annoying. Compare the English en:Danube with the German de:Donau. The German version seems much clearer to me. Any thoughts? Joost 99 ( talk) 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose this addition -
When an article’s subject is nearly synonymous with another article’s subject, or when it is sometimes but not always used as a near synonym, placement of a hat referring to that other subject should be made. When a subject is a part of another subject, that other subject should be in a hat, but if the subject has parts, the parts should be in hats for that part's section in the article. When the other subject is only very relevant to the article’s subject, but not nearly synonymous or does not fully contain the article’s subject, it should go in the “See also” section, not in the hat.
This would have helped avoiding the same discussion being repeated on different talk pages of several pages I made edits to. PPdd ( talk) 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)Must say, and can say: no more hatnotes, no more rules. The Guideline should be:
If there might be confusion about meaning or content, place a hatnote.
From there on, do disambiguation, redirects, main articles ad more.
Confusion can come from:
Now this could be at article or section level. All in all a dozen of hatnotes could do. Now what happens? Today, there are ~70 hatnote templates. Imagine an editor wanting to use one (as I was). (Background: recently I started to round up & cleanup the Hatnote template world. Already 20 are removed for being duplicates &tc. Documenting (inccluding: help finding the right template) is a horror. - DePiep ( talk) 22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Why make a reader (like me) read an article I did not intend to read, or hunt down links, when a simple hat at the top can easily fix this? Another example is the article
Feminism; I had my edit about
bad faith there reverted as being best of
Feminist theory, for which feminism is a synonym in academia. So no one made the same "sometimes a synonym" mistake, I put a hat on top, not in "see also", which included related articles, but not "near synonyms".
PPdd (
talk) 23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Modified proposal -
If there might be confusion about meaning or content, place a hatnote. Confusion can come from:
- - Same spelling of the title, different meaning (disambiguation)
- - Associated meaning of the title (use {{ see also}})
- - More elaborate article of the title (use {{ main}})
This can be at article or section level. Related topics with titles that are unambiguous to everyone are better summarized in the article or listed in a see also section rather than placed in a hatnote.
PPdd ( talk) 23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think clarification is needed to show that "main" is only going to be used on sections, not on full articles. PamD ( talk) 06:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated regarding {{ further}}, which is currently at TfD. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the lead, "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article." But hatnotes are frequently also placed at the top of sections. Is this frowned upon? Either way, the article should make this point clear.— Biosketch ( talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion at the help desk regarding hatnote usage that I am vague about. If anyone would be willing to skip over there and take a look, I would appreciate it. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone jump in at Talk:Physical education#Hatnote for Community episode by the same name? I am at a loss for why this user opposed the hat-note for Physical Education (Community) on Physical education, besides that the user doesn't appear to like the show. Thanks. Xeworlebi ( talk) 11:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ Navbox hatnote templates}} is duplicated at the bottom. This seems to be because it's also included in {{ Hatnote templates documentation}}. I was going to remove it from here, but perhaps it'd be best removed from there instead. Therefore, I've not touched it. Maybe someone who was involved in setting these things up knows the best way to handle this. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk) 09:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
User:JesseRafe has seen it fit to add disambiguation hatnotes to the articles on former New York mob boss John Gotti and Biblical figure John Gaddi. At first I thought it was a bad accent joke and reverted on the former article, but he's serious.
