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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I reverted a change on Thomas Cubitt which changed "For the British general, see Thomas Cubitt (British Army officer)" to "For other uses, see Cubitt" (the user made multiple edits at this time adding the latter hatnote to every article listed at Cubitt). I was reverted on the Thomas Cubitt page with the rationale " without this hatnote a google search for cubitt leads to this cul de sac." When you search google with Cubitt, the first wikipedia response is Thomas Cubitt, oddly enough. I'm curious, are we applying hatnotes on the basis of google searches now? According to the guidelines the only hatnote on the Thomas Cubitt page should be the one highlighting the ambiguity with Thomas Cubitt (British Army officer). But does this google thing change that? Benea ( talk) 14:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
We can't anticipate them, but we can alleviate them. That's the whole point of hatnotes. We can and we should design our navigation with the assumption that readers can arrive to the wrong article because of similarities in the article titles. Linking to the most general place where such title is disambiguated is a simple and effective strategy that doesn't require knowing in advance which errors are more likely. Diego ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Bkonrad: 1) you keep asserting "it's bad" without explaining why it's bad. 2)Then why you keep ignoring that it would affect only already existing hat notes, not all ambiguous pages? 3) So you admit it provides *some* benefit. Diego ( talk) 10:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Almost anyone wanting to read about a topic on Wikipedia will click on the first link to Wikipedia in the results, and navigate from that page using the information scent of links in it. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page..." An IP seems to be interpreting this as saying that hatnoting is mandatory: [1]. I believe that both common sense and a reading of the guideline say that it's not mandatory; the guideline merely says that, if a link is desired by the page editors (that is, if it's not a "hatnote a serious topic to a Simpsons episode" situation), there should be a link from the undisambiguated article to the disambiguated article, rather than a separate disambiguation page. Which interpretation is correct? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, to avoid confusion for future editors, please change the top of the disambig and/or hatnote WP page to say that more clearly rather than bury this important item halfway through. BTW this policy doesn't make sense to me (if you can't tell). If I search for "Cryonics" on Google, I don't get the album *anywhere* on the first result page, nor the second page, nor the third page (I didn't check any farther)... and yet it's required to be the very first thing on the Wikipedia page? So clearly either Google sucks at displaying relevant information to Internet users, or we do. Peace out. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to propose a policy: that hatnotes about shortcuts be discouraged.
For example, today I was trying to find out whether a cleanup message box should be placed above or below hatnotes. I found that information (they go below) in the article Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. But before I could get to it, I had to read the following hatnote:
"WP:TC" redirects here. For WikiProject Tropical cyclones, see WP:WPTC. For the Wikipedia Triple Crown, see WP:CROWN.
I grant that the WikiProject and the Triple Crown are worthy endeavours. But really, how many people arrive on the Template messages/Cleanup page by mistake, because of the shortcut, when they really wanted to go to Tropical cyclones project? And even if they do, presumably they've been there before. Surely they should be able to find it again.
To me, it seems like these shortcut hatnotes are a prime cause of hatnote clutter at the top of useful articles. The same goes for this article. It has the following hatnote:
"WP:HAT" redirects here. For Wikipedia essay on hat collecting, see WP:HATSHOP.
Again, this is worthy essay. But it has nothing to do with this article except a 3-letter shortcut that doesn't lead to it.
Shouldn't redirect hatnotes be limited to cases where the two articles are related in some way other than that one of them has a cryptic 3-letter shortcut that could conceivably point to either? To me that seems like an abuse of both hatnotes and shortcuts. Shortcuts are supposed to save typing. They were never intended to be the primary navigation method or the primary way to identify an article. If someone gets an unexpected result from typing a shortcut, it's not like they are lost and have no other options. So why clutter up the top of the article worrying about that? –
Margin1522 (
talk) 20:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a {{ Notice}} just above the transcluded content from Template:Hatnote templates documentation. This will help readers who are looking for this content in the wikitext and can't find it. Explain that they have to go to that page if they want to edit anything. The Notice also creates a little space for the weird "This overview/view talk edit" message that floats up above the "Hatnote templates" header.
It also helps people understand why it says "For the full guideline on hatnotes, see Wikipedia:Hatnote.", when we are on Wikipedia:Hatnote already, and is better than the old hatnote ("For hatnote templates documentation, see Template:Hatnote templates documentation.") because if you just want to read the templates documentation, you don't have to go there. You can read it here. – Margin1522 ( talk) 07:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sroc. The sentence "The presence or absence of such hatnotes has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other" at the WP:NAMB section was a added to signal that the whole idea of removing hatnotes at disambiguated articles is disputed. That sentence was added as a compromise, as an alternative to removing the whole section (which has been done several times), to indicate that this section should not be considered to have the weight of a guideline, yet still allowing editors to read it.
