Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

Fixing NAMB

Previously there seemed to be a very strong consensus that the current text of NAMB (Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous) was actively harmful to users and the project. I put in some text that I felt reflected the discussion but keep getting reverted on the dubious notion my text is "extreme". Here it is (my text in italics):

"Here the hatnote can be removed. A reader who is following links within Wikipedia would not have ended up at tree (set theory) if one were looking for other types of trees, since tree does not redirect there.

This, however, is not always the case. Not all readers use Wikipedia's search engine, so in some cases, a high result on an external search engine, or a phrase that readers might not know is ambiguous, should have the hatnote nonetheless. For example, Guadalupe River (Texas) is the top Google search result for Guadalupe River, and the disambiguation page isn't on the first page of Google results. In this case, a link to the disambiguation page makes sense. Another example, Treaty of Paris (1783) has a link to Treaty of Paris (disambiguation) since many readers who come thru external search engines aren't aware that there is more than one.

A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator).

A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses" section above."

What's wrong with that? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to where there was clear support for such language in previous discussions? older ≠ wiser 12:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the discussion petered out after already establishing that the current text was unacceptable. I was trying to get the spirit of what people were wanting, but maybe I didn't quite get it. I think your argument that it allows hatnotes on any page (which was in an edit summary just so everyone else knows) is completely bogus though. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking over that discussion in the archives, I see opinions were all over the board and there was not clear consensus about mentioning Google or other external search engines as a point of reference. Which results appear high in Google results is variable depending on user preferences (Google tweaks the results based on individual settings and search history). older ≠ wiser 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's a loophole in NAMB that doesn't allow hatnotes when navigation is done externally e.g. Google. For instance, Google "TLS", and end up on Transport Layer Security (another is "TCP" -> Transmission Control Protocol where the hatnote should be removed according to NAMB), these types of articles that are strong enough to dominate Google hits, but fail to become primary topics so they have no redirect hatnote (see Talk:TLS and Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation) then strand readers. Worth fixing? We'd need some way of keeping a check on hatnotes if we allow it. Or, we ignore it and just force readers to type in their search again into WP? Widefox; talk 11:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. I google "TLS" and I see the Wikipedia article for Transport Layer Security listed first. Are you suggesting that someone looking for some other sense might click on that link expecting to find something other than an article on Transport Layer Security? older ≠ wiser 12:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes if they're aiming for WP as a destination. Both in the specific case of looking up what the acronym means, but also as shorthand for say Times Literary Supplement, so navigate to WP and take it from there. I have no stats for how common this is, but without a Chrome search box to select WP, I imagine navigation via Google is common. Widefox; talk 15:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems improbable, at least to me, and strikes me as the sort of random behavior that is essentially unpredictable. So you're saying, for example, someone looking for the Times Literary Supplement types "TLS" into Google search and then clicks the link to Transport Layer Security because they really wanted Wikipedia's article on the Times Literary Supplement anyway and the hatnote is supposed to address such winding path possibilities? I mean if TLS redirected to the networking concept then of course a hatnote is necessary. But if there is no redirect, it is only through a series of improbable and deliberately misguided choices that one could arrive at the networking article. older ≠ wiser 16:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It might seem improbable, but it probably happens a lot. How about this: a person types TLS in Google looking for Times Literary Supplement - they know what it is but forgot its full name. They don't see the TLS they are looking for in the Google results, but they do see a Wikipedia link. So they click the link, thinking "Wikipedia's got hatnotes, it will point me to all the other TLS's." And then the hatnote isn't there. So, I think that Widefox's scenario is 100% plausible and that users are actively expecting to see a hatnote on the page. Also, you fail to cover situations like Treaty of Paris (1783) and Guadalupe River (Texas) where Wikipedia doesn't have a primary topic but the search engines pick one almost randomly. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If it was series of low probability events I would totally agree as irrelevant. Googling and clicking WP for acronym lookup is one click and general. My point is that by making acronyms that are primaryuse (both WP and Google) into primarytopics, we are always covered with a redirect hatnote, but for those that aren't bestowed primarytopic, NAMB is unforgiving by never allowing catching users with a hatnote. This is despite users most likely arriving there from the Google route. Even if considered a small chance, this is for all the other ambiguous terms on the DAB, multiplied by the number of these DABs. I won't worry too much about this, but considering primaryusage and Google hits are being challenged as criteria in primarytopic selection, this corner case is something to be aware of as a increasing phenomenon by not simply going with the most likely candidate. Widefox; talk 10:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The improbable chain of events that might lead to someone searching for TLS looking for the Times Literary Supplement to click on Transport Layer Security because, oh, Wikipedia has hatnotes is nothing but the most ridiculous hypothetical hyperbole. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the wording of assuming knowledge of "hatnotes" above sounds ridiculous and distracts...but there's an vital point in how improbable it sounds to you - what's their alternative?... pull back from internal WP terms and consider the valid wider general point. Navigation via Google. Pull back from one single (of many) uses of "TLS" (Times Literary Supplement). Put another way, are readers more likely to Google a term than WP it? I don't know they're both valid and high probability. Not low probability or a chain. PRIMARYTOPIC redirect hatnotes mean we always catch them internally, NAMB means we never catch them externally. Widefox; talk 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is little plausible evidence (though lots of hypothetical presumptions) that people often arrive at the "wrong" page in Wikipedia via Google. I agree there are cases where the disambiguating term used in an article title may be insufficiently clear. For example, any of the many Treaty of Paris articles which are disambiguated by year only. With a significant part of the adult English-speaking population for whom anything that happened more that twenty years ago is an undifferentiated mass of dates and factoids, it is not hard to imagine clicking on the wrong result in a Google search. The same confusion could result from an internal search and that is why hatnotes may be warranted for those articles. But essentially, in seems that what you and others are suggesting is that because the disambiguation page does not appear on the first page of Google results, it is up to us to ensure that the disambiguation page is always accessible from any other page that might possibly be clicked on by a confused searcher. That is the fundamental objection I have to mentioning the misuse (or confused use) of external search engines as a basis for internal guidelines. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
(in reply to Ego White Tray below to sum up both threads, and I agree Bkonrad I'm not proposing general catch-all hatnotes or fixing erroneous navigation routes but something specific allowable for only the overwhelmingly most likely article - there's no pandoras box...) Preventing hatnote spam is useful, so having to justify hatnotes is good. That's secondary to useful disambiguation though. Considering outside navigation routes may seem secondary or even exceptional as it breaks internal consistency. Rather than ignoring it, maybe there's an easy compromise? Highly likely incoming ambiguous navigation shouldn't be made difficult e.g. acronym lookup via Google when there's a dominant topic in both the search engine and WP. A hatnote exception for highly likely incoming navigation may be prudent, any objection to:

