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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
There is a (somewhat disorganized) RfC being held at Talk:Nissan_Caravan#RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles seeking to determine whether longstanding disambiguation hatnotes distinguishing Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan which were removed unilaterally by User:Mr.choppers in opposition to other editors prior to initiating an RfC should instead remain in place/be restored in some form. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
A lengthy debate about whether it is correct usage or necessary for a hatnote to be added to a page where a particular model name has been used by other manufacturers has reached an inconclusive end with those debating being more or less evenly split between yes and no. The event that caused the debate was the addition of a hatnote on the Dodge Caravan and Nissan Caravan pages. At this point in time the hatnote says For other makes with the same model name, see Caravan#Automobile models.
As there are a number of similar situations with car models of the same name being made by different manufacturers I would like to see what the wider community thinks about this use of hatnotes NealeFamily ( talk) 02:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please explain what this means:
It isn't mentioned on the linked page, so the statement appears obtuse. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
hat}}
/{{
hab}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the hatnote to Template:Hidden archive top, which is back again. Following are some of the reasons why I think it isn't needed and shouldn't appear here.
And I would argue that it's not even needed. Anyone familiar with the term "hat" for hiding a discussion must be familiar with the template. They know what it is and what it does. And they can easily find it with template:Hide, or template:Hidden, or even WP:HIDE and WP:Hidden. Those last two are also shortcuts, but they are far more plausible than the obscure jargon terms "hat" and "hatting". I realize that some people are fond of these jargon terms, but this is policy page for hatnotes. Shouldn't this page try to set an example by adhering to our own guidelines? – Margin1522 ( talk)01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It says "{(tl|redirect}}... can be used when an ambiguous title is redirected to an unambiguous title or a primary topic article". Any thoughts about when exactly it's best to use it or not? For example when [Obama]] redirects to Barack Obama, it it best to say "Obama redirects here. For other uses see Obama (disambiguation)" or just "for other uses see Obama (disambiguation)"? Does it have anything to do with the relative notability/primacy of the topics? Siuenti ( talk) 21:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding
{{About|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|other uses|PAGE4}} (When there are several standard other uses and also a disambiguation page with non-default name) →
This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3. For other uses, see PAGE4.
{{About|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|other uses|PAGE4|and}} →
This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3. For other uses, see PAGE4.
What's the difference? Did the extra parameter "|and" do anything?
Paleolith ( talk) 17:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@
Paleolith: Hi, I wrote the underlying code that governs that. and
is a keyword in hatnote templates that have variations on "For X, see Y"; it lets you specify multiple pages (targets) for the same "use". For example:
{{
about|USE1|USE2|PAGE1|and|PAGE2}}
→If you don't use the and
keyword, the template assumes that the next parameter is the next "use" rather than an extra target:
{{
about|USE1|USE2|PAGE1|PAGE2}}
→ Trailing "and" keywords, or missing list items (e.g. {{
about|USE1|USE2|PAGE1|and| |and|PAGE3}}
) are intentionally ignored, for resiliency. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I am seeking help to find the hatnote that best fits what I had hoped to use for chemical weapon where I would like to say that when "CW" was used in that article it is meant as chemical weapon, for other uses see CW. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually when an italicized word is used in an italicized phrase, the convention is to put the italicized word in normal type. Using an example from Italic type#Italics within italics, "I think The Scarlet Letter had a chapter about that, thought Mary." Based on that should the example on the project page be changed from:
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014)The Giver is a 1993 American Young-adult fiction- Dystopian novel by Lois Lowry. It is set in a society which at first appears as a utopian society but then later revealed to be a dystopian one as the story progresses. The novel follows a boy named Jonas...
to:
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014)The Giver is a 1993 American young-adult fiction- dystopian novel by Lois Lowry. It is set in a society which at first appears as a utopian society but then later revealed to be a dystopian one as the story progresses. The novel follows a boy named Jonas...
Note that I've also made "young-adult" and "dystopian" lower case.
For me this frequently comes up with the scientific names of genera or species which are in italics. For example:
Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
<h1>DISPLAYTITLE</h1>
and on disambiguation pages (even with piping where necessary), suggesting italics is preferred even when referring to a Wikipedia article, not just to the concept or term it's about. I think it's a huge inconsistency and they should be in normal type.
Nardog (
talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)In many music-related articles, the text will use one of several "shorthand" notation systems to indicate musical pitches, e.g. Helmholtz pitch notation and Scientific pitch notation. For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the systems, I thought of making a hatnote template or templates that would generate messages like:
or:
Is this an appropriate use of the hatnote formatting? Should anything else be added to the text?-- Theodore Kloba ( talk) 16:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The hatnote on mainspace that linked to project page maybe confusing some readers. We should prioritize readers over editors. Just because its Wikipedia doesn't mean that you can link the similar term that only the editors community know, it may violated WP:SELF. Example: Village Pump, Word-sense disambiguation, Sandpit, Style guide, etc. Hddty. ( talk) 15:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Rule n. 5 of the lead recites: "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page. This also applies to the usage of hatnotes in subsections of articles. Such usage is not discouraged, and subsections should also have a maximum of one hatnote as well"; did the author possibly mean: "[..] Such usage is discouraged [...]", or "Such usage is not discouraged, but subsections should also have a maximum of one hatnote as well"?
Jan Hoellwarth ( talk) 18:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Jax 0677 and I disagree on whether {{ confuse}} is appropriate for Brooke Burns and Brooke Burke. It appears we differ on our understanding of what is meant by the admonition that we should "[m]ention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." He argues that, where a name differs by only two letters, there is a real risk of confusion; I maintain that the significant difference in pronunciation and spelling (and typing) makes this improbable at best and that the hatnote is unnecessary clutter. A third opinion would be appreciated. Rebb ing 03:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I just stumbled into a minor disagreement (in the BRD sense, not the EW sense) on disambiguating hatnotes, and in the process of figuring out what to do, there were two things I wished for more guidance on from WP:HAT. First, the players:
Now, what I landed on based on current guidance is that Scala Theatre should not have a hatnote to Scala (club) because neither the venues' names nor their articles' names are actually ambiguous. Neither should Scala Theatre have a hatnote to Scala (disambiguation), because Scala doesn't redirect there and the article's title is not ambiguous. So far so good.