When you say it "should only apply to cases like Matt Smith (comics)", I don't know if you mean that those cases should include the hatnote or not; in any case, the example of " tree (set theory)" shows that this is always a muddy area, since that very article contains a hatnote to Tree (descriptive set theory) - despite what the guideline saying that it shouldn't have any. Diego ( talk) 12:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Template talk:Distinguish#Under what circumstances should this template be used without linking to an article? concerning the possibility that a hatnote might contain no links at all. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I added a hatnote to List of birds of Poland pointing to the Polish language version of the article. None of the current examples of proper and improper use given here at Wikipedia:Hatnote seem to directly apply to this case. The closest is WP:RELATED which, if anything, suggests not to use a hatnote but I don't think it well matches the circumstances. A good fraction of readers of List of birds of Poland would be specifically interested in the Polish version. Yes, there's a link to the Polish language version in the sidebar but in the case of a list like this, I think it the Polish version makes sense to stand out in particular. As a birdwatcher in Poland, I use this list personally and I find the hatnote to be a nice convenience over just the sidebar link (which usually requires scrolling). Wikipedia:Hatnote doesn't mention interwiki links in hatnotes at all. This must be a fairly rare case or it'd already be there. But maybe adding a new section discussing them is worthwhile. Do you agree or disagree with my usage of a hatnote in this list? Jason Quinn ( talk) 12:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the guideline. That at local links is about overriding the wikidata links, to provide e.g. a more precise link to a section, but still in the sidebar. For inline links the guideline is inline links and they are for articles that don't have a corresponding English WP article. It doesn't explicitly say it's not for links to another WP's version of this article but it doesn't need to, as the entire guideline up to that point has been on how to do such links, in the sidebar.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 7#Template:Main article interwiki which may be relevant to the above. PC78 ( talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The current examples for TRHAT and LEGITHAT also violate HATEXTRA. It might be less confusing for readers if we remove some or all of the wikilinks from those examples so as to demonstrate only one problem at a time; do you agree? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 01:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved the article at National Heritage Museum to Scottish Rite Masonic Museum and Library because the name changed. When I went to add a redir for the name previous to that, I found an redir for a National Heritage Museum (Arnhem) that redirs to Netherlands Open Air Museum. I added the hatnote, but does it make sense to hatnote the Scottish Rite Museum article for the Netherlands museum even though both similar names have been redired? MSJapan ( talk) 21:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This example strikes me as being too trivial to have a hatnote for; said otherwise, it is more distracting than useful. Should there be a guideline against including topics so trivial that a reader might be expected to use the search function rather than having examples like this dotted all over WP? — Quondum 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I would've justified this with WP:PRIMARYUSAGE rather than triviality. Anyone looking for a small ghost town called Farad, California will already know that typing in just "Farad" probably won't take him to his article. -- œ ™ 05:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the stance on adding a hatnot to an article that redlinks English Wikipedia, but does have an article on another language. Here is an example. It feels to me like we should not use hatnotes in this manner, but I did not see it covered specifically in this section. In the example given I undid the edit as both English WP articles don't exist. Rikster2 ( talk) 19:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the WP:NAMB section of this guideline gives tree (set theory) as an example not needing a hatnote. But that article does have a valid hatnote (different from the one in the example) because there are actually two different notions of trees used within set theory and we have separate articles on both of them. Maybe we should find a different example? — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggested an improvement to hatnote CSS over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Inline nested hatnotes; please comment there. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 06:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
While reading the statement "In most cases, hatnotes should be created using a standard hatnote template", I wondered in what cases should we not use a hatnote template. I scanned the archives and didn't see any mention of this. Could someone please help me understand? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
''
or :''
. There are hatnote-like text in Japanese film and TV articles using manual coding but they are not hatnotes.Is this how to indicate edit history (with a hatnote)? We're in discussion at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there some reason why {{ distinguish}} and it variants are not currently mentioned as a subsection of Wikipedia:Hatnote#Examples of proper use? I could add such a subsection by copying the reasons from Template:Distinguish/doc and Template:Distinguish2/doc, as well as some of the points made in the last deletion discussion. Otherwise, they are not properly explained here as well as the other types of hatnotes. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 23:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, we have two primary hatnote templates that produce lists of "For X, see [[Y]]
" disambiguation messages (here "for-see lists" for short): {{
about}} and {{
redirect}}. These have slightly different behaviours, especially as {{
redirect}} is coded in Lua (via
Module:Redirect hatnote) and {{
about}} is still using wikitext. I've already made some changes to
Module:Redirect hatnote to eliminate a few of its odder behaviours (see
Module talk:Redirect hatnote for details).
I propose to standardize and centralize the behaviour of these lists. I've put together a prototype at Module:Hatnote list, which is in use at the prototype Module:About to implement {{ about/sandbox}}, and at Module:Redirect hatnote/sandbox to implement {{ redirect/sandbox}}. As a result, we can directly compare the current outputs of {{ redirect}} and {{ about}} with their implementations using Module:Hatnote list. I would like to migrate templates to use the code from this module, and this discussion will hopefully serve to establish consensus for that change.
For typical usages, the implementations produce identical output, but they vary in their defaulting/terminating behaviour. The implementations differ in their defaulting/terminating behaviour in two main ways: when they encounter empty parameters generally ("basic gaps"), and when they encounter empty parameters involving the and
keyword ("and-gaps"; the and
keyword allows lists of target pages within a single for-see item). For and-gaps, note that {{
about}} supports and-lists of only up to 2 items; where this applies, the "ABOUT" text parameter has been changed to "UNSUPPORTED".
Centralizing will involve moving to a single standard behaviour. Where a move to centralized behaviour might change output "in the wild", I would add tests first to categorize affected pages into Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters or similar, as I did with updates to Module:Redirect hatnote. Those cases could then be fixed with more typical parameterization before migrating their affected templates to the new code.
