Talk:Whitchurch, Warwickshire

Warwickshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hatnote[edit]

@Widefox: the hatnote isn't needed and I haven't removed a hatnote from this article since March 2018 when I removed the one to the "Whitchurch" DAB and replaced it with a redirect hatnote since I redirected "Wimpstone" to it, when that redirection was reverted I removed the hatnote. You then created a Wimpstone, Warwickshire redirect and added a redirect hatnote to the place in Devon which I removed since the "Wimpstone, Warwickshire" redirect isn't ambiguous and its unlikely there's confusion. A hatnote from Whympston to Wimpstone, Warwickshire makes sense since that article is at the base name of the similar spelling but this one isn't. HATCHEAP says "Do not add hatnotes for their own sake". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: agree per WP:NAMB they are generally not needed, yes, but it is explicitly clear The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other. (emphasis own) so is explicitly not black and white per your argument. I find this one useful and 1. there's no downside to it per WP:HATCHEAP Do remove hatnotes that are: misleading, confusing, needlessly astonishing, 2. the search box will prompt both the dab title and the Warwickshire title but not the Whympston topic, plus, admittedly, 3. a reaction to the mess until now... Your removal of the dab in 2018 [1] was quickly reverted by User:Bkonrad [2]. You removed the hatnote here [3]. How do you think helping readers to navigate was going until now? How long have the links to these two topics have needed fixing? I believe they're all fixed now. Widefox; talk 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a downside to it in that it clutters the page, I agree hatnotes are cheap but there is no realistic chance of confusion. I'm not sure how this is useful, why would someone arriving here be looking for something else? I only added the hatnote because I redirected the base title of "Wimpstone" here which as you noted was reverted, thus the hatnote was no longer needed. You created a new "Wimpstone, Warwickshire" redirect and re-added the hatnote but for "Wimpstone, Warwickshire" redirecting here. Readers would until now have been navigating by searching for plain "Wimpstone" and either selecting this article or the Devon one. No one arriving from a "Wimpstone, Warwickshire" redirect needs navigation since that qualified title is unambiguous. For readers looking for the Devon one you could also create a Wimpstone, Devon redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for no confusion? If you check my edit history, I disambiguated 10-20 links. I agree with creating that redirect

Done. What I didn't look into is why/when they got messed up. Did you not deal with them when you changed the dab, or looked at this two years ago? Widefox; talk 13:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, my assumption is that Wimpstone, Warwickshire and Crimscote are notable, with only a matter of time for article creation. (and then a hatnote will be less ugly at the top, or possibly not then so crucial as links and situation will be more clear than up to now). Widefox; talk 13:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there in different counties and hundreds of miles away means that if the one in Warwickshire has a qualified title its unlikely anyone will arrive here wanting the Devon one. I can't find the DAB links that you mention in you're contributions. There weren't any links that I fixed when I turned the DAB into a redirect but I did fix one to point to the Warwickshire one that again I reverted after the DAB revert.

There won't be a need for a hatnote for Wimpstone regardless of whether "Wimpstone, Warwickshire" is a redirect to the Whitchurch article or is a separate article however if we have an article on the Warickshire Wimpstone at simply "Wimpstone" then a hatnote would be needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just NAMB, which is dealt with above. OK, I checked my history and I've confused it with a similar dab I created at the same time Radbourne, where as I said there was a mess of links I fixed. So ignore that. Both dabs have entries in different counties sure, but the Radbourne one shows how despite that they still needed disambiguation. That's my evidence. (ps the two Wimpstones are less than 150 miles apart, not quite "hundreds", rounding that's one hundred. The same order of magnitude for the two Radbournes (60 miles, rounding up to one hundred) BTW, since I created that dab, you and the other editor have already taken it away from MOSDAB, and made the bluelink less useful for readers, so I'll fix it up. Widefox; talk 16:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There still unlikely to be confused, we usually only add such hatnotes of there are 2 places in the same county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]