Now my first issue: while Scala Theatre and Scala (club) (or the other performance venues with "Scala" in their name) are not actually ambiguous, they are fairly generic. Both our readers and the reliable sources are very likely to refer to all such places as "the Scala" (and rely on context to determine which is meant). Thus, to my mind, it would be entirely appropriate to have a hatnote saying something like For similarly named venues, see Scala (disambiguation)#Places and buildings. And even if the consensus would be against that, I would still want more direct guidance on how to handle such cases.
The second issue is the hatnote link to a dab page section: Scala (disambiguation)#Places and buildings. For this particular case, none of the other entries on the dab page is remotely relevant; only the buildings and places in that section. But I didn't find any guidance on whether including the section link was appropriate or not. Personally I am torn on the issue (either option has disadvantages) and would have appreciated some guidance that addressed this more directly.
I'm glad to see we have guidance on hatnote templates to use when selectively transcluding entire sections of articles. I'm sure I'll have desperate need of that any day now. :)
In any case, with some close reading of this page, and keeping IAR firmly in mind, I'm sure we'll figure out the specific case that prompted this. But next time I run into a similar issue I would love to have more specific guidance to lean on: hence this request. -- Xover ( talk) 07:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
==Implications<!--Section linked from [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]] (see [[MOS:HEAD]])-->==
"
Biogeographist (
talk) 15:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Several hatnote templates have been nominated for merging/deltion. See:
Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
To what extent, if any, does the appropriateness for a hatnote from A to B imply propriety in the reciprocal form from B to A?-- John Cline ( talk) 08:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly under what circumstances, the distinguish hatnote can be added to an article? Is it only based on the user's taste? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 13:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
{{Distinguish|Coma}}
is used in the
Comma article as a reader might confuse “Coma” with “Comma” since the two terms are so similar.
Interqwark
talk
contribs 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:For has been nominated for merging with Template:Other uses. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 02:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I still see a lot of this sort of misuse of hatnotes, and I don't think the extra notice would hurt. User:PamD respectfully disagrees. Thoughts? — swpb T go beyond 16:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The lede, bullet point 1, says "Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links.". The examples in the "Linking to a disambiguation page" section show "(disambiguation)" in the examples, i.e. not piped.
So why say "non-disambiguation pages"? We shouldn't pipe to any pages, not make this loophole. I've just fixed an example of it being jumped through in the hatnote at Yellow, for Yellow #5 (disambiguation). 94.21.204.175 ( talk) 01:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
confused}}
? That seems a way to add, not reduce, confusion. Just use a different hatnote: This article is about bar. For foo, see
Foo (disambiguation).{{
other uses}}
is the base case where the words "other uses" themselves make "(disambiguation)" redundant.You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Hatnote_for_Buggy_(automobile) regarding the hatnote for Buggy (automobile).— Bagumba ( talk) 12:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This is just one example, but it is something that could happen with other search terms. I made a note several months ago about an article in an actual newspaper about "WALL-E" that I wanted to learn more about. I forgot to make a note about which newspaper figuring it would be easy enough to find the information, but every single Google result for "WALL-E" is about the movie or the character. Had a made a note about what it was about, I might have had better luck. Guessing which newspaper didn't help since a search of its web site didn't work, but another resource I could access this week gave me what I needed, and I made an improvement to a Wikipedia article and was able to link to it, after which I was reverted, along with a change that would work better. Well, maybe. It depends on whether a person would actually look at "See also". If you remember only that something else is called "WALL-E", Wikipedia is not very helpful at this point. Although maybe that is unlikely. Either the WALL-E article needs a hatnote or there needs to be a disambiguation page. Also see this discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the capitalization needed for the the first letter of the article title in the hatnote? For example:
or
. — Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are two hatnote examples of two Guernsey women with the same surname and similar given names, and both working during the German occupation of the Channel Islands during World War II.
.
The about hatnote seeks to avoid the likely confusion with specific details. -- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 00:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the name of the "this" article is needed; date useful here because the death dates are so different that they will help distinguish; Salvation Army seems the major description for Marie; no extra blue links needed. I've edited both hatnotes, to:
and
I've had it happen 3-4 times where , on a very high profile article, someone inserts a disambig to an obscure song or album of the same name by a band at the top of the article. Imagine at the top of the United States a disambig that says "for the song "United States" by Larry's Band, see "United States (Larry's Band song)" In every case it's been pretty clear that it is to advertise the product in a prominent place. Usually they cite this editing guidline to say that it should stay in. Item #3 sort of says otherwise but covering this better would be good. Probably replace the "possibility" wordin #3 with something clearer. And maybe add "be particular careful on this criteria when listing a commercial product. North8000 ( talk) 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The most recent occurrence of this (at the folk music article) was the most recent example that triggered this, but it it were about that particular situation I would handle it at the article rather than here. The reason I brought it up here is as described when I started this thread. We can't say that providing ability for find an article rests solely on disambig. Using the discussed example, it would be ludicrous for somebody to be surprised to not end up at the "Show of Hands" band's album when they typed in "Folk Music". And for finding the "Show of Hands" album one merely needs to type that in the search bar and they will quickly find the album. Possibly Uanfala's idea of Folk Music disambiguation page would be a work-around for most of these. If the title is prominent, there are probably several candidates to list on the disambig page. North8000 ( talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If there is literally only two topics that meet the name, with one being clearly the most commonly known part of the topic, and the other something obscure, the hat note is the only way to do this. If there's two relaitvely unnknowns along with the clearly known one, then a disambiguation page could be the way to not dilute the main topic, but when its only the 1, this is the only route to help with searching. -- Masem ( t) 23:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I've just noticed that some old hatnote templates, such as Template:Distinguish-otheruses and Template:Distinguish-otheruses2, do not parse links to subsections in line with Template:Section link. For example:
{{Distinguish-otheruses|Example#section|Another#section}}
Renders as:
Instead of:
I'm not too familiar with modules etc. needed to fix this – can someone more experienced take a look? ‑‑ Yodin T 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the question at Talk:Monotheism#Monotheist_hatnote. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Disambiguation#Use of "See also" hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we be putting italics inside already-italicized hatnotes when such words would otherwise be italicized? SchreiberBike ( talk · contribs) asked this previously, but it's been archived at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 7#Italics in italics after only three editors commented (two in favor, one opposed). I've assumed this was SOP, but upon reading this guideline, I found it wasn't. Can this be added to the guideline? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as how this has not attracted any more comment, I've boldly changed the only example on the associated project page which uses italics. If that flies, then maybe also we can add some text to the instructions. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
===Hatnotes with italics in the links===
Caprona agama, the spotted angle, is a butterfly belonging to the family Hesperiidae. ...