In the following subsections are:
Feel free to add examples as needed. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Examples, now collapsed because obsolete
|
---|
Empty
</noinclude> Basic gaps
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude> And-gaps
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude> |
repeat … until
structure in the code).Discussion goes here. Is there a particular behaviour that's particularly desirable or not? Is there any objection to centralizing the functionality and/or adopting the behaviours from Module:Hatnote list? {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
{{about||another thing|Something else}}
(or {{about||another thing|Something else|second alternative|Yet another article}}
. Does that matter? Should some of these variations be included for completeness? It's commonly used.
Pam
D 08:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)I've added some parameterization tests to {{ about}}, and that should catch most of the pages affected by basic cases here and add them to Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. Specifically, I added tests for parameters 5–9 being specified when 4 isn't, parameters 7–9 when 6 isn't, and parameter 9 when 8 isn't. The template currently maxes out at 9 parameters. The category's up to about 50 pages so far; I'll leave it a bit before jumping to fix them, out of curiosity at how how many pages are affected. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 05:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Nihiltres and Codename Lisa: I just found this discussion going on. I'm absolutely in support of centralizing the behavior of hatnote lists. However, I think I recently blundered after a good faith suggestion to "be bold" with this diff to Module:See also. The discussion was here, which I revived yesterday after it was dormant, and made the changes after significant testing in the sandbox. The suggestion in the discussion was to use Oxford commas for list lengths > 3, use a comma for list length = 2 when the first link contains a section link (' § '), and use semicolons to separate items when any item contains a comma. It's live for "see also". I'm aware that this change puts it out of sync with at least: Module:Further, Module:Other uses, Module:Redirect hatnote, and Module:Hatnote list. Please accept my apologies about the neglect for reading some extra pages and finding discussions going on. — Andy W. ( talk · contrib) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
andList
and orList
functions currently implement the Oxford comma, but not section-link commas or comma-detection semicolons—there's definitely room for improvement there, and longer-term I'd like to use those functions more broadly as we Lua-fy more hatnote templates. Regarding {{
for}}: I'd like to implement it using parts of
Module:Hatnote list's _forSee
function, to keep its form in sync with other hatnote templates as part of its code structure… but that'll involve some minor function restructuring, since {{
for}}'s parameters produce an and-list in the form of a single for-see item, rather than producing a for-see-list in the style of {{
about}}. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
andList
and orList
and test some potential suggested changes in a sandbox. And I'll keep an eye on this page. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
contrib) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
andList
and orList
at
Module:Hatnote list/sandbox; probably could be polished significantly, but it's a start. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 22:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
forSeeForm
and adding the check to the end of pagesStr
? Cheers! —
Andy W. (
talk ·
contrib) 21:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
forseeForm
; no need to overcomplicate things. Also, while these are great and I'd absolutely like to continue, they're out of scope in a section nominally about defaulting/terminating behaviours in for-see lists. Can we please move to
Module talk:Hatnote list for these? :) {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added tracking for the basic-gaps discrepancies to Module:Redirect hatnote. To date only one mainspace page has shown up at Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters, Tasmania, which I fixed with this edit. I'm now figuring out how best to check for any discrepancies with and-gaps in redirect hatnotes. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 19:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've now added further tracking that will add uses of Module:Redirect hatnote with and-gaps to Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. With that and the extant {{ about}} gap-tracking, we should be able to eliminate all the potential edge cases before merging the functionality … unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something? :) {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"The suggestion in the discussion was to use Oxford commas for list lengths > 3, use a comma for list length = 2 when the first link contains a section link (' § '), and use semicolons to separate items when any item contains a comma. It's live for "see also". I'm aware that this change puts it out of sync with at least: Module:Further, Module:Other uses, Module:Redirect hatnote, and Module:Hatnote list."? It would be highly desirable to have this behaivor, as described, and have it be consistent across such templates. Also, Module:Hatnote inline will also need to be updated (and it probably has redundant code in it that can be pruned). PS: I realize some people do not favor the use of the Oxford/Harvard comma in running prose, but this is a special case where it is needed for clarity, and even style guides that do not usually recommend the Oxford/Harvard comma (e.g. Chicago Manual of Style) do recommend it for cases where it aids clarity. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
mSeeAlso._seeAlso()
; the others just need basic updating. My main focus has been on updating or deprecating templates, and there's a slightly-out-of-date table at
User:Nihiltres/Sandbox with some notes. The biggest barrier to converting many of the templates is how many of them use "TEXT", i.e. allowing free-form text in spots instead of more-structured parameters; in particular there's a ton of misuse of those, e.g. as fixed in
this edit. More stuff later; busy today. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 17:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
div
to a span
for uses in structures where a div
will booger things badly). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)@ SMcCandlish: I've prototyped an update that adds basic inline support to Module:Hatnote. I'll raise that at Module talk:Hatnote and include pointers to the topic at Module talk:Hatnote inline etc.; once the support's added in Module:Hatnote we can presumably deprecate the secondary templates/modules, rewrite them as thin wrappers, and finally delete them once uses have been migrated. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to insert a hatnote that is mainly of interest to Wikipedia editors? I didn't see it included in the list of what not to do, so I am unclear. For an example, see decimal mark. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
|selfref=true
in hatnote templates that support that; not all do). That said, self-references should be used sparingly; see also
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 22:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)A proposal that would affect the usage of hatnotes is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. Interested editors are welcome to participate.— Godsy ( TALK CONT) 04:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to make of the hatnote for the Frequency article, but it looks bloated and perhaps includes some improper use. What should be done with it? Praemonitus ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of the "five basic rules" of hatnotes, there's a principle suggesting that people try to limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page:
- 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.