"A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term does not redirect to it, but only when that topic is primary for a term with respect to usage (see WP:PRIMARYUSAGE for a consideration of the primary use of a term "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"). In this case (as with an article that is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), plausible navigation may occur via external navigation routes such as Google, and a hatnote may still be useful." Widefox; talk 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That is nearly impenetrable prose. I'm not sure what it means even after re-reading it a few times. With regards to TLS, if you are suggesting that this would justify having a hatnote at Transport Layer Security, then I object. I see no reason at all to think a reasonable person would expect to find anything other than an article about Transport Layer Security by clicking on that in an external search results (even if the search was for "TLS"). older ≠ wiser 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, I mainly merged the two WP:NAMB and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. OK, just taking the latter...
"If the topic is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, then a hatnote may still be useful. (This is similar to one commonly discussed aspect of selecting a primary topic WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) This may help a reader who has searched rather than navigated to that article, for example from Google, but is looking for other uses of the term."
You've made your point well that it seems unreasonable if they are aware of the meaning (in this case an acronym), but that's an assumption, and moot as they don't have an alternative via this route. What you may consider unlikely or in fact unreasonable/erroneous is, in fact, most likely given no alternative. "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". The term is ambiguous, they are most likely to land on that page with a search, and however unlikely than seems, we don't resolve the conflict that will arise. Isn't redirected by us is similar to directed by Google? We resolve the former, and ban resolving the latter. My inspiration is Tony1's "Walled garden" [1] argument against making DNS a primary topic. The irony is we have a walled garden when we don't make the primary use into a primarytopic. Simple. Widefox; talk 19:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
So in other words, you want hatnotes to accommodate readers who click arbitrary links that appear high in external search engines without knowing what they're looking for? Sorry, but that seems far beyond what hatnotes are capable of. Isn't redirected by us is similar to directed by Google? No, not in the least. One aspect is fully under internal control, the other is subject to random and arbitrary fluctuations as well as inconsistency from one user to another. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The words "arbitrary", "random", "fluctuations", "inconsistency" for A, and "fully" "internal" "control" for B are your POV. Ask a person in the street and the terms may be pinned on A or B! In traffic Google is #2, WP #6. Despite all differences, Google and WP are in agreement on these terms by definition, so the least moving target terms. We already have instructions how to remove inconsistency personalisation. Let's not be comforted by the illusion of control internally on WP - WP is no island. Agree the search appears niche - an edge case or flawed even, so maybe I should reconsider and knock an essay together, or maybe others have already on something bigger. Ignoring navigation from search engines is tempting as our navigation is good, but only if they search #6 not #2. I checked WP:GOOGLE and I tried the "Madonna" search ...Google Madonna -> Madonna (entertainer) no hatnote to Madonna. How would you get to Madonna (art) or Mary (mother of Jesus) or all the others?! My point seems niche, even flawed, but what's the readers alternative? deemed PRIMARYTOPIC or not, those Google hits makes us go from one edge case to another, would be nice to catch them irrespective of PRIMARYTOPIC. Yes, TLS, and DNS too, except DNS is covered now it's a primarytopic. Widefox; talk 01:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, no it is not just POV. It is a fact that search engines rank and display results differently according to user preferences and search history. Yes we have instructions about this, but it is hardly anything that the average user would know about or use. A defective search means you search again. This is rudimentary knowledge for even the most incompetent of searchers. I see no reason whatsoever that we should try to place hatnotes to try to anticipate such things. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We disagree - highlighting under-the-hood details is irrelevant with these stable results. I do agree - they either refine their search, or go to WP and repeat their search (we're assuming they intend to use WP right). Double search. If they are trying to discover (they don't know what the term is like for an acronym) then how do they refine? or out of frustration/simplicity do they just click on WP and search from that page? I probably do the latter. If they do the latter a hatnote saves the second search. I don't know, but I'm aware of your strong opposition in principle and in the examples DNS/TLS/TCP/Madonna. This thread is long, so I'll drop this now and try put something together. Thanks, appreciate. Widefox; talk 13:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It would save a lot of hassle if we just changed our collective mind and allowed a simple hatnote on every page Xyzz (foo): "For other uses of Xyzz see Xyzz (disambiguation)" or, if no dab page exists, then "... see Xyzz". It's really not a lot of clutter, and it will help, I suggest, quite a lot of readers who land on the page. Just allow the hatnote, and we can end the debates, get a bot to add it to all pages as appropriate, and move on. But I suspect I'm a minority view on this one!
A much greater worry is the number of cases where you can't find Xyzz (foo) by searching on "Xyzz", because the creating editor didn't bother to add it to the dab page or make an appropriate hatnote. PamD 13:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I distinctly remember saying this in the previous similar discussion, but here goes again: the rule is sound and should be kept as is, while cases where ambiguity of a title is introduced by an external search engine should be handled by Mediawiki: it can have a feature to detect exactly that case through the HTTP referer and show the redundant hatnote only to those users. Everyone else doesn't have to see the same clutter. I'm not sure why people are so forgetful, maybe the discussion that I recall was in a different forum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No, no it wasn't - I see it right here in Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 4#Hatnotes for disambiguated topics. I know history has a tendency of repeating itself, but this is ridiculous :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we even need this section at all

