![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Previously there seemed to be a very strong consensus that the current text of NAMB (Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous) was actively harmful to users and the project. I put in some text that I felt reflected the discussion but keep getting reverted on the dubious notion my text is "extreme". Here it is (my text in italics):
"Here the hatnote can be removed. A reader who is following links within Wikipedia would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if one were looking for other types of trees, since tree does not redirect there.
This, however, is not always the case. Not all readers use Wikipedia's search engine, so in some cases, a high result on an external search engine, or a phrase that readers might not know is ambiguous, should have the hatnote nonetheless. For example, Guadalupe River (Texas) is the top Google search result for Guadalupe River, and the disambiguation page isn't on the first page of Google results. In this case, a link to the disambiguation page makes sense. Another example, Treaty of Paris (1783) has a link to Treaty of Paris (disambiguation) since many readers who come thru external search engines aren't aware that there is more than one.
A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator).
A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses" section above."
What's wrong with that? Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree the wording of assuming knowledge of "hatnotes" above sounds ridiculous and distracts...but there's an vital point in how improbable it sounds to you - what's their alternative?... pull back from internal WP terms and consider the valid wider general point. Navigation via Google. Pull back from one single (of many) uses of "TLS" (Times Literary Supplement). Put another way, are readers more likely to Google a term than WP it? I don't know they're both valid and high probability. Not low probability or a chain. PRIMARYTOPIC redirect hatnotes mean we always catch them internally, NAMB means we never catch them externally. Widefox; talk 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term does not redirect to it, but only when that topic is primary for a term with respect to usage (see WP:PRIMARYUSAGE for a consideration of the primary use of a term "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"). In this case (as with an article that is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), plausible navigation may occur via external navigation routes such as Google, and a hatnote may still be useful." Widefox; talk 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't redirected by us is similar to directed by Google?No, not in the least. One aspect is fully under internal control, the other is subject to random and arbitrary fluctuations as well as inconsistency from one user to another. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Seeing the discussion above, it looks like we could never come up with a rule that everyone agrees with. If the current text was being discussed, it also would clearly never reach consensus. But why do we even need this section at all? I think it might be best to replace WP:NAMB with absolutely nothing at all. Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a video game called Fortnite, a pun on the word "fortnight" which of course we also have an article for at fortnight. Would it make sense to include, on the page for fortnight a hatnote for "Fortnite", in that a person that has heard about this game but not seen printed reference to it yet may end up at "fortnight"? On the other hand, it is doubtful for a person searching on "fortnight" to end up at the video game article since that is a purposefully misspelling of the term, so I don't think a hat note is needed there. Just need some advice as to handle this situation. -- MASEM ( t) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
MadisonGrundtvig has been hatnoting several articles with links to List of Teletubbies episodes and videos#Episodes, for example: Campanology, Dairy, Dishwashing, Dry stone, Shepherd and Swimming pool. I would like opinions on whether these should be considered to be trivial ( WP:TRHAT) and should be removed. Thankyou, Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies on this are quite clear and well established. Ten years ago, this site was full of links to episodes of the Simpsons TV show that mentioned or parodied a topic. These links have all been removed. Links to Teletubies episode titles quite clearly fall under WP:TRHAT and WP:LEGITHAT.
I removed the hatnote form Chinese New Year and the link added in the "See also" section. Read the WP:MOS as well as the other guides and help pages. We do not need to disambiguate a major festival celebrated by billions annually with a trivial video clip within a children's TV show. Such disparity of notability is self evident.
Read WP:N and understand what notability means within Wikipedia. It does not follow that because one episode of a TV show passes notability that all TV show episodes pass notability any more than it does that because Steve Jobs and Apple computers are notable that all employees of Apple computers much be notable too. The notability of individual episodes of the Teletubies has not be shown.
Links to the Teletubies should not go in the "See also" section. That section is supposed to link to additional information that will enhance your understanding of the subject. The Teletubies episode list does not do that. Look at MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:DABSEEALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Chinese New Year would be a relevant link on the Teletubies article as it provides more information about the subject of that episode, but the Teletubies would not be a relevant link the Chinese New Year article as the Teletubies article does not provide anything but a snip-it of trivia. -- Rincewind42 ( talk) 04:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is everyone using bullet points to indent their comments on this page. See WP:THREAD and use colons to indent talk page threads.
@ Wbm1058: The reference to the Simpsons is related to MadisonGrundtvig comment "If they are not to be noted on top of the page, shouldn't they be noted in the See Also sections at least?" That is why I was quoting MOS:SEEALSO. It has no bearing on hatnotes. If a Simpsons episode has an article, and I think they all do, then those article titles need disambiguated in the same way as any other article. Rincewind42 ( talk) 14:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm another of those editors whose edits have been reverted with a simple "per WP:NAMB".