The italics are reverted by the parameterization: {{ Redirect|Spotted angle|the other butterfly with this name|Caprona alida{{!}}''Caprona alida''}}
@
Quercus solaris: I removed: "which is why it is counterproductive that the Wikipedia mobile app fails to display hatnotes. It used to display them below the lede; now it hides them from the user entirely."
from the project page. It's an important point, but I don't think we should be trying to fix the apps by commenting on them here. I'm not sure where such discussion should take place. Any ideas? Maybe ask at
WP:VPT.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 02:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Hatnote_for_Chinese_names_of_people. Sdkb ( talk) 02:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A widely recognised issue is that we've got too many hatnote templates. Surprisingly many, given how simple is the job they do. One major practical consequence is that it can be difficult for editors to find the right template they need. Navigation to these templates happens via the section Wikipedia:Hatnote#Hatnote templates and the navbox Template:Hatnote templates. How can these two places be improved? Please, share any ideas you might have!
Here are a few thoughts:
If there are no objections, I will likely proceed to implement some of these suggestions. Please share your ideas as well! – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph of WP:1HAT currently reads:
To keep hatnotes short, generally they should only list disambiguation pages ( X (disambiguation)) if the article is at X or if X redirects to that article. If X is a disambiguation page and the article is at X (letter), then X (letter) generally needs no hatnote. Direct links to other articles should be limited to circumstances immediately following a page move or redirect change or if the other article could be reasonably expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question: for instance, Turkey is about the country, but many readers reasonably expect to find the article on the bird at that title; therefore, the hatnote there correctly reads
{{about|the country|the bird|Turkey (bird)|other uses}}
which renders
To a reader unfamiliar with hatnotes, this would seem to suggest that hatnotes should never link to articles, only to dab pages. This should be rewritten to make it clear it's about cases where a disambiguation pages already exists. I'm also finding it bizarre that it suggests links to articles (given a dab page exists) are OK not only when a significant number of readers might be looking for that article but also for circumstances immediately following a page move or redirect change
. This should be dropped altogether: after a move we change the hatnotes and call it a day, we don't go back and forth between different hatnote setups depending on how much time has elapsed since the move. I'm proposing the following version for this paragraph:
If a disambiguation page exists for a given term, then linking to it should be enough. For example, if the article is X then its hatnote will link to X (disambiguation); it should not have entries for other topics known as X, like X (novel) or X (charge), because they are already listed in the disambiguation page. However, an article could be linked to in addition to the disambiguation page if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question: for instance, Turkey is about the country, but many readers expect to find the article on the bird at that title; therefore, the hatnote there correctly reads
{{about|the country|the bird|Turkey (bird)|other uses}}
which renders
Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:Redirect for has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:Distinguish-otheruses (and the related Template:Distinguish-otheruses2 and Template:Distinguish-otheruses3) are now also at TfD. – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
{{ Other uses2}} is up for deletion as well: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#Template:Other uses2. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have tried adding a hatnote at Alexander Friedmann but have been reverted. Can someone else please take a look. Thanks. Tassedethe ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm considering asking for a bot (or an editor with a semi-automated tool like AWB) to replace some instances of {{ other uses of}} and {{ other uses2}} with the more common {{ other uses}}. The main point is that we don't have uses of a more obscure template when the same job can be accomplished by using a simpler, more widely known one. The two replacements are the following:
{{other uses of|X}}
with {{other uses}}
in all cases where X
is the same as the article's title. This will result in a change of appearance. For example, the hanote at
Anomie currently looks like this:{{Other uses2|X}}
with {{Other uses}}
in all cases where X
equals the article's title. This will not change the appearance, but it could have a possibly negative side effect if in the future the article is moved – with {{Other uses2|X}}
the link will remain the same after the move, but with {{Other uses}}
it will likely need to be updated. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing – after most moves hatnotes will need to be changed anyway (for example a {{
for}} hatnote will need to be replaced with a {{
redirect}}), and if the link in the hatnote suddenly turns red after the move this will be a good reminder for editors to edit the hatnote.I'm seeing these replacements as a small step towards simplifying existing uses of the hatnote templates, and a prelude to getting a better handle on the remaining uses of these two templates (see here for some context). The total number of pages affected is going to be around a thousand.