Seeing the discussion above, it looks like we could never come up with a rule that everyone agrees with. If the current text was being discussed, it also would clearly never reach consensus. But why do we even need this section at all? I think it might be best to replace WP:NAMB with absolutely nothing at all. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This was also done in the past, and was reverted by lack of consensus to delete it. :facepalm: Diego (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I remember wrong, but I think it was reverted only because it orphaned a shortcut (WP:NAMB), which is a silly reason. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hatting question

There is a video game called Fortnite, a pun on the word "fortnight" which of course we also have an article for at fortnight. Would it make sense to include, on the page for fortnight a hatnote for "Fortnite", in that a person that has heard about this game but not seen printed reference to it yet may end up at "fortnight"? On the other hand, it is doubtful for a person searching on "fortnight" to end up at the video game article since that is a purposefully misspelling of the term, so I don't think a hat note is needed there. Just need some advice as to handle this situation. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Just do it. Keφr 17:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Linking to episodes of a television series – improper use of a hatnote for trivial information?

MadisonGrundtvig has been hatnoting several articles with links to List of Teletubbies episodes and videos#Episodes, for example: Campanology, Dairy, Dishwashing, Dry stone, Shepherd and Swimming pool. I would like opinions on whether these should be considered to be trivial (WP:TRHAT) and should be removed. Thankyou, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • If they are not to be noted on top of the page, shouldn't they be noted in the See Also sections at least? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps putting those in See also sections is preferable. Corollary to this hatnote issue is how to handle this in disambiguation pages, when those are applicable, for example Rocking Chair (disambiguation). One point is that these individual episodes of the TV series do not have separate articles, but are simply line items in a list. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It is very common that people list episodes of television series', whether or not they have their own separate pages, such as in Bleep (disambiguation), the episode of the children's television series Arthur. If an episode of Arthur is notable, then I would assume Teletubbies is just as notable. Well, but then again, maybe that's just because disambiguation articles are not really watched very much so it seems, compared to regular articles, and I see differences in style in the articles lots of times. For instance, sometimes people write "See Also" and other times people write "See also" so it confuses me as to which one is the correct way to write it. I always assumed that "See Also" was correct because "See Also" is a title, and I've been taught that titles must be capitalized. MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
        1. Per MOS:HEAD, "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case)."
        2. I don't doubt that other editors have also linked individual episode titles to a list of episodes of a television series. That's why I'm bringing the issue up for discussion, to get a sense of whether or where there might be limits to this practice. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Well I really hope that it is allowed because I did a lot of work on a couple of television series' redirect pages as well as disambiguating them on certain pages. If it is not allowed, my work has come to waste! I will be really pissed off!!! MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I understand. Better to bring it up for discussion now rather than wait until you're finished. Perhaps you might work on other things for a while, to limit the potential waste. There are over 800 items in Category:Lists of American television series episodes. My concern is what the encyclopedia will look like if someone undertook similar projects for all of them. Maybe it would be manageable with disambiguations, and my concerns are misplaced. I suppose that if, for example there were four other TV series with an episode titled "Washing Up" that we would just create a "Washing Up" disambiguation and the Dishwashing article would not be overrun with hatnotes. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies on this are quite clear and well established. Ten years ago, this site was full of links to episodes of the Simpsons TV show that mentioned or parodied a topic. These links have all been removed. Links to Teletubies episode titles quite clearly fall under WP:TRHAT and WP:LEGITHAT.

I removed the hatnote form Chinese New Year and the link added in the "See also" section. Read the WP:MOS as well as the other guides and help pages. We do not need to disambiguate a major festival celebrated by billions annually with a trivial video clip within a children's TV show. Such disparity of notability is self evident.