This has long seemed an awkward rule to me, for two reasons:
In the context of the second example in particular I decided to play around and create {{ hatnote group}} (powered by Module:Hatnote group) as an experiment. It rewrites hatnote divs in its input into a single hatnote composed of spans with their original content, separated by spaces. Here's a fairly straightforward example:
{{hatnote group| {{about|USE1||PAGE1}} {{redirect|REDIRECT|USE2|PAGE2}} }}
is parsed into
{{hatnote group| <div role="note" class="hatnote">This page is about USE1. For other uses, see [[:PAGE1]].</div> <div role="note" class="hatnote">"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE2, see [[:PAGE2]].</div> }}
which the module then transforms into
<div role="note" class="hatnote"> <span>This page is about USE1. For other uses, see [[:PAGE1]].</span> <span>"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE2, see [[:PAGE2]].</span> </div>
which, finally, displays as (live example):
In short, it gives us some interesting if somewhat hackish flexibility. In particular, I like the potential it has for letting us carve up hatnote messages into reusable, recombinant pieces; we'd need fewer templates overall as a result, even if we used more individual templates in many cases.
That said, I'm not saying flat out that that's what we should do; I'd like to consider the relative merits of various approaches. In particular, some questions I'd like to discuss:
What's your take on the issue? {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, interesting discussion so far. A couple of obvious trends are for a) "one line per concept": using spacing to separate unrelated concepts and generally improve readability, and b) pushback against "hatnote bloat" above the lead, particularly on pages that may have three or more hatnotes. It leads me to think that we should recommend a maximum size for hatnote use and then offer techniques (like {{ hatnote group}} and disambiguation pages) for reducing the "bloat" when needed.
On another note, I did some poking around in the history and traced the "five rules" text back to an original four, added in this edit by Red Slash. A look at this talk page around that time doesn't show discussion of the change, suggesting that it was added unilaterally. I don't think that rule five's supported by consensus, and do think it should be removed, but I equally think that there is a good case for including a clear instruction to editors to keep hatnotes concise and few, avoid needless hatnotes, and reduce clutter when possible. (Tangentially, it might be worth adding some verbiage explicitly supporting edits for concision like this one, but let's limit the scope of this discussion.)
Either way, my personal goal here is to reduce our reliance on custom uses of {{
hatnote}} (or worse, the awful :''
markup) to construct messages virtually identical to the standard templates—it's bad for maintenance. For example,
this search shows a number of examples that use {{
hatnote}} that should probably use {{
about}} instead.
In short: would it be acceptable to replace the "one hatnote" rule with a "minimize use, and aggressively minimize if above a standard maximum" rule? I'm open to refining the idea further, and welcome discussion of specifics. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
{{composed hatnote|about|SUBJECT|distinguish|SIMILARCONCEPT|for|USE|PAGE|text|TEXT}}
→ <div role="note" class="hatnote">This article is about SUBJECT. It is not to be confused with SIMILARCONCEPT. For USE, see PAGE. TEXT.</div>
; and then included some diagnostics to check whether the usage is "unusual". (I'm not happy with the resulting complexity of the idea.) I would prefer that approach because composable fragments should never be used on their own; in my hatnote cleanup work I've accumulated many edits deleting nonstandard hatnotes that don't have any purpose, e.g. :''This article is about X''
or :''X redirects here''
without any target link to make the hatnote plausibly useful.@ Praemonitus: Let me clarify: out of the five editors who've contributed to this talk section, four appear to support using separate lines, and the rationale is, broadly, that the linebreaks separate hatnotes visually into their distinct contexts—making things easier for readers. While we can definitely expand on the guideline in terms of encouraging concision in hatnotes, I don't think that a single-hatnote rule is supported by consensus; I think that your goals of minimizing clutter would be better served by stylistic recommendations. For example, the phrase "with the same name" is often included in hatnotes and is almost always needless, and I almost always remove it when standardizing hatnotes.
Beyond concision in text, we can encourage use of disambiguation pages over long hatnotes—perhaps some crossover with
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Hatnotes? In the meantime, encouraging use of standard templates (rather than custom {{
hatnote}}s) allows for the possibility of automatically diagnosing the longest hatnotes; for example, it'd be trivial for me to add a line or two to
Module:Hatnote list in forSeeTableToString()
that would add a tracking category to articles using hatnotes with at least 4–5 "For X, see Y" items.