I'm looking for feedback – if you think this is a bad idea let me know, and if you believe this will be an improvement then please say so – any future bot request will need evidence of consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
hastemplate:"other uses of" insource:/\{\{ *other *uses *of *\}\}/
. While I've probably eliminated all of the cases, if new parameter-less instances of the template are added, they'll also become categorized as using unusual parameters. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 02:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Hatnotes. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Volksfront#Hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Watchers here may be interested in a hatnote-related discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 4#Template:Not WMF. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 26#Template:Multiple pronouns. Crossroads -talk- 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've seen some templates that place disambiguatory hatnotes at the top of the documentation, and others that place it at the top of the template itself (within noinclude tags). Which is correct? The advantage of having it at the top of the page is that it would fit better with the general practice of placing hatnotes at the top so that readers looking for another page can easily get where they want to go without having to wade into the wrong page. There are a few small disadvantages, though: putting it at the top requires using noinclude tags (thus making the page slightly more complex), prevents non-template editors from directly adding them to protected pages, and introduces possible confusion with the template itself (which is not a problem for 99% of templates, but definitely a problem for e.g. {{ For}}). If this hasn't been discussed before, I think it'd be a good thing to sort out and standardize. Courtesy pinging Andrybak and Mdaniels5757 who I recently briefly discussed this with at {{ Button}}. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we could improve the family of hatnote templates by improving the naming scheme of variants. The names-with-numbers-appended pattern is opaque. I'd like to propose a mass move of templates so that their names are more self-explanatory:
There's one template that would presumably escape with its number intact, which is {{ redirect2}}, used for mentioning two redirects in a single hatnote—I don't know how I'd rename that one if at all. I figured I'd mention this idea here first, as I'm open to alternative naming schemes, so that this idea could start as a discussion rather than go immediately to TfD as a pass–fail proposal. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
|text=
parameter), and the dedicated custom-text templates got deleted (like {{
About2}} or {{
Distinguish2}}). The trouble now is that for some hatnote templates, custom text is handled in one way, and for others it's handled in a different way. I believe that whatever is ultimately chosen as the best solution, should be done across the board – for simplicity and consistency. We shouldn't be forcing editors to learn two separate ways of doing the same thing and then making them also remember which template used each one. Using the text parameter everywhere would be nice, but my impression from the quick look I had on the issue a few years ago was that there would be templates for which this wouldn't work. –
Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
|text=
instead of a separate "text" template. If that's not all there is … well, I suppose we can go for the short-term patch of tweaking the names for clarity while poking further at the issue. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 05:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Previous discussions (some bigger than others):
At the last discussion in particular, it became clear that the overall matter of surname hatnotes needs a large, centralized discussion, since there is extensive discontent with the current way of doing things (i.e. using templates like {{ Chinese name}}) due to the fact that it contravenes the hatnote guidelines at WP:HAT and gives extremely prominent placement to what is essentially trivia. I have been pushing {{ Efn Chinese name}} and its peers as an alternative framework that uses a footnote instead of the hatnote. There have also been consolidation concerns, which it looks like Primefac has recently tried to address with the creation of {{ Family name hatnote}}.
At the TfD, Bsherr and Coffeeandcrumbs discussed where an appropriate venue might be for an upcoming large discussion. Given the potential impact of a change in this area, I'm inclined to agree with C&C that WP:VPR would be the appropriate venue; we'd also want to place {{ See also}} notices here, at WT:WikiProject Anthroponymy, and other relevant places.
For here and now, I think we should focus, first, on doing some brainstorming. We currently have a plethora of different problems and two different frameworks in use. Are there additional problems that we'll want to solve with any wide-scale changes we may make? Are there other potential frameworks we might want to explore? Once we've brainstormed, we should then put together a draft RfC that we can take to the pump to seek consensus.
I'm hopeful that if we go about this intelligently, we'll be able to overcome the inertia of the status quo and put a better system in place. Please keep in mind that this is a meta planning discussion, and save any discussion that belongs at the upcoming RfC for the RfC. Also, there have been quite a few people involved in the different scattered discussions above, and there may be discussions I've missed. Feel free to list any other discussions, and to ping folks so long as you do it evenly. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If the RfC must be held here, please ensure the widest possible notification, including
WP:CENT. This would have huge ramifications. Also ensure the RfC is very concise and to the point: Should all surname, family name, patronymic name templates such as {{
Korean name}}, {{
Chinese name}}, and {{
Patronymic name}} be removed?
You can include a list of previous discussions, but please keep all opinions out of the preface and add them to your !votes.
I warn you that, if the consensus reached is localized, the confusion we would create maybe disruptive and far-reaching. I suspect these templates have been very helpful to readers and have also been protecting many pages from damage, from drive-by editors that would change all instances of the subjects name to Western perceptions and bastardizations. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
... and the information moved to {{ efn}} and Edit Noticesor something like that. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Uanfala brings up some alternatives to the efn idea that we've seen workshopped. I suppose I should point out that we don't necessarily need to mandate a style for this information at all. It is possible we could create templates for the information to be presented as an efn, or in an infobox, or something else, and let the decision of which is best be made at the article level. That would address David Eppstein's concern that not all articles are wanting of efns. Obviously not all articles have infoboxes either. And, as appropriate, an edit notice would address those who find that the purpose is to prevent unaware editing of the articles. A result that it can be anything but a hatnote would be a valid one. -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: After reviewing some of the above. Yes, of course they are hatnotes. Yes, of course we have used hatnotes for more than just navigational information since around their invention. (I would cite some additional examples, but I think at this juncture that would have a WP:SPITE effect of inspiring someone to go create more trouble.) The bare fact that we have done so for about a decade and a half is proof, ipso facto, of consensus to do so. If someone in the interim has edited the hatnote guideline (note: not policy) to inject some kind of "never ever for anything but nav links" dictat, where is the consensus for that, and on what basis is anyone considering that it supersedes many years of actual practice (which is what consensus actually is)? Remember that consensus is not a type of discussion or decision, it is a result of discussions and decisions (primarily the latter, and primarily unwritten). So, to get to the RfC-drafting point, all of the heated invective about these side matters is a distracting waste of time, and the RfC should directly discourage it in some way. Yes, consensus can change, and TfDs have suggested that is has for these specific templates, not for all hatnotes ever. Wallowing in philosophical what-ifs and I-wishes will not help the RfC clarify consensus in any way, and just mire it in angry and basically off-topic noise. Finally, WP:CONSENSUS is clear that consensus can form anywhere. The venue for the present discussion and for the actual RfC really doesn't matter much as long as the drafting process is not dominated by a micro-cabal of people with the same opinion, the RfC is neutrally worded and actually addresses the right questions well, and the live RfC is well-"advertised" to the proper venues, including to VPPOL and CENT, which would be appropriate since this would affect a large number of articles; to related guidelines' talk page (this one, WT:MOSBIO, WT:MOSLAYOUT, plus WT:MOSJAPAN and other culture-specific ones with name hatnotes); to the templates' talk pages (incl. also the "root" Template talk:Hatnote and Module talk:Hatnote); and to appropriate wikiprojects' talk pages ( WT:APO, WT:WPT, WT:WPBIO), and so on). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:48, 27 October 2020 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
There is a (somewhat disorganized) RfC being held at Talk:Nissan_Caravan#RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles seeking to determine whether longstanding disambiguation hatnotes distinguishing Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan which were removed unilaterally by User:Mr.choppers in opposition to other editors prior to initiating an RfC should instead remain in place/be restored in some form. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
A lengthy debate about whether it is correct usage or necessary for a hatnote to be added to a page where a particular model name has been used by other manufacturers has reached an inconclusive end with those debating being more or less evenly split between yes and no. The event that caused the debate was the addition of a hatnote on the Dodge Caravan and Nissan Caravan pages. At this point in time the hatnote says For other makes with the same model name, see Caravan#Automobile models.