Read WP:N and understand what notability means within Wikipedia. It does not follow that because one episode of a TV show passes notability that all TV show episodes pass notability any more than it does that because Steve Jobs and Apple computers are notable that all employees of Apple computers much be notable too. The notability of individual episodes of the Teletubies has not be shown.

Links to the Teletubies should not go in the "See also" section. That section is supposed to link to additional information that will enhance your understanding of the subject. The Teletubies episode list does not do that. Look at MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:DABSEEALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Chinese New Year would be a relevant link on the Teletubies article as it provides more information about the subject of that episode, but the Teletubies would not be a relevant link the Chinese New Year article as the Teletubies article does not provide anything but a snip-it of trivia. -- Rincewind42 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not to include them as hatnotes, there is no basis for removing these from disambiguation pages. WP:DABMENTION covers topics that do not have articles. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
But we do then have the interesting situation:
  • There is a Teletubbies episode (no.104) called "Bell Ringing", mentioned in List of Teletubbies episodes and videos
  • So if Bell Ringing (disambiguation) existed (or if Bell Ringing was a disambiguation page), it would be correct to include a link there to this episode.
  • But there is no such disambiguation page. Bell Ringing redirects to Campanology (as do Bell ringing and Bellringing but not, interestingly, Bell-ringing, which goes to Change ringing!).
  • Campanology (or possible Change ringing) is clearly the primary topic for "Bell ringing" (and almost cetainly for "Bell Ringing" too)
  • And it has been stated above that the episode is too trivial to merit a {{redirect}} hatnote at Campanology.
  • So at present, no-one can find that episode by its title (I find it difficult to imagine anyone actually wanting to, but we're talking about an example here) other than by doing a "Search" after their "Go" has only found bells.
  • But if there were also a novel and a film called Bell Ringing, we would have a disambiguation page in which we would include the Teletubbies episode.
It seems unfortunate that the accessibility of the episode depends on whether we've got WP articles on the hypothetical book and film, leading to inconsistency, but I can't suggest a solution. (And I'm an inclusionist in dab pages, so wouldn't like to see WP:DABMENTION made into a tougher criterion for addition to dab pages). PamD 14:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I looked into Bell Ringing a bit yesterday and noticed much the same thing. It might perhaps be worth expanding the dab at Bells Are Ringing with some similar titles in see also and then linking that in a hatnote at Campanology saying "Bell-ringing" redirects here, for topics with similar titles, see Bells Are Ringing. (or perhaps a new disambiguation page with a more generic title. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
For example, some other somewhat similarly titled items that might be included on a general disambiguation page include:
older ≠ wiser 15:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • So from all the evidence I see here and in my watchlist, does that mean that anything with a blue link, whether or not it is a redirect page, has the capability of being disambiguated (in a disambiguation page, not a regular article)? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL as well as WP:DABNOT for relevant guidance. Briefly, the disambiguation page must contain a blue link that mentions the ambiguous term, ideally the mention is more than just a passing mention and is appropriately referenced. Point is that it should be something that a reader might reasonably search for under that term. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And see WP:DDD as well. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I rescued Tropical Fish (disambiguation) from speedy deletion because I think it may be useful to consider that as part of the discussion here. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
And clarification for that speedy request which I created. The disambig page had been created solely to link a Teletubbies episode. Up till then Tropical Fish (film) was hat-noted from Tropical fish without any problem. I was not aware of this discussion, but it seemed highly un-encycloaedic to use disambig pages to reference individual episodes of a TV programme that themselves only justifies one article for all the episodes.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is everyone using bullet points to indent their comments on this page. See WP:THREAD and use colons to indent talk page threads.