Now, I am neither of below-average intelligence nor literacy, and I do not consider myself a neophyte Wikipedian. If the purpose of a policy is so that editors don't have to repeatedly explain their actions, instead simply referring to an explanatory page, then NAMB does not succeed.
First and foremost, it is far from clear what the policy is, and what sort of hatnote it is discouraging. The title is perhaps the only clue: "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous". Fair enough, but what about some text that explains how you identify these cases?
And what about examples? The only example is unfortunately a rather special case: telling us that it is unwanted to add hatnotes to two articles with superficial similarities that really are worlds apart. I easily understand (and agree with) the notion that trees in set theory has nothing in common with biological plants (or most other kinds of tree, for that matter, since maths is a very cloistered discipline)
But it has come to my attention - not because I could understand it from the NAMB description - that such special cases is far from the only case intended to be covered by NAMB.
Let's take my recent case as an example: The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) and how that article relates to the various other articles with the same name (see The Snows of Kilimanjaro, a disambig page, for the relevant articles).
The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) does not in any way relate to, for instance, The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) in the way Tree (set theory) relates to Tree (disambiguation). They are not dissimilar concepts - they are both films. Films with identical titles.
In my mind, this is a completely separate case from set theory trees. If, hypothetically, there was an article on the properties of the actual snows lying on top of the African mountain itself named "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" then I could understand the uselessness of linking between the movie and such an article. But discerning between two works of art sharing the exact same name and medium?
If NAMB is supposed to cover even a case like this, I respectfully submit that an additional example is required. As a minimum, that is - it would be even better if the title "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" was backed up with some actual explanatory/defining text, as is done for most of the policies out there, policies that do not have pages of Talk text - simply by virtue of being clearly understandable in the first place.
Let me back that up: I note that the only line of policy language (starting with "Here the hatnote can be removed...") busies itself only with the example given: it's specific, not general. And the two remaining lines concern exceptions to the not-too-well defined rule, and thus add nothing to a editor's understanding of the policy itself. Thus none of the paragraphs explain or expand upon the general policy as given by the title. This is in my opinion far too terse to function as intended: i.e. be a place where we can send editors instead of having to explain our actions when we revert changes etc.
Nowhere in NAMB does it say what I have been given reason to think is the real policy: no hatnote on a disambiguated article to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page. Note: I say so since that language comes from a helpful editor trying to help me understand NAMB as discussed briefly on my own talk page: User talk:CapnZapp#Snows and hatnotes. In this context, please do not get stuck on the language of this interpretation, and I would like to ask you not to bring that helpful editor into this discussion. Consider it to be an example only: its particulars is not the point I'm trying to make here.
If the edits I've been trying to make (adding some sort of connection between the French movie and the other works of the same name) really violates policy and that the reverts are in order, then please consider expanding or embellishing the policy language and/or example(s).
Also, please add the rationale for having such a policy in the first place. Consider helping the editor out by suggesting alternatives, as well. If, for instance, it would be okay to integrate the connection in the main body of the article, or perhaps by way of an "See Also" bullet point, any such alternatives would be greatly appreciated. In other words: do not just forbid, explain why. And do not just forbid, offer alternative means. :-)
Best Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a clarification is in order. I am arguing that I'm being reverted by a policy that is not covering the case I'm being reverted on. Either the policy needs clarifying or I will contest the reverts as needing a more relevant justification. I'm not asking for the policy to be fundamentally changed here; just better expressed. Neither am I asking for the policy to be removed. Finally, I'm not concerned with Google searches. To move forward, the question is simple: What do you say NAMB is about?. I would have assumed interested parties would come here to express the policy in their own words, so we can 1) tell if the current policy language is at all covering what people believe NAMB is about (Personally I suspect not, as I've said above), and 2) reach consensus about what to add/modify in order to get the policy text to 3) be easily understandable for the average editor and 4) representative of the revert cases (probably 99% of why editors are sent here in the first place). CapnZapp ( talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
But, NAMB is being treated as policy and is being treated as requiring removal of hatnotes (as demonstrated by the original post above). It's being used to delete helpful hatnotes without discussion or explanation, so we have a problem.
That is not what the policy says, however.
The policy says that if the title is not ambiguous, the hatnote should ALWAYS be remove, which, as written, includes Treaty of Paris and Snows of Kilimanjaro.
You appear to have misunderstood the rule's basis, which isn't directly reliant upon dissimilarity between/among subjects.Fair enough, but my point is that the "rule's basis" is not explained or described anywhere. The text should not be so easily misunderstood, especially when it would be easy to drastically lower that risk.
In the Tree (set theory) example, the hatnote has been deemed superfluous not because the mathematical concept is unrelated to botany, but because the parenthetical "set theory" is inapplicable to the other "tree" articles.Okay. But that really is not made clear. And moreover, I suggest this be made not just clear, but explicit. There is nothing in the comment to the example that dispels you of the notion the example is there because of the alternative interpretation that set theory is "too dissimilar" to other usages; either there should, or a more general example should be used/added.