As there are a number of similar situations with car models of the same name being made by different manufacturers I would like to see what the wider community thinks about this use of hatnotes NealeFamily ( talk) 02:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please explain what this means:
It isn't mentioned on the linked page, so the statement appears obtuse. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
hat}}
/{{
hab}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the hatnote to Template:Hidden archive top, which is back again. Following are some of the reasons why I think it isn't needed and shouldn't appear here.
And I would argue that it's not even needed. Anyone familiar with the term "hat" for hiding a discussion must be familiar with the template. They know what it is and what it does. And they can easily find it with template:Hide, or template:Hidden, or even WP:HIDE and WP:Hidden. Those last two are also shortcuts, but they are far more plausible than the obscure jargon terms "hat" and "hatting". I realize that some people are fond of these jargon terms, but this is policy page for hatnotes. Shouldn't this page try to set an example by adhering to our own guidelines? – Margin1522 ( talk)01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It says "{(tl|redirect}}... can be used when an ambiguous title is redirected to an unambiguous title or a primary topic article". Any thoughts about when exactly it's best to use it or not? For example when [Obama]] redirects to Barack Obama, it it best to say "Obama redirects here. For other uses see Obama (disambiguation)" or just "for other uses see Obama (disambiguation)"? Does it have anything to do with the relative notability/primacy of the topics? Siuenti ( talk) 21:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding
{{About|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|other uses|PAGE4}} (When there are several standard other uses and also a disambiguation page with non-default name) →
This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3. For other uses, see PAGE4.
{{About|USE1|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|other uses|PAGE4|and}} →
This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. For USE3, see PAGE3. For other uses, see PAGE4.
What's the difference? Did the extra parameter "|and" do anything?
Paleolith ( talk) 17:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@
Paleolith: Hi, I wrote the underlying code that governs that. and
is a keyword in hatnote templates that have variations on "For X, see Y"; it lets you specify multiple pages (targets) for the same "use". For example:
{{
about|USE1|USE2|PAGE1|and|PAGE2}}
→If you don't use the and
keyword, the template assumes that the next parameter is the next "use" rather than an extra target:
{{
about|USE1|USE2|PAGE1|PAGE2}}
→ Trailing "and" keywords, or missing list items (e.g. {{
about|USE1|USE2|PAGE1|and| |and|PAGE3}}
) are intentionally ignored, for resiliency. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I am seeking help to find the hatnote that best fits what I had hoped to use for chemical weapon where I would like to say that when "CW" was used in that article it is meant as chemical weapon, for other uses see CW. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually when an italicized word is used in an italicized phrase, the convention is to put the italicized word in normal type. Using an example from Italic type#Italics within italics, "I think The Scarlet Letter had a chapter about that, thought Mary." Based on that should the example on the project page be changed from:
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014)The Giver is a 1993 American Young-adult fiction- Dystopian novel by Lois Lowry. It is set in a society which at first appears as a utopian society but then later revealed to be a dystopian one as the story progresses. The novel follows a boy named Jonas...
to:
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2014)The Giver is a 1993 American young-adult fiction- dystopian novel by Lois Lowry. It is set in a society which at first appears as a utopian society but then later revealed to be a dystopian one as the story progresses. The novel follows a boy named Jonas...
Note that I've also made "young-adult" and "dystopian" lower case.
For me this frequently comes up with the scientific names of genera or species which are in italics. For example:
Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
<h1>DISPLAYTITLE</h1>
and on disambiguation pages (even with piping where necessary), suggesting italics is preferred even when referring to a Wikipedia article, not just to the concept or term it's about. I think it's a huge inconsistency and they should be in normal type.
Nardog (
talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)In many music-related articles, the text will use one of several "shorthand" notation systems to indicate musical pitches, e.g. Helmholtz pitch notation and Scientific pitch notation. For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the systems, I thought of making a hatnote template or templates that would generate messages like:
or:
Is this an appropriate use of the hatnote formatting? Should anything else be added to the text?-- Theodore Kloba ( talk) 16:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The hatnote on mainspace that linked to project page maybe confusing some readers. We should prioritize readers over editors. Just because its Wikipedia doesn't mean that you can link the similar term that only the editors community know, it may violated WP:SELF. Example: Village Pump, Word-sense disambiguation, Sandpit, Style guide, etc. Hddty. ( talk) 15:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Rule n. 5 of the lead recites: "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page. This also applies to the usage of hatnotes in subsections of articles. Such usage is not discouraged, and subsections should also have a maximum of one hatnote as well"; did the author possibly mean: "[..] Such usage is discouraged [...]", or "Such usage is not discouraged, but subsections should also have a maximum of one hatnote as well"?
Jan Hoellwarth ( talk) 18:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Jax 0677 and I disagree on whether {{ confuse}} is appropriate for Brooke Burns and Brooke Burke. It appears we differ on our understanding of what is meant by the admonition that we should "[m]ention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." He argues that, where a name differs by only two letters, there is a real risk of confusion; I maintain that the significant difference in pronunciation and spelling (and typing) makes this improbable at best and that the hatnote is unnecessary clutter. A third opinion would be appreciated. Rebb ing 03:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I just stumbled into a minor disagreement (in the BRD sense, not the EW sense) on disambiguating hatnotes, and in the process of figuring out what to do, there were two things I wished for more guidance on from WP:HAT. First, the players:
Now, what I landed on based on current guidance is that Scala Theatre should not have a hatnote to Scala (club) because neither the venues' names nor their articles' names are actually ambiguous. Neither should Scala Theatre have a hatnote to Scala (disambiguation), because Scala doesn't redirect there and the article's title is not ambiguous. So far so good.