@Wbm1058: The reference to the Simpsons is related to MadisonGrundtvig comment "If they are not to be noted on top of the page, shouldn't they be noted in the See Also sections at least?" That is why I was quoting MOS:SEEALSO. It has no bearing on hatnotes. If a Simpsons episode has an article, and I think they all do, then those article titles need disambiguated in the same way as any other article. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The NAMB rule and example

Understanding WP:NAMB

Greetings. I'm another of those editors whose edits have been reverted with a simple "per WP:NAMB".

Now, I am neither of below-average intelligence nor literacy, and I do not consider myself a neophyte Wikipedian. If the purpose of a policy is so that editors don't have to repeatedly explain their actions, instead simply referring to an explanatory page, then NAMB does not succeed.

First and foremost, it is far from clear what the policy is, and what sort of hatnote it is discouraging. The title is perhaps the only clue: "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous". Fair enough, but what about some text that explains how you identify these cases?

And what about examples? The only example is unfortunately a rather special case: telling us that it is unwanted to add hatnotes to two articles with superficial similarities that really are worlds apart. I easily understand (and agree with) the notion that trees in set theory has nothing in common with biological plants (or most other kinds of tree, for that matter, since maths is a very cloistered discipline)

But it has come to my attention - not because I could understand it from the NAMB description - that such special cases is far from the only case intended to be covered by NAMB.

Let's take my recent case as an example: The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) and how that article relates to the various other articles with the same name (see The Snows of Kilimanjaro, a disambig page, for the relevant articles).

The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) does not in any way relate to, for instance, The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) in the way Tree (set theory) relates to Tree (disambiguation). They are not dissimilar concepts - they are both films. Films with identical titles.

In my mind, this is a completely separate case from set theory trees. If, hypothetically, there was an article on the properties of the actual snows lying on top of the African mountain itself named "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" then I could understand the uselessness of linking between the movie and such an article. But discerning between two works of art sharing the exact same name and medium?

If NAMB is supposed to cover even a case like this, I respectfully submit that an additional example is required. As a minimum, that is - it would be even better if the title "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" was backed up with some actual explanatory/defining text, as is done for most of the policies out there, policies that do not have pages of Talk text - simply by virtue of being clearly understandable in the first place.

Let me back that up: I note that the only line of policy language (starting with "Here the hatnote can be removed...") busies itself only with the example given: it's specific, not general. And the two remaining lines concern exceptions to the not-too-well defined rule, and thus add nothing to a editor's understanding of the policy itself. Thus none of the paragraphs explain or expand upon the general policy as given by the title. This is in my opinion far too terse to function as intended: i.e. be a place where we can send editors instead of having to explain our actions when we revert changes etc.

Nowhere in NAMB does it say what I have been given reason to think is the real policy: no hatnote on a disambiguated article to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page. Note: I say so since that language comes from a helpful editor trying to help me understand NAMB as discussed briefly on my own talk page: User talk:CapnZapp#Snows and hatnotes. In this context, please do not get stuck on the language of this interpretation, and I would like to ask you not to bring that helpful editor into this discussion. Consider it to be an example only: its particulars is not the point I'm trying to make here.

If the edits I've been trying to make (adding some sort of connection between the French movie and the other works of the same name) really violates policy and that the reverts are in order, then please consider expanding or embellishing the policy language and/or example(s).