Likewise, while two films titled The Snows of Kilimanjaro have much in common, the parenthetical "2011 film" couldn't possibly describe a motion picture from 1952.Unlike perhaps other voices on this page, I am not contesting either your interpretation or moving for a change. I am, however, arguing that in order to make this specific leap of reasoning, an editor without prior knowledge needs this to be spelled out, not by a helpful editor on a talk page, but by the introduction. Currently, the header/name of the poli... editing guideline is not sufficient to convey this message to a user. And the sole example easily sidetracks you into thinking the policy is about something else (as discussed).
A different/second example along those lines might be helpful.If it turns out describing this in general means is difficult or confusing or won't reach consensus, then yes, an extra example could very well be a clean alternative. If no introduction is added, I would say a second example is essential in conveying the central principle of the editing guideline; which, in my understanding, pretty much boils down to no hatnote on a disambiguated article to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page, no?
To be clear, I'm not expressing complete agreement with the rule or addressing the search engine issue (which, as you noted, is a separate matter).Very clear! And thank you! CapnZapp ( talk) 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There was discussion here about how to improve the guideline, with some consensus to have it include suggestions on when to include hatnotes instead of being prescriptive. I proposed to always have the hatnote when there are several ambiguous articles belonging to the same class, the paradigmatic example being Treaty of Paris. If you're looking for some Snows of Kilimanjaro film or book and by any method you arrive to The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film), it's helpful to have the hatnote always present, rather than uses of the hatnote like this one (where all versions should be listed). You cannot assume that all readers wanted that precise version and none of the others; the reader may not even know which version they're looking for, so leading them to the index in the DAB page is a safe bet. Unfortunately, discussion the last time was side-tracked by the various ways that a reader could arrive to an article, and the draft didn't advance towards consensus. Diego ( talk) 12:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
(Yet another branch of discussion leading to incoming search engine links that I've lopped of, since I'm not interested in the greater picture (see clarification above). Nothing wrong with this discussion, don't get me wrong, but it is a separate discussion. Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 09:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC))
Article titles that are not ambiguous Tree (set theory), Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film), Treaty of Paris (1783) as examples
When the title of the article is not ambiguous, a hatnote is optional, and should lead only to a single disambiguation page. Whether to include this hatnote should be based on how likely it is that a reader will inadvertently land on the this page while seeking another topic. In the Tree (set theory) example above, the chances that a reader searching for the plant will land here are almost zero, so the hatnote is not needed. In the Treaty of Paris (1783) example, the large number of treaties with this name make it very likely that a reader was looking for another topic and the hatnote should be included. The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) lands somewhere in the middle, and can be included or omitted based on editor's discretion.
Thoughts? Ego White Tray ( talk) 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna say again, let's just delete that whole subsection. It does more harm than good, arguing about it does more harm than good, and we're better off without it. Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as my recent removal: the initial discussion about a year ago could not reach a consensus about what the text should be - but there was strong consensus that the current text was unacceptable. I actually did remove it a year ago, and I checked the archives again, and confirmed my thought that it was only deleted because it orphaned a shortcut ( WP:NAMB). The idea of entirely deleting has never really been discussed, and has been twice reverted (now and a year ago), but neither time by someone who actually disagreed with me. So, I have seen absolutely no consensus against deleting it, just concerns about broken redirects, or lack of discussion. I figure that actually deleting it this time might be what it takes to get anyone to actually discuss the merits. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I came here to check the policy, looking to refer to it in making an edit having done so before, and noticed the note that it's frequently disputed. Coming here to find the discussion it presumably referred to it's now almost 2 months old. So presumably it's now no longer being disputed and the note can be removed? -- JohnBlackburne words deeds 01:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This topic comes back and back, usually brought by a hurt editor or reader outside the circle of watchers of this talk page. I wonder if we should now have a discussion bringing in a wider audience, and try to settle it.
I'm increasingly moving to the (radical) idea that a simple "For other uses" hatnote is no bad thing and should be allowed on any article with a disambiguated title (including placenames with comma disambiguation). The harm is minimal, an extra single-sentence hatnote which will be ignored by all readers who have found the right page. The benefits are great: a guide to any reader who has landed on the wrong page, probably by having found it using an external search engine, but possibly by following a duff link somewhere in the encyclopedia (editors have been known to link to the wrong article occasionally), and an end to this recurrent discussion which wastes the time of people who ought to be out there editing articles and dab pages, and avoidance of acrimonious discussions about possible edge cases where a helpful hatnote might or might not be allowed under current rules.
The necessary change would be to remove the section at WP:NAMB and amend the "Linking to a disambiguation page" section, which currently states
"the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. {{other uses}} may be used for this.",
to read:
"the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. {{other uses}} may be used for this. Similar hatnotes may be added to the disambiguated pages. Note that until 2014 this was not allowed and the abbreviation "WP:NAMB" referred to the previous policy.",
and retarget WP:NAMB appropriately. (Actually I reckon the wording should be "a hatnote on the primary topic page must link...", but that's another discussion.)