Now my first issue: while Scala Theatre and Scala (club) (or the other performance venues with "Scala" in their name) are not actually ambiguous, they are fairly generic. Both our readers and the reliable sources are very likely to refer to all such places as "the Scala" (and rely on context to determine which is meant). Thus, to my mind, it would be entirely appropriate to have a hatnote saying something like For similarly named venues, see Scala (disambiguation)#Places and buildings. And even if the consensus would be against that, I would still want more direct guidance on how to handle such cases.
The second issue is the hatnote link to a dab page section: Scala (disambiguation)#Places and buildings. For this particular case, none of the other entries on the dab page is remotely relevant; only the buildings and places in that section. But I didn't find any guidance on whether including the section link was appropriate or not. Personally I am torn on the issue (either option has disadvantages) and would have appreciated some guidance that addressed this more directly.
I'm glad to see we have guidance on hatnote templates to use when selectively transcluding entire sections of articles. I'm sure I'll have desperate need of that any day now. :)
In any case, with some close reading of this page, and keeping IAR firmly in mind, I'm sure we'll figure out the specific case that prompted this. But next time I run into a similar issue I would love to have more specific guidance to lean on: hence this request. -- Xover ( talk) 07:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
==Implications<!--Section linked from [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Daniel Dennett]] (see [[MOS:HEAD]])-->==
"
Biogeographist (
talk) 15:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Several hatnote templates have been nominated for merging/deltion. See:
Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
To what extent, if any, does the appropriateness for a hatnote from A to B imply propriety in the reciprocal form from B to A?-- John Cline ( talk) 08:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly under what circumstances, the distinguish hatnote can be added to an article? Is it only based on the user's taste? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 13:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
{{Distinguish|Coma}}
is used in the
Comma article as a reader might confuse “Coma” with “Comma” since the two terms are so similar.
Interqwark
talk
contribs 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:For has been nominated for merging with Template:Other uses. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 02:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I still see a lot of this sort of misuse of hatnotes, and I don't think the extra notice would hurt. User:PamD respectfully disagrees. Thoughts? — swpb T go beyond 16:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The lede, bullet point 1, says "Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links.". The examples in the "Linking to a disambiguation page" section show "(disambiguation)" in the examples, i.e. not piped.
So why say "non-disambiguation pages"? We shouldn't pipe to any pages, not make this loophole. I've just fixed an example of it being jumped through in the hatnote at Yellow, for Yellow #5 (disambiguation). 94.21.204.175 ( talk) 01:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
confused}}
? That seems a way to add, not reduce, confusion. Just use a different hatnote: This article is about bar. For foo, see
Foo (disambiguation).{{
other uses}}
is the base case where the words "other uses" themselves make "(disambiguation)" redundant.You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Hatnote_for_Buggy_(automobile) regarding the hatnote for Buggy (automobile).— Bagumba ( talk) 12:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This is just one example, but it is something that could happen with other search terms. I made a note several months ago about an article in an actual newspaper about "WALL-E" that I wanted to learn more about. I forgot to make a note about which newspaper figuring it would be easy enough to find the information, but every single Google result for "WALL-E" is about the movie or the character. Had a made a note about what it was about, I might have had better luck. Guessing which newspaper didn't help since a search of its web site didn't work, but another resource I could access this week gave me what I needed, and I made an improvement to a Wikipedia article and was able to link to it, after which I was reverted, along with a change that would work better. Well, maybe. It depends on whether a person would actually look at "See also". If you remember only that something else is called "WALL-E", Wikipedia is not very helpful at this point. Although maybe that is unlikely. Either the WALL-E article needs a hatnote or there needs to be a disambiguation page. Also see this discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Is the capitalization needed for the the first letter of the article title in the hatnote? For example:
or
. — Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 ( talk) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are two hatnote examples of two Guernsey women with the same surname and similar given names, and both working during the German occupation of the Channel Islands during World War II.
.
The about hatnote seeks to avoid the likely confusion with specific details. -- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 00:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the name of the "this" article is needed; date useful here because the death dates are so different that they will help distinguish; Salvation Army seems the major description for Marie; no extra blue links needed. I've edited both hatnotes, to:
and
I've had it happen 3-4 times where , on a very high profile article, someone inserts a disambig to an obscure song or album of the same name by a band at the top of the article. Imagine at the top of the United States a disambig that says "for the song "United States" by Larry's Band, see "United States (Larry's Band song)" In every case it's been pretty clear that it is to advertise the product in a prominent place. Usually they cite this editing guidline to say that it should stay in. Item #3 sort of says otherwise but covering this better would be good. Probably replace the "possibility" wordin #3 with something clearer. And maybe add "be particular careful on this criteria when listing a commercial product. North8000 ( talk) 13:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The most recent occurrence of this (at the folk music article) was the most recent example that triggered this, but it it were about that particular situation I would handle it at the article rather than here. The reason I brought it up here is as described when I started this thread. We can't say that providing ability for find an article rests solely on disambig. Using the discussed example, it would be ludicrous for somebody to be surprised to not end up at the "Show of Hands" band's album when they typed in "Folk Music". And for finding the "Show of Hands" album one merely needs to type that in the search bar and they will quickly find the album. Possibly Uanfala's idea of Folk Music disambiguation page would be a work-around for most of these. If the title is prominent, there are probably several candidates to list on the disambig page. North8000 ( talk) 22:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If there is literally only two topics that meet the name, with one being clearly the most commonly known part of the topic, and the other something obscure, the hat note is the only way to do this. If there's two relaitvely unnknowns along with the clearly known one, then a disambiguation page could be the way to not dilute the main topic, but when its only the 1, this is the only route to help with searching. -- Masem ( t) 23:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I've just noticed that some old hatnote templates, such as Template:Distinguish-otheruses and Template:Distinguish-otheruses2, do not parse links to subsections in line with Template:Section link. For example:
{{Distinguish-otheruses|Example#section|Another#section}}
Renders as:
Instead of:
I'm not too familiar with modules etc. needed to fix this – can someone more experienced take a look? ‑‑ Yodin T 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the question at Talk:Monotheism#Monotheist_hatnote. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Disambiguation#Use of "See also" hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Should we be putting italics inside already-italicized hatnotes when such words would otherwise be italicized? SchreiberBike ( talk · contribs) asked this previously, but it's been archived at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 7#Italics in italics after only three editors commented (two in favor, one opposed). I've assumed this was SOP, but upon reading this guideline, I found it wasn't. Can this be added to the guideline? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as how this has not attracted any more comment, I've boldly changed the only example on the associated project page which uses italics. If that flies, then maybe also we can add some text to the instructions. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
===Hatnotes with italics in the links===
Caprona agama, the spotted angle, is a butterfly belonging to the family Hesperiidae. ...