Also, please add the rationale for having such a policy in the first place. Consider helping the editor out by suggesting alternatives, as well. If, for instance, it would be okay to integrate the connection in the main body of the article, or perhaps by way of an "See Also" bullet point, any such alternatives would be greatly appreciated. In other words: do not just forbid, explain why. And do not just forbid, offer alternative means. :-)

Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole "don't hatnote because it's too messy" philosophy just drives me crazy. We aren't doing this to look pretty, we are trying to help readers, but apparently some editors don't get that. I completely reject the anti-hatnoters argument that there's a "wrong way" to search for articles. In my view, the mere possibility that a web search could take you to the wrong article is enough reason for a link to the disambiguation page. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, my proposal is simply fixing what's there. I'm not discussing the google links. I'm not proposing to delete the policy.
My main interest is: not getting reverted per a policy I can't understand the connection to! If people revert me (and do so "properly"), fair enough, but then then the policy they send me to ("read the NAMB") should damn well be easily understandable and directly applicable to the case at hand.
 
Let's give the discussion more time for now. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a clarification is in order. I am arguing that I'm being reverted by a policy that is not covering the case I'm being reverted on. Either the policy needs clarifying or I will contest the reverts as needing a more relevant justification. I'm not asking for the policy to be fundamentally changed here; just better expressed. Neither am I asking for the policy to be removed. Finally, I'm not concerned with Google searches. To move forward, the question is simple: What do you say NAMB is about?. I would have assumed interested parties would come here to express the policy in their own words, so we can 1) tell if the current policy language is at all covering what people believe NAMB is about (Personally I suspect not, as I've said above), and 2) reach consensus about what to add/modify in order to get the policy text to 3) be easily understandable for the average editor and 4) representative of the revert cases (probably 99% of why editors are sent here in the first place). CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the rule's basis, which isn't directly reliant upon dissimilarity between/among subjects.
In the Tree (set theory) example, the hatnote has been deemed superfluous not because the mathematical concept is unrelated to botany, but because the parenthetical "set theory" is inapplicable to the other "tree" articles.
Likewise, while two films titled The Snows of Kilimanjaro have much in common, the parenthetical "2011 film" couldn't possibly describe a motion picture from 1952.
A different/second example along those lines might be helpful.
To be clear, I'm not expressing complete agreement with the rule or addressing the search engine issue (which, as you noted, is a separate matter). —David Levy 11:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the policy says, however. The policy says that if the title is not ambiguous, the hatnote should ALWAYS be remove, which, as written, includes Treaty of Paris and Snows of Kilimanjaro. In previous discussions, I saw widespread agreement that Treaty of Paris actually should have the hatnote (which contradicts what's written) with dispute about cases similar Snows of Kilimanjaro Ego White Tray (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
1) WP:NAMB is not policy, it is an editing guideline, with an expectation of common sense for exceptions and discussion in the case of disagreements. 2) While some editors might interpret WP:NAMB more narrowly than others, which would be a cause for discussion, I don't see any language currently in WP:NAMB that would require removal of hatnotes in the situations mentioned. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
But, NAMB is being treated as policy and is being treated as requiring removal of hatnotes (as demonstrated by the original post above). It's being used to delete helpful hatnotes without discussion or explanation, so we have a problem. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that disagreements between editors over how to apply this guideline can be a problem for discussion. But again, this is NOT policy and I still don't see where the current language requires removal of hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
But, NAMB is being treated as policy and is being treated as requiring removal of hatnotes (as demonstrated by the original post above). It's being used to delete helpful hatnotes without discussion or explanation, so we have a problem.
It's always problematic when editors try to use policies or guidelines as blunt instruments with which to force through disputed changes without discussion. This is a behavioral problem, not necessarily evidence of a problem with how a policy or guideline is written.
In this instance, CapnZapp told Lugnuts (whom I just notified of this discussion) to "feel free to not respond". But CapnZapp also requested that Lugnuts raise the issue on the article's talk page instead of again reverting with no explanation beyond a link to WP:NAMB. Unfortunately, Lugnuts promptly did the latter, which clearly was unhelpful (irrespective of whether the edit itself was appropriate). —David Levy 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the policy says, however.
With what part(s) of my explanation are you expressing disagreement?
The policy says that if the title is not ambiguous, the hatnote should ALWAYS be remove, which, as written, includes Treaty of Paris and Snows of Kilimanjaro.
I agree that those examples would fall under WP:NAMB by default. But as Bkonrad noted, exceptions can be made when needed (determined via discussion if disagreement arises). —David Levy 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
@David Levy: Thank you for your reasoned response (and for introducing me to talk quotes :)
You appear to have misunderstood the rule's basis, which isn't directly reliant upon dissimilarity between/among subjects. Fair enough, but my point is that the "rule's basis" is not explained or described anywhere. The text should not be so easily misunderstood, especially when it would be easy to drastically lower that risk.
In the Tree (set theory) example, the hatnote has been deemed superfluous not because the mathematical concept is unrelated to botany, but because the parenthetical "set theory" is inapplicable to the other "tree" articles. Okay. But that really is not made clear. And moreover, I suggest this be made not just clear, but explicit. There is nothing in the comment to the example that dispels you of the notion the example is there because of the alternative interpretation that set theory is "too dissimilar" to other usages; either there should, or a more general example should be used/added.
Likewise, while two films titled The Snows of Kilimanjaro have much in common, the parenthetical "2011 film" couldn't possibly describe a motion picture from 1952. Unlike perhaps other voices on this page, I am not contesting either your interpretation or moving for a change. I am, however, arguing that in order to make this specific leap of reasoning, an editor without prior knowledge needs this to be spelled out, not by a helpful editor on a talk page, but by the introduction. Currently, the header/name of the poli... editing guideline is not sufficient to convey this message to a user. And the sole example easily sidetracks you into thinking the policy is about something else (as discussed).
A different/second example along those lines might be helpful. If it turns out describing this in general means is difficult or confusing or won't reach consensus, then yes, an extra example could very well be a clean alternative. If no introduction is added, I would say a second example is essential in conveying the central principle of the editing guideline; which, in my understanding, pretty much boils down to no hatnote on a disambiguated article to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page, no?
To be clear, I'm not expressing complete agreement with the rule or addressing the search engine issue (which, as you noted, is a separate matter). Very clear! And thank you! CapnZapp (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome!
I agree that the current wording/example is less clear than it could be. If we can agree on an alternative/additional example and/or more detailed explanation, that would be helpful. (Of course, it still wouldn't be appropriate to continually throw the WP:NAMB link at editors seeking clarification.) —David Levy 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Improving the guideline

