This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hatnote page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Disambiguation | ||||
|
The contents of the Template:Hatnote templates documentation page were merged into Wikipedia:Hatnote. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Am I reading the guideline wrong? At the The Star Beast (Doctor Who), editors have been reverting my attempts to avoid the redirects in hatnotes, despite my insistence that this is the very first basic rule of hatnotes! Would appreciate any comments at Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)#Hatnotes. -- wooden superman 11:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur.It's a matter or consensus if a given situation warrants an exception. This is basically WP:IAR codified for a specific case.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we have this clause in this guideline, when it can be at odds with MOS:DABREDIR. -- Joy ( talk) 13:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Please note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PleaseStand ( talk) 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I see this over and over again: hatnotes added to sections for no good reason IMO. I just got reverted for removing the hatnote in Thor: Love and Thunder#Documentary special. What possible purpose is served here? The link is in the first sentence of a two-sentence section. It's not particularly hard to find. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
because Marvel Studios: Assembled does not have a section for Thor: Love and Thunder." It may not have a section, although it does have an episode description w/ cast and crew details for it in the episode table. Per WP:BRD, I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO to let the natural discussion process run its course. I have also notified other members of the MCU taskforce at WT:MCU regarding this to gauge the perspectives of other contributors across these articles in question, as we strive to keep them consistent. I honestly did not think this one revert would cause a little stir and warrant such discussion, though I'll WP:AGF (even though sometimes we all need to keep a level head, take no for an answer, and work with each other).
When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often written in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized.The Assembled article's contents of this film's special are being summarized in the section at the film article and is explained further at the Assembled article in the body and the episode table where the exact special in question is mentioned in detail. {{ Further}} supports this usage: "
It is typically used at the top of a section, when the topic of that section is covered in more detail by another page." Not all readers are expected to know what Assembled is, hence the brief summar in the section, though the bulk contents of the said special is covered at the Assembled article.
It is used in sections for which there is also a separate article on the subject. It should be used when there should be a link to another article that discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article (which should use {{ Main}}), a narrower topic (which should probably use {{ Further}}), or at the same level of focus (which should probably use {{ See also}})." I believe using Broader in these instances is a workable compromise that best addresses the concerns raised while also maintaining the goals of the taskforce in adequate, proper, and easy navigation for our readers. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 04:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
It [Marvel Studios: Assembled] may not have a section [for Thor: Love and Thunder], although it does have an episode description w/ cast and crew details for it in the episode table.— in which case the appropriate hatnote would be
{{
further|Marvel Studios: Assembled#ep12}}
. However (similar to
Clarityfiend}'s original point) there is already a wiki-link (via redirect
The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder) to that target in the text of
Thor: Love and Thunder#Documentary special, so the hatnote is someone superfluous in such a small section.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC){{ Broader}} ... in these instances is a workable compromise— {{ Broader}} "is used to make summary style explicit", but I don't think that this is an example of "summary style" as described in WP:SUMMARY, which talks about a section of one article summarising another article; what we have here is a section of one article ( Thor: Love and Thunder § Documentary special) that overlaps (not summarises, because it contains extra information not in the latter) one row in a table in one section of another article ( Marvel Studios: Assembled). Thor: Love and Thunder § Documentary special is a specific instance of Marvel Studios: Assembled - it is not a summary of that article. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replace the current hatnote with {{
further|The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder}}
and remove the unnecessary links from the prose
— What's wrong with "leave the existing
wikilink in the prose and remove the unnecessary hatnote" (considering it is such a small section, containing the words "The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder")?" The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder" – an episode of the Marvel Studios: Assembled series – was released on Disney+ on September 8, 2022, part of Disney+ Day.
It is expected for short summary sections about a different project that the section starts with a hatnote— Which policy or guideline says that? Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hatnote page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Disambiguation | ||||
|
The contents of the Template:Hatnote templates documentation page were merged into Wikipedia:Hatnote. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Am I reading the guideline wrong? At the The Star Beast (Doctor Who), editors have been reverting my attempts to avoid the redirects in hatnotes, despite my insistence that this is the very first basic rule of hatnotes! Would appreciate any comments at Talk:The Star Beast (Doctor Who)#Hatnotes. -- wooden superman 11:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur.It's a matter or consensus if a given situation warrants an exception. This is basically WP:IAR codified for a specific case.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we have this clause in this guideline, when it can be at odds with MOS:DABREDIR. -- Joy ( talk) 13:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Please note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. PleaseStand ( talk) 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I see this over and over again: hatnotes added to sections for no good reason IMO. I just got reverted for removing the hatnote in Thor: Love and Thunder#Documentary special. What possible purpose is served here? The link is in the first sentence of a two-sentence section. It's not particularly hard to find. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
because Marvel Studios: Assembled does not have a section for Thor: Love and Thunder." It may not have a section, although it does have an episode description w/ cast and crew details for it in the episode table. Per WP:BRD, I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO to let the natural discussion process run its course. I have also notified other members of the MCU taskforce at WT:MCU regarding this to gauge the perspectives of other contributors across these articles in question, as we strive to keep them consistent. I honestly did not think this one revert would cause a little stir and warrant such discussion, though I'll WP:AGF (even though sometimes we all need to keep a level head, take no for an answer, and work with each other).
When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often written in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized.The Assembled article's contents of this film's special are being summarized in the section at the film article and is explained further at the Assembled article in the body and the episode table where the exact special in question is mentioned in detail. {{ Further}} supports this usage: "
It is typically used at the top of a section, when the topic of that section is covered in more detail by another page." Not all readers are expected to know what Assembled is, hence the brief summar in the section, though the bulk contents of the said special is covered at the Assembled article.
It is used in sections for which there is also a separate article on the subject. It should be used when there should be a link to another article that discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article (which should use {{ Main}}), a narrower topic (which should probably use {{ Further}}), or at the same level of focus (which should probably use {{ See also}})." I believe using Broader in these instances is a workable compromise that best addresses the concerns raised while also maintaining the goals of the taskforce in adequate, proper, and easy navigation for our readers. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 04:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
It [Marvel Studios: Assembled] may not have a section [for Thor: Love and Thunder], although it does have an episode description w/ cast and crew details for it in the episode table.— in which case the appropriate hatnote would be
{{
further|Marvel Studios: Assembled#ep12}}
. However (similar to
Clarityfiend}'s original point) there is already a wiki-link (via redirect
The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder) to that target in the text of
Thor: Love and Thunder#Documentary special, so the hatnote is someone superfluous in such a small section.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC){{ Broader}} ... in these instances is a workable compromise— {{ Broader}} "is used to make summary style explicit", but I don't think that this is an example of "summary style" as described in WP:SUMMARY, which talks about a section of one article summarising another article; what we have here is a section of one article ( Thor: Love and Thunder § Documentary special) that overlaps (not summarises, because it contains extra information not in the latter) one row in a table in one section of another article ( Marvel Studios: Assembled). Thor: Love and Thunder § Documentary special is a specific instance of Marvel Studios: Assembled - it is not a summary of that article. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replace the current hatnote with {{
further|The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder}}
and remove the unnecessary links from the prose
— What's wrong with "leave the existing
wikilink in the prose and remove the unnecessary hatnote" (considering it is such a small section, containing the words "The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder")?" The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder" – an episode of the Marvel Studios: Assembled series – was released on Disney+ on September 8, 2022, part of Disney+ Day.
It is expected for short summary sections about a different project that the section starts with a hatnote— Which policy or guideline says that? Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)