The italics are reverted by the parameterization: {{ Redirect|Spotted angle|the other butterfly with this name|Caprona alida{{!}}''Caprona alida''}}
@
Quercus solaris: I removed: "which is why it is counterproductive that the Wikipedia mobile app fails to display hatnotes. It used to display them below the lede; now it hides them from the user entirely."
from the project page. It's an important point, but I don't think we should be trying to fix the apps by commenting on them here. I'm not sure where such discussion should take place. Any ideas? Maybe ask at
WP:VPT.
SchreiberBike |
⌨ 02:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Hatnote_for_Chinese_names_of_people. Sdkb ( talk) 02:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A widely recognised issue is that we've got too many hatnote templates. Surprisingly many, given how simple is the job they do. One major practical consequence is that it can be difficult for editors to find the right template they need. Navigation to these templates happens via the section Wikipedia:Hatnote#Hatnote templates and the navbox Template:Hatnote templates. How can these two places be improved? Please, share any ideas you might have!
Here are a few thoughts:
If there are no objections, I will likely proceed to implement some of these suggestions. Please share your ideas as well! – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph of WP:1HAT currently reads:
To keep hatnotes short, generally they should only list disambiguation pages ( X (disambiguation)) if the article is at X or if X redirects to that article. If X is a disambiguation page and the article is at X (letter), then X (letter) generally needs no hatnote. Direct links to other articles should be limited to circumstances immediately following a page move or redirect change or if the other article could be reasonably expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question: for instance, Turkey is about the country, but many readers reasonably expect to find the article on the bird at that title; therefore, the hatnote there correctly reads
{{about|the country|the bird|Turkey (bird)|other uses}}
which renders
To a reader unfamiliar with hatnotes, this would seem to suggest that hatnotes should never link to articles, only to dab pages. This should be rewritten to make it clear it's about cases where a disambiguation pages already exists. I'm also finding it bizarre that it suggests links to articles (given a dab page exists) are OK not only when a significant number of readers might be looking for that article but also for circumstances immediately following a page move or redirect change
. This should be dropped altogether: after a move we change the hatnotes and call it a day, we don't go back and forth between different hatnote setups depending on how much time has elapsed since the move. I'm proposing the following version for this paragraph:
If a disambiguation page exists for a given term, then linking to it should be enough. For example, if the article is X then its hatnote will link to X (disambiguation); it should not have entries for other topics known as X, like X (novel) or X (charge), because they are already listed in the disambiguation page. However, an article could be linked to in addition to the disambiguation page if it could be expected by a significant number of readers to be at the title in question: for instance, Turkey is about the country, but many readers expect to find the article on the bird at that title; therefore, the hatnote there correctly reads
{{about|the country|the bird|Turkey (bird)|other uses}}
which renders
Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:Redirect for has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:Distinguish-otheruses (and the related Template:Distinguish-otheruses2 and Template:Distinguish-otheruses3) are now also at TfD. – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
{{ Other uses2}} is up for deletion as well: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#Template:Other uses2. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have tried adding a hatnote at Alexander Friedmann but have been reverted. Can someone else please take a look. Thanks. Tassedethe ( talk) 17:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm considering asking for a bot (or an editor with a semi-automated tool like AWB) to replace some instances of {{ other uses of}} and {{ other uses2}} with the more common {{ other uses}}. The main point is that we don't have uses of a more obscure template when the same job can be accomplished by using a simpler, more widely known one. The two replacements are the following:
{{other uses of|X}}
with {{other uses}}
in all cases where X
is the same as the article's title. This will result in a change of appearance. For example, the hanote at
Anomie currently looks like this:{{Other uses2|X}}
with {{Other uses}}
in all cases where X
equals the article's title. This will not change the appearance, but it could have a possibly negative side effect if in the future the article is moved – with {{Other uses2|X}}
the link will remain the same after the move, but with {{Other uses}}
it will likely need to be updated. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing – after most moves hatnotes will need to be changed anyway (for example a {{
for}} hatnote will need to be replaced with a {{
redirect}}), and if the link in the hatnote suddenly turns red after the move this will be a good reminder for editors to edit the hatnote.I'm seeing these replacements as a small step towards simplifying existing uses of the hatnote templates, and a prelude to getting a better handle on the remaining uses of these two templates (see here for some context). The total number of pages affected is going to be around a thousand.