The biggest issue I have with your position is not your singlemindedness in consolidating hatnotes, but in unexpected support for keeping hatnotes on separate lines for context. I think that the two of us probably agree that using {{ hatnote group}} to consolidate hatnotes is preferable in most cases to rewriting standardized hatnotes as custom {{ hatnote}}s; the issue is that I don't see broader support for consolidating hatnotes, and I myself strongly believe that consolidating just two hatnotes into one is overkill. Thus, I've suggested a compromise: establishing a guideline threshold (of perhaps 2–3 lines of hatnotes) past which we would aggressively consolidate them, while tolerating lesser cases as trivial: readers are quite capable of glossing over a couple of lines that are clearly formatted as notes with their indented, italicized style. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:05, 30 October 2016 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I reverted a change on Thomas Cubitt which changed "For the British general, see Thomas Cubitt (British Army officer)" to "For other uses, see Cubitt" (the user made multiple edits at this time adding the latter hatnote to every article listed at Cubitt). I was reverted on the Thomas Cubitt page with the rationale " without this hatnote a google search for cubitt leads to this cul de sac." When you search google with Cubitt, the first wikipedia response is Thomas Cubitt, oddly enough. I'm curious, are we applying hatnotes on the basis of google searches now? According to the guidelines the only hatnote on the Thomas Cubitt page should be the one highlighting the ambiguity with Thomas Cubitt (British Army officer). But does this google thing change that? Benea ( talk) 14:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
We can't anticipate them, but we can alleviate them. That's the whole point of hatnotes. We can and we should design our navigation with the assumption that readers can arrive to the wrong article because of similarities in the article titles. Linking to the most general place where such title is disambiguated is a simple and effective strategy that doesn't require knowing in advance which errors are more likely. Diego ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Bkonrad: 1) you keep asserting "it's bad" without explaining why it's bad. 2)Then why you keep ignoring that it would affect only already existing hat notes, not all ambiguous pages? 3) So you admit it provides *some* benefit. Diego ( talk) 10:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Almost anyone wanting to read about a topic on Wikipedia will click on the first link to Wikipedia in the results, and navigate from that page using the information scent of links in it. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page..." An IP seems to be interpreting this as saying that hatnoting is mandatory: [1]. I believe that both common sense and a reading of the guideline say that it's not mandatory; the guideline merely says that, if a link is desired by the page editors (that is, if it's not a "hatnote a serious topic to a Simpsons episode" situation), there should be a link from the undisambiguated article to the disambiguated article, rather than a separate disambiguation page. Which interpretation is correct? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, to avoid confusion for future editors, please change the top of the disambig and/or hatnote WP page to say that more clearly rather than bury this important item halfway through. BTW this policy doesn't make sense to me (if you can't tell). If I search for "Cryonics" on Google, I don't get the album *anywhere* on the first result page, nor the second page, nor the third page (I didn't check any farther)... and yet it's required to be the very first thing on the Wikipedia page? So clearly either Google sucks at displaying relevant information to Internet users, or we do. Peace out. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to propose a policy: that hatnotes about shortcuts be discouraged.
For example, today I was trying to find out whether a cleanup message box should be placed above or below hatnotes. I found that information (they go below) in the article Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. But before I could get to it, I had to read the following hatnote:
"WP:TC" redirects here. For WikiProject Tropical cyclones, see WP:WPTC. For the Wikipedia Triple Crown, see WP:CROWN.
I grant that the WikiProject and the Triple Crown are worthy endeavours. But really, how many people arrive on the Template messages/Cleanup page by mistake, because of the shortcut, when they really wanted to go to Tropical cyclones project? And even if they do, presumably they've been there before. Surely they should be able to find it again.
To me, it seems like these shortcut hatnotes are a prime cause of hatnote clutter at the top of useful articles. The same goes for this article. It has the following hatnote:
"WP:HAT" redirects here. For Wikipedia essay on hat collecting, see WP:HATSHOP.
Again, this is worthy essay. But it has nothing to do with this article except a 3-letter shortcut that doesn't lead to it.
Shouldn't redirect hatnotes be limited to cases where the two articles are related in some way other than that one of them has a cryptic 3-letter shortcut that could conceivably point to either? To me that seems like an abuse of both hatnotes and shortcuts. Shortcuts are supposed to save typing. They were never intended to be the primary navigation method or the primary way to identify an article. If someone gets an unexpected result from typing a shortcut, it's not like they are lost and have no other options. So why clutter up the top of the article worrying about that? –
Margin1522 (
talk) 20:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a {{ Notice}} just above the transcluded content from Template:Hatnote templates documentation. This will help readers who are looking for this content in the wikitext and can't find it. Explain that they have to go to that page if they want to edit anything. The Notice also creates a little space for the weird "This overview/view talk edit" message that floats up above the "Hatnote templates" header.
It also helps people understand why it says "For the full guideline on hatnotes, see Wikipedia:Hatnote.", when we are on Wikipedia:Hatnote already, and is better than the old hatnote ("For hatnote templates documentation, see Template:Hatnote templates documentation.") because if you just want to read the templates documentation, you don't have to go there. You can read it here. – Margin1522 ( talk) 07:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Sroc. The sentence "The presence or absence of such hatnotes has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other" at the WP:NAMB section was a added to signal that the whole idea of removing hatnotes at disambiguated articles is disputed. That sentence was added as a compromise, as an alternative to removing the whole section (which has been done several times), to indicate that this section should not be considered to have the weight of a guideline, yet still allowing editors to read it.