I'm not sure about the best way forward, how/where to set up an RfC, etc. Pam D 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)amended 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. Let me add a comment on the RfC below, however: My beef with the current status isn't so much the poli... I mean guideline itself, but how poorly worded it is.
In other words, even if there is consensus to retain status quo (or more likely, that status quo will be retained because no consensus at all, even to retain status quo, will be reached...) I need the text to better reflect that guideline.
See my discussion with David Levy above for a very detailed explanation of my position.
Please note that my issues have nothing to do with the search engine hits. (Unfortunately, I might add, since bringing up that subject has repeatedly been used in the past as ammunition to shoot down any and all attempts at change.)
I wish your RfC the best. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the hatnote on Scott Sizemore:
There is a candidate in that election with the name "Scott Sizemore" (and he received 2.3% of the vote). Is this an appropriate usage of a hatnote? — X96lee15 ( talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
By votes, we're tied pretty much 50/50, so there's no clear consensus. Several editors (DGG's comment in particular seemed to resonate with other participants) suggested that these things should be approached on a case-by-case basis; I would suggest that that might be the most sensible way of approaching future disputes around hatnotes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The current wording on this page says that if the Wikipedia article title is not ambiguous (such as Mercury (planet), Tree (set theory) or Solaris (film)), then the hatnotes to the disambiguation page should be removed ( WP:NAMB for short). Several times we have had editors not otherwise involved with this page asking why these hatnotes were being removed. Earlier discussions on this led to nothing but a disclaimer that NAMB is disputed and shouldn't be the reason to remove hatnotes.
The question is this: Should we allow pages with unambiguous titles to include hatnotes to disambiguation pages? Some editors are opposed to this, calling it unnecessary clutter that isn't necessary. Other editors, such as me, consider it necessary for user who get to the wrong page through unpredictable search engine results. Also note that even supports of the current wording agreed that some should have it, such as Treaty of Paris.
Ego White Tray ( talk) 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, change it to:
Ego White Tray ( talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've change the options above to encourage, allow, discourage, don't allow. Feel free to change your statements above to conform to this. Ego White Tray ( talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
redirect}}
and the suite of {{
main}}
templates are of course generally excepted from this (I don't consider them dablinks). But the obvious cases like having a page like (the hypothetical) "John Smith (British archaeologist)" article have a {{
otherpeople}}
dablink is pointless. Even on the off chance our reader is doing research into people named John Smith, he won't reach that article and wonder why he didn't get a monster list of people by that name instead. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
08:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)I was reverted by AussieLegend, wrongly it seemed by me and explained and then reverted again. Is a hatnote forbidden for non-traditional things (see "GENERIC TEXT")? I could have used, not-a-hatnote, but it seemed ok and is used in other places without helping "readers locate a different article". In this case however, it helps locate Windows XP.. comp.arch ( talk) 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but see: Talk:Windows_XP#Security_announcement._Reverted_-_breaking_the_rules. about this security issue that might allow for an exception and its rationale. comp.arch ( talk) 23:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Section hatnotes such as {{ See also}} and {{ Details}} are frequently used, yet they are at odds with how this guideline suggests hatnotes be used, i.e. to help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. These templates, as opposed to {{ Main}} (which appropriately directs readers to the main topic article summarised in the section), give undue weight to links which should normally be featured after the article text, and distract readers from the actual content of the section. For example, in many city articles, under the Culture section, there is a see also hatnote linking to lists of theatres, cinemas, museums, etc. in the city, which I find distracting. This is comparable to WP:RELATED, which is listed under this guideline as an improper use of (article) hatnotes. I think the use of such section hatnotes should be discouraged. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use the {{ Distinguish}} template to forestall confusion between names (or other words/phrases) — especially non-English names — that are completely unrelated except that they sound very similar?
For example, there have recently been content disputes at the articles for Boko Haram (a Nigerian terrorist group) and Procol Harum (a British rock band) — some people want to put a hatnote on each of these articles to alert readers that it is "not to be confused with" the other article, while others have insisted this is inappropriate because the two entities are totally unrelated and (presumably) no one is going to confuse them. I, personally, am inclined at the moment to support inclusion of the hatnote in a case like this, but I'd like to hear what others say (including possibly a pointer to an existing guideline if one exists). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What are the common practices about using more than one hatnote template in the same section? I didn't see anything about it on the page or in the archives. Is it avoided? Not a big deal? Might be worth mentioning on the page since it's something I've wondered a few times. For instance, both a {{ Main}} and {{ See also}} template in a section that spins out a few articles summary style. czar ♔ 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Should we be linking readers (via disambiguation notes, etc.) to the Wikipedia/Help/Manual namespaces from the mainspace? and comment. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to comment at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
Previously there seemed to be a very strong consensus that the current text of NAMB (Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous) was actively harmful to users and the project. I put in some text that I felt reflected the discussion but keep getting reverted on the dubious notion my text is "extreme". Here it is (my text in italics):
"Here the hatnote can be removed. A reader who is following links within Wikipedia would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if one were looking for other types of trees, since tree does not redirect there.