I'm looking for feedback – if you think this is a bad idea let me know, and if you believe this will be an improvement then please say so – any future bot request will need evidence of consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
hastemplate:"other uses of" insource:/\{\{ *other *uses *of *\}\}/
. While I've probably eliminated all of the cases, if new parameter-less instances of the template are added, they'll also become categorized as using unusual parameters. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 02:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Hatnotes. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Volksfront#Hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Watchers here may be interested in a hatnote-related discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 4#Template:Not WMF. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 26#Template:Multiple pronouns. Crossroads -talk- 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've seen some templates that place disambiguatory hatnotes at the top of the documentation, and others that place it at the top of the template itself (within noinclude tags). Which is correct? The advantage of having it at the top of the page is that it would fit better with the general practice of placing hatnotes at the top so that readers looking for another page can easily get where they want to go without having to wade into the wrong page. There are a few small disadvantages, though: putting it at the top requires using noinclude tags (thus making the page slightly more complex), prevents non-template editors from directly adding them to protected pages, and introduces possible confusion with the template itself (which is not a problem for 99% of templates, but definitely a problem for e.g. {{ For}}). If this hasn't been discussed before, I think it'd be a good thing to sort out and standardize. Courtesy pinging Andrybak and Mdaniels5757 who I recently briefly discussed this with at {{ Button}}. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we could improve the family of hatnote templates by improving the naming scheme of variants. The names-with-numbers-appended pattern is opaque. I'd like to propose a mass move of templates so that their names are more self-explanatory:
There's one template that would presumably escape with its number intact, which is {{ redirect2}}, used for mentioning two redirects in a single hatnote—I don't know how I'd rename that one if at all. I figured I'd mention this idea here first, as I'm open to alternative naming schemes, so that this idea could start as a discussion rather than go immediately to TfD as a pass–fail proposal. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
|text=
parameter), and the dedicated custom-text templates got deleted (like {{
About2}} or {{
Distinguish2}}). The trouble now is that for some hatnote templates, custom text is handled in one way, and for others it's handled in a different way. I believe that whatever is ultimately chosen as the best solution, should be done across the board – for simplicity and consistency. We shouldn't be forcing editors to learn two separate ways of doing the same thing and then making them also remember which template used each one. Using the text parameter everywhere would be nice, but my impression from the quick look I had on the issue a few years ago was that there would be templates for which this wouldn't work. –
Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
|text=
instead of a separate "text" template. If that's not all there is … well, I suppose we can go for the short-term patch of tweaking the names for clarity while poking further at the issue. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 05:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Previous discussions (some bigger than others):
At the last discussion in particular, it became clear that the overall matter of surname hatnotes needs a large, centralized discussion, since there is extensive discontent with the current way of doing things (i.e. using templates like {{ Chinese name}}) due to the fact that it contravenes the hatnote guidelines at WP:HAT and gives extremely prominent placement to what is essentially trivia. I have been pushing {{ Efn Chinese name}} and its peers as an alternative framework that uses a footnote instead of the hatnote. There have also been consolidation concerns, which it looks like Primefac has recently tried to address with the creation of {{ Family name hatnote}}.
At the TfD, Bsherr and Coffeeandcrumbs discussed where an appropriate venue might be for an upcoming large discussion. Given the potential impact of a change in this area, I'm inclined to agree with C&C that WP:VPR would be the appropriate venue; we'd also want to place {{ See also}} notices here, at WT:WikiProject Anthroponymy, and other relevant places.
For here and now, I think we should focus, first, on doing some brainstorming. We currently have a plethora of different problems and two different frameworks in use. Are there additional problems that we'll want to solve with any wide-scale changes we may make? Are there other potential frameworks we might want to explore? Once we've brainstormed, we should then put together a draft RfC that we can take to the pump to seek consensus.
I'm hopeful that if we go about this intelligently, we'll be able to overcome the inertia of the status quo and put a better system in place. Please keep in mind that this is a meta planning discussion, and save any discussion that belongs at the upcoming RfC for the RfC. Also, there have been quite a few people involved in the different scattered discussions above, and there may be discussions I've missed. Feel free to list any other discussions, and to ping folks so long as you do it evenly. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If the RfC must be held here, please ensure the widest possible notification, including
WP:CENT. This would have huge ramifications. Also ensure the RfC is very concise and to the point: Should all surname, family name, patronymic name templates such as {{
Korean name}}, {{
Chinese name}}, and {{
Patronymic name}} be removed?
You can include a list of previous discussions, but please keep all opinions out of the preface and add them to your !votes.
I warn you that, if the consensus reached is localized, the confusion we would create maybe disruptive and far-reaching. I suspect these templates have been very helpful to readers and have also been protecting many pages from damage, from drive-by editors that would change all instances of the subjects name to Western perceptions and bastardizations. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
... and the information moved to {{ efn}} and Edit Noticesor something like that. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Uanfala brings up some alternatives to the efn idea that we've seen workshopped. I suppose I should point out that we don't necessarily need to mandate a style for this information at all. It is possible we could create templates for the information to be presented as an efn, or in an infobox, or something else, and let the decision of which is best be made at the article level. That would address David Eppstein's concern that not all articles are wanting of efns. Obviously not all articles have infoboxes either. And, as appropriate, an edit notice would address those who find that the purpose is to prevent unaware editing of the articles. A result that it can be anything but a hatnote would be a valid one. -- Bsherr ( talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
PS: After reviewing some of the above. Yes, of course they are hatnotes. Yes, of course we have used hatnotes for more than just navigational information since around their invention. (I would cite some additional examples, but I think at this juncture that would have a WP:SPITE effect of inspiring someone to go create more trouble.) The bare fact that we have done so for about a decade and a half is proof, ipso facto, of consensus to do so. If someone in the interim has edited the hatnote guideline (note: not policy) to inject some kind of "never ever for anything but nav links" dictat, where is the consensus for that, and on what basis is anyone considering that it supersedes many years of actual practice (which is what consensus actually is)? Remember that consensus is not a type of discussion or decision, it is a result of discussions and decisions (primarily the latter, and primarily unwritten). So, to get to the RfC-drafting point, all of the heated invective about these side matters is a distracting waste of time, and the RfC should directly discourage it in some way. Yes, consensus can change, and TfDs have suggested that is has for these specific templates, not for all hatnotes ever. Wallowing in philosophical what-ifs and I-wishes will not help the RfC clarify consensus in any way, and just mire it in angry and basically off-topic noise. Finally, WP:CONSENSUS is clear that consensus can form anywhere. The venue for the present discussion and for the actual RfC really doesn't matter much as long as the drafting process is not dominated by a micro-cabal of people with the same opinion, the RfC is neutrally worded and actually addresses the right questions well, and the live RfC is well-"advertised" to the proper venues, including to VPPOL and CENT, which would be appropriate since this would affect a large number of articles; to related guidelines' talk page (this one, WT:MOSBIO, WT:MOSLAYOUT, plus WT:MOSJAPAN and other culture-specific ones with name hatnotes); to the templates' talk pages (incl. also the "root" Template talk:Hatnote and Module talk:Hatnote); and to appropriate wikiprojects' talk pages ( WT:APO, WT:WPT, WT:WPBIO), and so on). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)