When you say it "should only apply to cases like Matt Smith (comics)", I don't know if you mean that those cases should include the hatnote or not; in any case, the example of " tree (set theory)" shows that this is always a muddy area, since that very article contains a hatnote to Tree (descriptive set theory) - despite what the guideline saying that it shouldn't have any. Diego ( talk) 12:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Template talk:Distinguish#Under what circumstances should this template be used without linking to an article? concerning the possibility that a hatnote might contain no links at all. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I added a hatnote to List of birds of Poland pointing to the Polish language version of the article. None of the current examples of proper and improper use given here at Wikipedia:Hatnote seem to directly apply to this case. The closest is WP:RELATED which, if anything, suggests not to use a hatnote but I don't think it well matches the circumstances. A good fraction of readers of List of birds of Poland would be specifically interested in the Polish version. Yes, there's a link to the Polish language version in the sidebar but in the case of a list like this, I think it the Polish version makes sense to stand out in particular. As a birdwatcher in Poland, I use this list personally and I find the hatnote to be a nice convenience over just the sidebar link (which usually requires scrolling). Wikipedia:Hatnote doesn't mention interwiki links in hatnotes at all. This must be a fairly rare case or it'd already be there. But maybe adding a new section discussing them is worthwhile. Do you agree or disagree with my usage of a hatnote in this list? Jason Quinn ( talk) 12:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the guideline. That at local links is about overriding the wikidata links, to provide e.g. a more precise link to a section, but still in the sidebar. For inline links the guideline is inline links and they are for articles that don't have a corresponding English WP article. It doesn't explicitly say it's not for links to another WP's version of this article but it doesn't need to, as the entire guideline up to that point has been on how to do such links, in the sidebar.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 7#Template:Main article interwiki which may be relevant to the above. PC78 ( talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The current examples for TRHAT and LEGITHAT also violate HATEXTRA. It might be less confusing for readers if we remove some or all of the wikilinks from those examples so as to demonstrate only one problem at a time; do you agree? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 01:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I moved the article at National Heritage Museum to Scottish Rite Masonic Museum and Library because the name changed. When I went to add a redir for the name previous to that, I found an redir for a National Heritage Museum (Arnhem) that redirs to Netherlands Open Air Museum. I added the hatnote, but does it make sense to hatnote the Scottish Rite Museum article for the Netherlands museum even though both similar names have been redired? MSJapan ( talk) 21:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This example strikes me as being too trivial to have a hatnote for; said otherwise, it is more distracting than useful. Should there be a guideline against including topics so trivial that a reader might be expected to use the search function rather than having examples like this dotted all over WP? — Quondum 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I would've justified this with WP:PRIMARYUSAGE rather than triviality. Anyone looking for a small ghost town called Farad, California will already know that typing in just "Farad" probably won't take him to his article. -- œ ™ 05:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the stance on adding a hatnot to an article that redlinks English Wikipedia, but does have an article on another language. Here is an example. It feels to me like we should not use hatnotes in this manner, but I did not see it covered specifically in this section. In the example given I undid the edit as both English WP articles don't exist. Rikster2 ( talk) 19:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the WP:NAMB section of this guideline gives tree (set theory) as an example not needing a hatnote. But that article does have a valid hatnote (different from the one in the example) because there are actually two different notions of trees used within set theory and we have separate articles on both of them. Maybe we should find a different example? — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggested an improvement to hatnote CSS over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Inline nested hatnotes; please comment there. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 06:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
While reading the statement "In most cases, hatnotes should be created using a standard hatnote template", I wondered in what cases should we not use a hatnote template. I scanned the archives and didn't see any mention of this. Could someone please help me understand? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
''
or :''
. There are hatnote-like text in Japanese film and TV articles using manual coding but they are not hatnotes.Is this how to indicate edit history (with a hatnote)? We're in discussion at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there some reason why {{ distinguish}} and it variants are not currently mentioned as a subsection of Wikipedia:Hatnote#Examples of proper use? I could add such a subsection by copying the reasons from Template:Distinguish/doc and Template:Distinguish2/doc, as well as some of the points made in the last deletion discussion. Otherwise, they are not properly explained here as well as the other types of hatnotes. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 23:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, we have two primary hatnote templates that produce lists of "For X, see [[Y]]
" disambiguation messages (here "for-see lists" for short): {{
about}} and {{
redirect}}. These have slightly different behaviours, especially as {{
redirect}} is coded in Lua (via
Module:Redirect hatnote) and {{
about}} is still using wikitext. I've already made some changes to
Module:Redirect hatnote to eliminate a few of its odder behaviours (see
Module talk:Redirect hatnote for details).
I propose to standardize and centralize the behaviour of these lists. I've put together a prototype at Module:Hatnote list, which is in use at the prototype Module:About to implement {{ about/sandbox}}, and at Module:Redirect hatnote/sandbox to implement {{ redirect/sandbox}}. As a result, we can directly compare the current outputs of {{ redirect}} and {{ about}} with their implementations using Module:Hatnote list. I would like to migrate templates to use the code from this module, and this discussion will hopefully serve to establish consensus for that change.
For typical usages, the implementations produce identical output, but they vary in their defaulting/terminating behaviour. The implementations differ in their defaulting/terminating behaviour in two main ways: when they encounter empty parameters generally ("basic gaps"), and when they encounter empty parameters involving the and
keyword ("and-gaps"; the and
keyword allows lists of target pages within a single for-see item). For and-gaps, note that {{
about}} supports and-lists of only up to 2 items; where this applies, the "ABOUT" text parameter has been changed to "UNSUPPORTED".
Centralizing will involve moving to a single standard behaviour. Where a move to centralized behaviour might change output "in the wild", I would add tests first to categorize affected pages into Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters or similar, as I did with updates to Module:Redirect hatnote. Those cases could then be fixed with more typical parameterization before migrating their affected templates to the new code.