Do we have a policy for this? Is this a likely point of confusion in a text-based medium? -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Can the hatnotes on the Century article be considered "short"? How about on the article Man? To me they strike me as excessively bloated and distracting from the main article. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
HN for "Breaking story" is my specific problem, but think it used commonly enough for mention in the article. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 10:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
Current}}
. Also, I don't know which hatnote template would be used. -
DePiep (
talk) 10:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)See Category talk:Hatnote templates for lists. Proposal to separate hatnotes from maintenance notices. - DePiep ( talk) 20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a discussion here. I believe the notices about surnames/given names should not be hatnotes, as they're not disambiguation-related and they are not critical enough to be above the lead. They could be footnotes or built into the article, etc. Please check out that discussion and voice your opinion. Designate ( talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This really needs to get removed it's getting on my nerves, I'm sorry but do it for all or none at all. That's how it needs to go I'm getting sick of arguing that on the LeAnn Rimes song " I Need You" that there needs to be one as there are SEVERAL songs that go by that name (and a lot of them DON'T have pages), regardless if they got this (Artist song) beside there name or not PLEASE REMOVE THIS. It needs to be for all or none no half or pick and chose cause that's ridiculous. It does nothing but cause problems and edit wars. JamesAlan1986 * talk 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Another point I want to make here is this. There's an article for the album Speak Now by Taylor Swift and the song by the same name by her too. The Speak Now album has a hat because the same name and same artist thing. I Need You is an album and a song by LeAnn Rimes both using the same name but they can't have a hat over there's no other album under that name WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? It should need a hat as there's the album by Rimes and the song by Rimes JUST LIKE Speak Now. Like I've said this pick and chose stuff is dumb and it needs to be all or none. JamesAlan1986 * talk 19:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hatnotes are only needed for examples such as Speak Now. They are used to show direction in which is which. I Need You (album) separates itself with (album). — Status { talk contribs 21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|I Need You (album)}}
on the song article and {{
distinguish|I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song)}}
on the album article, that would likely be unobjectionable. Though it seems overkill since both are prominently cross-referenced in each article.
older ≠
wiser 21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)That seems to make more sense to me but I'm still not understand where the section says it's inappropriate cause the example nor anything on there says it's misuse to me. JamesAlan1986 * talk 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
So going by what you're saying then Speak Now probably shouldn't have a hatnote as if they were looking for the song it wouldn't be likely that it might be unlikely that they'd do that as the other one is " Speak Now (song)"? JamesAlan1986 * talk 22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm getting it a little. But I do think they need to post that better on there so there's no confusion on it. And CTJF83. You're awesome dude! JamesAlan1986 * talk 22:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I figured that because of Speak Now because if you were looking for the Speak Now song you'd type that in in the search right. Though I do wanna point this out there are those like me (and I've done this goof up a lot) who type it but not in full as the search usually pulls up all pages associated with the search and I've accidentally hit the wrong one cause the mouse wasn't actually on the one. Speaking of redirect I Need You (album) was originally on I Need You (LeAnn Rimes album) but got redirected to I Need You (album). JamesAlan1986 * talk 22:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly that's why they should have them in case of that type of accident. LOL! LeAnn Rimes should have a hatnote though right? As there is also LeAnn Rimes (album). JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Okay. Let me try another one Sparks Fly (album) by Miranda Cosgrove & Sparks Fly (song) by Taylor Swift? JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
From what you said on your talk page album/song no lol JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I accidentally mistaked them once. But that's when Sparks Fly (album) was just Sparks Fly. JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It'd seem that {{distinguish}} would be appropriate for it though cause of one of them being an album and the other a song and by 2 different people. JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well if you're not a fan of Taylor Swift you wouldn't know that she had a song out called "Sparks Fly" and might mistaken it as a song by Miranda Cosgrove or vise versa. JamesAlan1986 * talk 23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
True, but I do have a feeling those don't get used much I know I never use the disambiguation page and half the times I forget they exist. I also want to note that the disambiguation pages aren't always reliable, I've noticed things missing on them that should be on there and have existed for awhile. JamesAlan1986 * talk 00:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, that's not my point. My point is that there are some of the disambiguation pages that are unreliable because they are incomplete. JamesAlan1986 * talk 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay slow down here, two confusing things what is WP:SOFIXIT suppose to do? And what is FA/FL? JamesAlan1986 * talk 00:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This one is (hopefully) simple: Do we use hatnotes to link to similarly spelled words? Say, a hatnote linking to Furies from Furries, or (assuming those would be actual articles) one linking to Grove from Groove? There's a silly dispute going on currently and I'd like some general opinions on this. -- Conti| ✉ 08:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
Distinguish}}
covers the need, while Distinguish can apply to both meaning and spelling. The same can be said about: {{
Distinguish2}}
, {{
Redirect-distinguish2}}
and {{
Redirect-distinguish}}
(four alikes is a lot, but out of this topic).{{
Other people5}}
, which allows for differently spelled names.