This, however, is not always the case. Not all readers use Wikipedia's search engine, so in some cases, a high result on an external search engine, or a phrase that readers might not know is ambiguous, should have the hatnote nonetheless. For example, Guadalupe River (Texas) is the top Google search result for Guadalupe River, and the disambiguation page isn't on the first page of Google results. In this case, a link to the disambiguation page makes sense. Another example, Treaty of Paris (1783) has a link to Treaty of Paris (disambiguation) since many readers who come thru external search engines aren't aware that there is more than one.
A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator).
A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses" section above."
What's wrong with that? Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree the wording of assuming knowledge of "hatnotes" above sounds ridiculous and distracts...but there's an vital point in how improbable it sounds to you - what's their alternative?... pull back from internal WP terms and consider the valid wider general point. Navigation via Google. Pull back from one single (of many) uses of "TLS" (Times Literary Supplement). Put another way, are readers more likely to Google a term than WP it? I don't know they're both valid and high probability. Not low probability or a chain. PRIMARYTOPIC redirect hatnotes mean we always catch them internally, NAMB means we never catch them externally. Widefox; talk 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term does not redirect to it, but only when that topic is primary for a term with respect to usage (see WP:PRIMARYUSAGE for a consideration of the primary use of a term "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"). In this case (as with an article that is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), plausible navigation may occur via external navigation routes such as Google, and a hatnote may still be useful." Widefox; talk 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Isn't redirected by us is similar to directed by Google?No, not in the least. One aspect is fully under internal control, the other is subject to random and arbitrary fluctuations as well as inconsistency from one user to another. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Seeing the discussion above, it looks like we could never come up with a rule that everyone agrees with. If the current text was being discussed, it also would clearly never reach consensus. But why do we even need this section at all? I think it might be best to replace WP:NAMB with absolutely nothing at all. Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a video game called Fortnite, a pun on the word "fortnight" which of course we also have an article for at fortnight. Would it make sense to include, on the page for fortnight a hatnote for "Fortnite", in that a person that has heard about this game but not seen printed reference to it yet may end up at "fortnight"? On the other hand, it is doubtful for a person searching on "fortnight" to end up at the video game article since that is a purposefully misspelling of the term, so I don't think a hat note is needed there. Just need some advice as to handle this situation. -- MASEM ( t) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
MadisonGrundtvig has been hatnoting several articles with links to List of Teletubbies episodes and videos#Episodes, for example: Campanology, Dairy, Dishwashing, Dry stone, Shepherd and Swimming pool. I would like opinions on whether these should be considered to be trivial ( WP:TRHAT) and should be removed. Thankyou, Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies on this are quite clear and well established. Ten years ago, this site was full of links to episodes of the Simpsons TV show that mentioned or parodied a topic. These links have all been removed. Links to Teletubies episode titles quite clearly fall under WP:TRHAT and WP:LEGITHAT.
I removed the hatnote form Chinese New Year and the link added in the "See also" section. Read the WP:MOS as well as the other guides and help pages. We do not need to disambiguate a major festival celebrated by billions annually with a trivial video clip within a children's TV show. Such disparity of notability is self evident.
Read WP:N and understand what notability means within Wikipedia. It does not follow that because one episode of a TV show passes notability that all TV show episodes pass notability any more than it does that because Steve Jobs and Apple computers are notable that all employees of Apple computers much be notable too. The notability of individual episodes of the Teletubies has not be shown.
Links to the Teletubies should not go in the "See also" section. That section is supposed to link to additional information that will enhance your understanding of the subject. The Teletubies episode list does not do that. Look at MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:DABSEEALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Chinese New Year would be a relevant link on the Teletubies article as it provides more information about the subject of that episode, but the Teletubies would not be a relevant link the Chinese New Year article as the Teletubies article does not provide anything but a snip-it of trivia. -- Rincewind42 ( talk) 04:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is everyone using bullet points to indent their comments on this page. See WP:THREAD and use colons to indent talk page threads.
@ Wbm1058: The reference to the Simpsons is related to MadisonGrundtvig comment "If they are not to be noted on top of the page, shouldn't they be noted in the See Also sections at least?" That is why I was quoting MOS:SEEALSO. It has no bearing on hatnotes. If a Simpsons episode has an article, and I think they all do, then those article titles need disambiguated in the same way as any other article. Rincewind42 ( talk) 14:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm another of those editors whose edits have been reverted with a simple "per WP:NAMB".
Now, I am neither of below-average intelligence nor literacy, and I do not consider myself a neophyte Wikipedian. If the purpose of a policy is so that editors don't have to repeatedly explain their actions, instead simply referring to an explanatory page, then NAMB does not succeed.