There was discussion here about how to improve the guideline, with some consensus to have it include suggestions on when to include hatnotes instead of being prescriptive. I proposed to always have the hatnote when there are several ambiguous articles belonging to the same class, the paradigmatic example being Treaty of Paris. If you're looking for some Snows of Kilimanjaro film or book and by any method you arrive to The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film), it's helpful to have the hatnote always present, rather than uses of the hatnote like this one (where all versions should be listed). You cannot assume that all readers wanted that precise version and none of the others; the reader may not even know which version they're looking for, so leading them to the index in the DAB page is a safe bet. Unfortunately, discussion the last time was side-tracked by the various ways that a reader could arrive to an article, and the draft didn't advance towards consensus. Diego (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with suggestion that a hatnote may be helpful when there are multiple items of a particular type -- especially when the disambiguation relies on some relatively arbitrary fact such as the year, which for many readers might not be particularly meaningful. I don't agree with using external search engines as a reason for exceptions. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
But why not? I've never understood that. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Re-read the previous discussions. older ≠ wiser 00:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I did, and I still don't understand. Yes, external search engines are out of our control, but that's no reason we shouldn't try to help readers that use them. Google "Guadalupe River" for example, and you will see that two of these rivers appear on the first page of results, but the disambiguation page does not. What's the problem with providing a link to the disambiguation page when Google doesn't? Also, your statement about Treaty of Paris is essentially agreeing that the policy as written is broken and has no consensus. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
By that logic we should therefore include a hatnote on every single page where there is any possibility of that someone might click on an errant link in Google (which practically might mean most articles in Wikipedia, depending on how confused a reader is presumed). I don't understand why we need to make any reference to Google to explain the utility of such hatnotes on pages such as you mention. older ≠ wiser 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that is not at all the logic. But if Google doesn't point to the disambiguation page, then having a hatnote to the disambig page to make up for Google's shortcoming is a good idea. But, I agree, these links should be there, regardless of what Google does. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
But I don't see how that is a failing of Google or how the suggested line of reasoning would not lead in the extreme to attempting to accommodate multiple shortcomings in a user's ability to use a search engine. Google, like most search engines, ranks results based on popularity. As such, for MOST topics, the disambiguation page will not be in the search results and by your reasoning, there should be hatnotes on all such articles where there is a disambiguation page for the base title. older ≠ wiser 04:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What are the reasons why a disambiguated page shouldn't include a link to the disambiguation page? If we concentrate on discussing the benefits for the encyclopedia rather than our different reasonings, we may be closer to achieve consensus this time. Diego (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I see no harm in a link to a disambiguation page (and only one disambiguation page). That said, if any reasonable user knows that term is ambiguous and that the topic they're looking at is not the primary topic, it certainly doesn't need the hatnote. If an ordinary user wouldn't know that the topic is ambiguous (Treaty of Paris, for example) or wouldn't know which topic is primary (Snows of Kilimanjaro), then it probably should. (BTW, even a reader who doesn't know anything about out primary topic guideline still understands the concept) Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all, but certainly most. Tree (set theory) is a good example of one that doesn't need it. Any reasonable person knows that they need to make their web search more specific than "tree" to get the mathematical concept. For Guadalupe River, on the other hand, people won't be aware of this need - same with Treaty of Paris. Maybe the wording to use is that a non-ambiguous title that is clearly less-used than a highly-used topic with the same name doesn't need the hatnote? I'm sure someone could word it better than that, though. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(Yet another branch of discussion leading to incoming search engine links that I've lopped of, since I'm not interested in the greater picture (see clarification above). Nothing wrong with this discussion, don't get me wrong, but it is a separate discussion. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