In the following subsections are:
Feel free to add examples as needed. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Examples, now collapsed because obsolete
|
---|
Empty
</noinclude> Basic gaps
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude> And-gaps
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude>
</noinclude> |
repeat … until
structure in the code).Discussion goes here. Is there a particular behaviour that's particularly desirable or not? Is there any objection to centralizing the functionality and/or adopting the behaviours from Module:Hatnote list? {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
{{about||another thing|Something else}}
(or {{about||another thing|Something else|second alternative|Yet another article}}
. Does that matter? Should some of these variations be included for completeness? It's commonly used.
Pam
D 08:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)I've added some parameterization tests to {{ about}}, and that should catch most of the pages affected by basic cases here and add them to Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. Specifically, I added tests for parameters 5–9 being specified when 4 isn't, parameters 7–9 when 6 isn't, and parameter 9 when 8 isn't. The template currently maxes out at 9 parameters. The category's up to about 50 pages so far; I'll leave it a bit before jumping to fix them, out of curiosity at how how many pages are affected. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 05:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Nihiltres and Codename Lisa: I just found this discussion going on. I'm absolutely in support of centralizing the behavior of hatnote lists. However, I think I recently blundered after a good faith suggestion to "be bold" with this diff to Module:See also. The discussion was here, which I revived yesterday after it was dormant, and made the changes after significant testing in the sandbox. The suggestion in the discussion was to use Oxford commas for list lengths > 3, use a comma for list length = 2 when the first link contains a section link (' § '), and use semicolons to separate items when any item contains a comma. It's live for "see also". I'm aware that this change puts it out of sync with at least: Module:Further, Module:Other uses, Module:Redirect hatnote, and Module:Hatnote list. Please accept my apologies about the neglect for reading some extra pages and finding discussions going on. — Andy W. ( talk · contrib) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
andList
and orList
functions currently implement the Oxford comma, but not section-link commas or comma-detection semicolons—there's definitely room for improvement there, and longer-term I'd like to use those functions more broadly as we Lua-fy more hatnote templates. Regarding {{
for}}: I'd like to implement it using parts of
Module:Hatnote list's _forSee
function, to keep its form in sync with other hatnote templates as part of its code structure… but that'll involve some minor function restructuring, since {{
for}}'s parameters produce an and-list in the form of a single for-see item, rather than producing a for-see-list in the style of {{
about}}. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
andList
and orList
and test some potential suggested changes in a sandbox. And I'll keep an eye on this page. —
Andy W. (
talk ·
contrib) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
andList
and orList
at
Module:Hatnote list/sandbox; probably could be polished significantly, but it's a start. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 22:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
forSeeForm
and adding the check to the end of pagesStr
? Cheers! —
Andy W. (
talk ·
contrib) 21:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
forseeForm
; no need to overcomplicate things. Also, while these are great and I'd absolutely like to continue, they're out of scope in a section nominally about defaulting/terminating behaviours in for-see lists. Can we please move to
Module talk:Hatnote list for these? :) {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added tracking for the basic-gaps discrepancies to Module:Redirect hatnote. To date only one mainspace page has shown up at Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters, Tasmania, which I fixed with this edit. I'm now figuring out how best to check for any discrepancies with and-gaps in redirect hatnotes. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 19:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've now added further tracking that will add uses of Module:Redirect hatnote with and-gaps to Category:Hatnote templates using unusual parameters. With that and the extant {{ about}} gap-tracking, we should be able to eliminate all the potential edge cases before merging the functionality … unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something? :) {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"The suggestion in the discussion was to use Oxford commas for list lengths > 3, use a comma for list length = 2 when the first link contains a section link (' § '), and use semicolons to separate items when any item contains a comma. It's live for "see also". I'm aware that this change puts it out of sync with at least: Module:Further, Module:Other uses, Module:Redirect hatnote, and Module:Hatnote list."? It would be highly desirable to have this behaivor, as described, and have it be consistent across such templates. Also, Module:Hatnote inline will also need to be updated (and it probably has redundant code in it that can be pruned). PS: I realize some people do not favor the use of the Oxford/Harvard comma in running prose, but this is a special case where it is needed for clarity, and even style guides that do not usually recommend the Oxford/Harvard comma (e.g. Chicago Manual of Style) do recommend it for cases where it aids clarity. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
mSeeAlso._seeAlso()
; the others just need basic updating. My main focus has been on updating or deprecating templates, and there's a slightly-out-of-date table at
User:Nihiltres/Sandbox with some notes. The biggest barrier to converting many of the templates is how many of them use "TEXT", i.e. allowing free-form text in spots instead of more-structured parameters; in particular there's a ton of misuse of those, e.g. as fixed in
this edit. More stuff later; busy today. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 17:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
div
to a span
for uses in structures where a div
will booger things badly). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)@ SMcCandlish: I've prototyped an update that adds basic inline support to Module:Hatnote. I'll raise that at Module talk:Hatnote and include pointers to the topic at Module talk:Hatnote inline etc.; once the support's added in Module:Hatnote we can presumably deprecate the secondary templates/modules, rewrite them as thin wrappers, and finally delete them once uses have been migrated. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to insert a hatnote that is mainly of interest to Wikipedia editors? I didn't see it included in the list of what not to do, so I am unclear. For an example, see decimal mark. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
|selfref=true
in hatnote templates that support that; not all do). That said, self-references should be used sparingly; see also
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}} 22:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)A proposal that would affect the usage of hatnotes is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. Interested editors are welcome to participate.— Godsy ( TALK CONT) 04:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to make of the hatnote for the Frequency article, but it looks bloated and perhaps includes some improper use. What should be done with it? Praemonitus ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of the "five basic rules" of hatnotes, there's a principle suggesting that people try to limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page:
- 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.