First and foremost, it is far from clear what the policy is, and what sort of hatnote it is discouraging. The title is perhaps the only clue: "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous". Fair enough, but what about some text that explains how you identify these cases?
And what about examples? The only example is unfortunately a rather special case: telling us that it is unwanted to add hatnotes to two articles with superficial similarities that really are worlds apart. I easily understand (and agree with) the notion that trees in set theory has nothing in common with biological plants (or most other kinds of tree, for that matter, since maths is a very cloistered discipline)
But it has come to my attention - not because I could understand it from the NAMB description - that such special cases is far from the only case intended to be covered by NAMB.
Let's take my recent case as an example: The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) and how that article relates to the various other articles with the same name (see The Snows of Kilimanjaro, a disambig page, for the relevant articles).
The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) does not in any way relate to, for instance, The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) in the way Tree (set theory) relates to Tree (disambiguation). They are not dissimilar concepts - they are both films. Films with identical titles.
In my mind, this is a completely separate case from set theory trees. If, hypothetically, there was an article on the properties of the actual snows lying on top of the African mountain itself named "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" then I could understand the uselessness of linking between the movie and such an article. But discerning between two works of art sharing the exact same name and medium?
If NAMB is supposed to cover even a case like this, I respectfully submit that an additional example is required. As a minimum, that is - it would be even better if the title "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" was backed up with some actual explanatory/defining text, as is done for most of the policies out there, policies that do not have pages of Talk text - simply by virtue of being clearly understandable in the first place.
Let me back that up: I note that the only line of policy language (starting with "Here the hatnote can be removed...") busies itself only with the example given: it's specific, not general. And the two remaining lines concern exceptions to the not-too-well defined rule, and thus add nothing to a editor's understanding of the policy itself. Thus none of the paragraphs explain or expand upon the general policy as given by the title. This is in my opinion far too terse to function as intended: i.e. be a place where we can send editors instead of having to explain our actions when we revert changes etc.
Nowhere in NAMB does it say what I have been given reason to think is the real policy: no hatnote on a disambiguated article to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page. Note: I say so since that language comes from a helpful editor trying to help me understand NAMB as discussed briefly on my own talk page: User talk:CapnZapp#Snows and hatnotes. In this context, please do not get stuck on the language of this interpretation, and I would like to ask you not to bring that helpful editor into this discussion. Consider it to be an example only: its particulars is not the point I'm trying to make here.
If the edits I've been trying to make (adding some sort of connection between the French movie and the other works of the same name) really violates policy and that the reverts are in order, then please consider expanding or embellishing the policy language and/or example(s).
Also, please add the rationale for having such a policy in the first place. Consider helping the editor out by suggesting alternatives, as well. If, for instance, it would be okay to integrate the connection in the main body of the article, or perhaps by way of an "See Also" bullet point, any such alternatives would be greatly appreciated. In other words: do not just forbid, explain why. And do not just forbid, offer alternative means. :-)
Best Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a clarification is in order. I am arguing that I'm being reverted by a policy that is not covering the case I'm being reverted on. Either the policy needs clarifying or I will contest the reverts as needing a more relevant justification. I'm not asking for the policy to be fundamentally changed here; just better expressed. Neither am I asking for the policy to be removed. Finally, I'm not concerned with Google searches. To move forward, the question is simple: What do you say NAMB is about?. I would have assumed interested parties would come here to express the policy in their own words, so we can 1) tell if the current policy language is at all covering what people believe NAMB is about (Personally I suspect not, as I've said above), and 2) reach consensus about what to add/modify in order to get the policy text to 3) be easily understandable for the average editor and 4) representative of the revert cases (probably 99% of why editors are sent here in the first place). CapnZapp ( talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
But, NAMB is being treated as policy and is being treated as requiring removal of hatnotes (as demonstrated by the original post above). It's being used to delete helpful hatnotes without discussion or explanation, so we have a problem.
That is not what the policy says, however.
The policy says that if the title is not ambiguous, the hatnote should ALWAYS be remove, which, as written, includes Treaty of Paris and Snows of Kilimanjaro.
You appear to have misunderstood the rule's basis, which isn't directly reliant upon dissimilarity between/among subjects.Fair enough, but my point is that the "rule's basis" is not explained or described anywhere. The text should not be so easily misunderstood, especially when it would be easy to drastically lower that risk.
In the Tree (set theory) example, the hatnote has been deemed superfluous not because the mathematical concept is unrelated to botany, but because the parenthetical "set theory" is inapplicable to the other "tree" articles.Okay. But that really is not made clear. And moreover, I suggest this be made not just clear, but explicit. There is nothing in the comment to the example that dispels you of the notion the example is there because of the alternative interpretation that set theory is "too dissimilar" to other usages; either there should, or a more general example should be used/added.
Likewise, while two films titled The Snows of Kilimanjaro have much in common, the parenthetical "2011 film" couldn't possibly describe a motion picture from 1952.Unlike perhaps other voices on this page, I am not contesting either your interpretation or moving for a change. I am, however, arguing that in order to make this specific leap of reasoning, an editor without prior knowledge needs this to be spelled out, not by a helpful editor on a talk page, but by the introduction. Currently, the header/name of the poli... editing guideline is not sufficient to convey this message to a user. And the sole example easily sidetracks you into thinking the policy is about something else (as discussed).
A different/second example along those lines might be helpful.If it turns out describing this in general means is difficult or confusing or won't reach consensus, then yes, an extra example could very well be a clean alternative. If no introduction is added, I would say a second example is essential in conveying the central principle of the editing guideline; which, in my understanding, pretty much boils down to no hatnote on a disambiguated article to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page, no?
To be clear, I'm not expressing complete agreement with the rule or addressing the search engine issue (which, as you noted, is a separate matter).Very clear! And thank you! CapnZapp ( talk) 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There was discussion here about how to improve the guideline, with some consensus to have it include suggestions on when to include hatnotes instead of being prescriptive. I proposed to always have the hatnote when there are several ambiguous articles belonging to the same class, the paradigmatic example being Treaty of Paris. If you're looking for some Snows of Kilimanjaro film or book and by any method you arrive to The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film), it's helpful to have the hatnote always present, rather than uses of the hatnote like this one (where all versions should be listed). You cannot assume that all readers wanted that precise version and none of the others; the reader may not even know which version they're looking for, so leading them to the index in the DAB page is a safe bet. Unfortunately, discussion the last time was side-tracked by the various ways that a reader could arrive to an article, and the draft didn't advance towards consensus. Diego ( talk) 12:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
(Yet another branch of discussion leading to incoming search engine links that I've lopped of, since I'm not interested in the greater picture (see clarification above). Nothing wrong with this discussion, don't get me wrong, but it is a separate discussion. Cheers, CapnZapp ( talk) 09:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC))
Article titles that are not ambiguous Tree (set theory), Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film), Treaty of Paris (1783) as examples
When the title of the article is not ambiguous, a hatnote is optional, and should lead only to a single disambiguation page. Whether to include this hatnote should be based on how likely it is that a reader will inadvertently land on the this page while seeking another topic. In the Tree (set theory) example above, the chances that a reader searching for the plant will land here are almost zero, so the hatnote is not needed. In the Treaty of Paris (1783) example, the large number of treaties with this name make it very likely that a reader was looking for another topic and the hatnote should be included. The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) lands somewhere in the middle, and can be included or omitted based on editor's discretion.
Thoughts? Ego White Tray ( talk) 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna say again, let's just delete that whole subsection. It does more harm than good, arguing about it does more harm than good, and we're better off without it. Ego White Tray ( talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as my recent removal: the initial discussion about a year ago could not reach a consensus about what the text should be - but there was strong consensus that the current text was unacceptable. I actually did remove it a year ago, and I checked the archives again, and confirmed my thought that it was only deleted because it orphaned a shortcut ( WP:NAMB). The idea of entirely deleting has never really been discussed, and has been twice reverted (now and a year ago), but neither time by someone who actually disagreed with me. So, I have seen absolutely no consensus against deleting it, just concerns about broken redirects, or lack of discussion. I figure that actually deleting it this time might be what it takes to get anyone to actually discuss the merits. Ego White Tray ( talk) 05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I came here to check the policy, looking to refer to it in making an edit having done so before, and noticed the note that it's frequently disputed. Coming here to find the discussion it presumably referred to it's now almost 2 months old. So presumably it's now no longer being disputed and the note can be removed? -- JohnBlackburne words deeds 01:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This topic comes back and back, usually brought by a hurt editor or reader outside the circle of watchers of this talk page. I wonder if we should now have a discussion bringing in a wider audience, and try to settle it.
I'm increasingly moving to the (radical) idea that a simple "For other uses" hatnote is no bad thing and should be allowed on any article with a disambiguated title (including placenames with comma disambiguation). The harm is minimal, an extra single-sentence hatnote which will be ignored by all readers who have found the right page. The benefits are great: a guide to any reader who has landed on the wrong page, probably by having found it using an external search engine, but possibly by following a duff link somewhere in the encyclopedia (editors have been known to link to the wrong article occasionally), and an end to this recurrent discussion which wastes the time of people who ought to be out there editing articles and dab pages, and avoidance of acrimonious discussions about possible edge cases where a helpful hatnote might or might not be allowed under current rules.
The necessary change would be to remove the section at WP:NAMB and amend the "Linking to a disambiguation page" section, which currently states
"the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. {{other uses}} may be used for this.",
to read:
"the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. {{other uses}} may be used for this. Similar hatnotes may be added to the disambiguated pages. Note that until 2014 this was not allowed and the abbreviation "WP:NAMB" referred to the previous policy.",
and retarget WP:NAMB appropriately. (Actually I reckon the wording should be "a hatnote on the primary topic page must link...", but that's another discussion.)