This has long seemed an awkward rule to me, for two reasons:
In the context of the second example in particular I decided to play around and create {{ hatnote group}} (powered by Module:Hatnote group) as an experiment. It rewrites hatnote divs in its input into a single hatnote composed of spans with their original content, separated by spaces. Here's a fairly straightforward example:
{{hatnote group| {{about|USE1||PAGE1}} {{redirect|REDIRECT|USE2|PAGE2}} }}
is parsed into
{{hatnote group| <div role="note" class="hatnote">This page is about USE1. For other uses, see [[:PAGE1]].</div> <div role="note" class="hatnote">"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE2, see [[:PAGE2]].</div> }}
which the module then transforms into
<div role="note" class="hatnote"> <span>This page is about USE1. For other uses, see [[:PAGE1]].</span> <span>"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE2, see [[:PAGE2]].</span> </div>
which, finally, displays as (live example):
In short, it gives us some interesting if somewhat hackish flexibility. In particular, I like the potential it has for letting us carve up hatnote messages into reusable, recombinant pieces; we'd need fewer templates overall as a result, even if we used more individual templates in many cases.
That said, I'm not saying flat out that that's what we should do; I'd like to consider the relative merits of various approaches. In particular, some questions I'd like to discuss:
What's your take on the issue? {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, interesting discussion so far. A couple of obvious trends are for a) "one line per concept": using spacing to separate unrelated concepts and generally improve readability, and b) pushback against "hatnote bloat" above the lead, particularly on pages that may have three or more hatnotes. It leads me to think that we should recommend a maximum size for hatnote use and then offer techniques (like {{ hatnote group}} and disambiguation pages) for reducing the "bloat" when needed.
On another note, I did some poking around in the history and traced the "five rules" text back to an original four, added in this edit by Red Slash. A look at this talk page around that time doesn't show discussion of the change, suggesting that it was added unilaterally. I don't think that rule five's supported by consensus, and do think it should be removed, but I equally think that there is a good case for including a clear instruction to editors to keep hatnotes concise and few, avoid needless hatnotes, and reduce clutter when possible. (Tangentially, it might be worth adding some verbiage explicitly supporting edits for concision like this one, but let's limit the scope of this discussion.)
Either way, my personal goal here is to reduce our reliance on custom uses of {{
hatnote}} (or worse, the awful :''
markup) to construct messages virtually identical to the standard templates—it's bad for maintenance. For example,
this search shows a number of examples that use {{
hatnote}} that should probably use {{
about}} instead.
In short: would it be acceptable to replace the "one hatnote" rule with a "minimize use, and aggressively minimize if above a standard maximum" rule? I'm open to refining the idea further, and welcome discussion of specifics. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
{{composed hatnote|about|SUBJECT|distinguish|SIMILARCONCEPT|for|USE|PAGE|text|TEXT}}
→ <div role="note" class="hatnote">This article is about SUBJECT. It is not to be confused with SIMILARCONCEPT. For USE, see PAGE. TEXT.</div>
; and then included some diagnostics to check whether the usage is "unusual". (I'm not happy with the resulting complexity of the idea.) I would prefer that approach because composable fragments should never be used on their own; in my hatnote cleanup work I've accumulated many edits deleting nonstandard hatnotes that don't have any purpose, e.g. :''This article is about X''
or :''X redirects here''
without any target link to make the hatnote plausibly useful.@ Praemonitus: Let me clarify: out of the five editors who've contributed to this talk section, four appear to support using separate lines, and the rationale is, broadly, that the linebreaks separate hatnotes visually into their distinct contexts—making things easier for readers. While we can definitely expand on the guideline in terms of encouraging concision in hatnotes, I don't think that a single-hatnote rule is supported by consensus; I think that your goals of minimizing clutter would be better served by stylistic recommendations. For example, the phrase "with the same name" is often included in hatnotes and is almost always needless, and I almost always remove it when standardizing hatnotes.
Beyond concision in text, we can encourage use of disambiguation pages over long hatnotes—perhaps some crossover with
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Hatnotes? In the meantime, encouraging use of standard templates (rather than custom {{
hatnote}}s) allows for the possibility of automatically diagnosing the longest hatnotes; for example, it'd be trivial for me to add a line or two to
Module:Hatnote list in forSeeTableToString()
that would add a tracking category to articles using hatnotes with at least 4–5 "For X, see Y" items.
The biggest issue I have with your position is not your singlemindedness in consolidating hatnotes, but in unexpected support for keeping hatnotes on separate lines for context. I think that the two of us probably agree that using {{ hatnote group}} to consolidate hatnotes is preferable in most cases to rewriting standardized hatnotes as custom {{ hatnote}}s; the issue is that I don't see broader support for consolidating hatnotes, and I myself strongly believe that consolidating just two hatnotes into one is overkill. Thus, I've suggested a compromise: establishing a guideline threshold (of perhaps 2–3 lines of hatnotes) past which we would aggressively consolidate them, while tolerating lesser cases as trivial: readers are quite capable of glossing over a couple of lines that are clearly formatted as notes with their indented, italicized style. {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 20:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)