I'm not sure about the best way forward, how/where to set up an RfC, etc. Pam D 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)amended 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. Let me add a comment on the RfC below, however: My beef with the current status isn't so much the poli... I mean guideline itself, but how poorly worded it is.
In other words, even if there is consensus to retain status quo (or more likely, that status quo will be retained because no consensus at all, even to retain status quo, will be reached...) I need the text to better reflect that guideline.
See my discussion with David Levy above for a very detailed explanation of my position.
Please note that my issues have nothing to do with the search engine hits. (Unfortunately, I might add, since bringing up that subject has repeatedly been used in the past as ammunition to shoot down any and all attempts at change.)
I wish your RfC the best. CapnZapp ( talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the hatnote on Scott Sizemore:
There is a candidate in that election with the name "Scott Sizemore" (and he received 2.3% of the vote). Is this an appropriate usage of a hatnote? — X96lee15 ( talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
By votes, we're tied pretty much 50/50, so there's no clear consensus. Several editors (DGG's comment in particular seemed to resonate with other participants) suggested that these things should be approached on a case-by-case basis; I would suggest that that might be the most sensible way of approaching future disputes around hatnotes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The current wording on this page says that if the Wikipedia article title is not ambiguous (such as Mercury (planet), Tree (set theory) or Solaris (film)), then the hatnotes to the disambiguation page should be removed ( WP:NAMB for short). Several times we have had editors not otherwise involved with this page asking why these hatnotes were being removed. Earlier discussions on this led to nothing but a disclaimer that NAMB is disputed and shouldn't be the reason to remove hatnotes.
The question is this: Should we allow pages with unambiguous titles to include hatnotes to disambiguation pages? Some editors are opposed to this, calling it unnecessary clutter that isn't necessary. Other editors, such as me, consider it necessary for user who get to the wrong page through unpredictable search engine results. Also note that even supports of the current wording agreed that some should have it, such as Treaty of Paris.
Ego White Tray ( talk) 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, change it to:
Ego White Tray ( talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've change the options above to encourage, allow, discourage, don't allow. Feel free to change your statements above to conform to this. Ego White Tray ( talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
redirect}}
and the suite of {{
main}}
templates are of course generally excepted from this (I don't consider them dablinks). But the obvious cases like having a page like (the hypothetical) "John Smith (British archaeologist)" article have a {{
otherpeople}}
dablink is pointless. Even on the off chance our reader is doing research into people named John Smith, he won't reach that article and wonder why he didn't get a monster list of people by that name instead. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
08:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)I was reverted by AussieLegend, wrongly it seemed by me and explained and then reverted again. Is a hatnote forbidden for non-traditional things (see "GENERIC TEXT")? I could have used, not-a-hatnote, but it seemed ok and is used in other places without helping "readers locate a different article". In this case however, it helps locate Windows XP.. comp.arch ( talk) 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but see: Talk:Windows_XP#Security_announcement._Reverted_-_breaking_the_rules. about this security issue that might allow for an exception and its rationale. comp.arch ( talk) 23:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Section hatnotes such as {{ See also}} and {{ Details}} are frequently used, yet they are at odds with how this guideline suggests hatnotes be used, i.e. to help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. These templates, as opposed to {{ Main}} (which appropriately directs readers to the main topic article summarised in the section), give undue weight to links which should normally be featured after the article text, and distract readers from the actual content of the section. For example, in many city articles, under the Culture section, there is a see also hatnote linking to lists of theatres, cinemas, museums, etc. in the city, which I find distracting. This is comparable to WP:RELATED, which is listed under this guideline as an improper use of (article) hatnotes. I think the use of such section hatnotes should be discouraged. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use the {{ Distinguish}} template to forestall confusion between names (or other words/phrases) — especially non-English names — that are completely unrelated except that they sound very similar?
For example, there have recently been content disputes at the articles for Boko Haram (a Nigerian terrorist group) and Procol Harum (a British rock band) — some people want to put a hatnote on each of these articles to alert readers that it is "not to be confused with" the other article, while others have insisted this is inappropriate because the two entities are totally unrelated and (presumably) no one is going to confuse them. I, personally, am inclined at the moment to support inclusion of the hatnote in a case like this, but I'd like to hear what others say (including possibly a pointer to an existing guideline if one exists). — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What are the common practices about using more than one hatnote template in the same section? I didn't see anything about it on the page or in the archives. Is it avoided? Not a big deal? Might be worth mentioning on the page since it's something I've wondered a few times. For instance, both a {{ Main}} and {{ See also}} template in a section that spins out a few articles summary style. czar ♔ 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Should we be linking readers (via disambiguation notes, etc.) to the Wikipedia/Help/Manual namespaces from the mainspace? and comment. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to comment at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)