Suggestion

Article titles that are not ambiguous Tree (set theory), Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film), Treaty of Paris (1783) as examples

When the title of the article is not ambiguous, a hatnote is optional, and should lead only to a single disambiguation page. Whether to include this hatnote should be based on how likely it is that a reader will inadvertently land on the this page while seeking another topic. In the Tree (set theory) example above, the chances that a reader searching for the plant will land here are almost zero, so the hatnote is not needed. In the Treaty of Paris (1783) example, the large number of treaties with this name make it very likely that a reader was looking for another topic and the hatnote should be included. The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) lands somewhere in the middle, and can be included or omitted based on editor's discretion.

Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just delete it

I'm gonna say again, let's just delete that whole subsection. It does more harm than good, arguing about it does more harm than good, and we're better off without it. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a heads up I raised your subject line one level, to disconnect your topic from mine. Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I reverted these changes, which separated messages from the necessary context. Level-three headings divide the topics appropriately. —David Levy 11:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as my recent removal: the initial discussion about a year ago could not reach a consensus about what the text should be - but there was strong consensus that the current text was unacceptable. I actually did remove it a year ago, and I checked the archives again, and confirmed my thought that it was only deleted because it orphaned a shortcut (WP:NAMB). The idea of entirely deleting has never really been discussed, and has been twice reverted (now and a year ago), but neither time by someone who actually disagreed with me. So, I have seen absolutely no consensus against deleting it, just concerns about broken redirects, or lack of discussion. I figure that actually deleting it this time might be what it takes to get anyone to actually discuss the merits. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again you should not make significant changes to a guideline, certainly not wholesale removal of WP:NAMB, without gaining consensus first. Or if you prefer there's a guideline for this: WP:BRD. You've boldly removed it, I've reverted it, now it should be discussed. My own view is there's no need to remove it; I find it's fine as it is, or as it was before the note I mentioned below was added, and don't find it especially confusing or unclear. It's only a guideline so is for editors to interpret as they will, including ignore it if they think of a better way to do things. So there's no need to remove it or modify it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You really need to read the previous discussion then - Some editor went through all of the Treaty of Paris articles and deleted the hatnotes to the disambiguation page - then on the page comments for one of them, a reader complained that we had all the details about that particular Treaty of Paris wrong - he was at the wrong article and didn't even know it, because there was not hatnote. That was a year ago - this conversation re-started because of similar removals on other pages that needed them. That's the problem, people are going around removing useful hatnotes for no other reason than the fact that it appears here. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Status?

I came here to check the policy, looking to refer to it in making an edit having done so before, and noticed the note that it's frequently disputed. Coming here to find the discussion it presumably referred to it's now almost 2 months old. So presumably it's now no longer being disputed and the note can be removed? --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There never would have been consensus to add it in the first place, so it's presence shouldn't be treated as consensus. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You have now removed the section (twice after I undid your first removal). Can you please point to the place where this decision was made, i.e. where it was discussed and some sort of consensus reached it should be removed. As significant changes to guideline should not be made without consensus being reached first, as it says at the top of the page.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion continued in section above. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Time for an RfC?

This topic comes back and back, usually brought by a hurt editor or reader outside the circle of watchers of this talk page. I wonder if we should now have a discussion bringing in a wider audience, and try to settle it.

I'm increasingly moving to the (radical) idea that a simple "For other uses" hatnote is no bad thing and should be allowed on any article with a disambiguated title (including placenames with comma disambiguation). The harm is minimal, an extra single-sentence hatnote which will be ignored by all readers who have found the right page. The benefits are great: a guide to any reader who has landed on the wrong page, probably by having found it using an external search engine, but possibly by following a duff link somewhere in the encyclopedia (editors have been known to link to the wrong article occasionally), and an end to this recurrent discussion which wastes the time of people who ought to be out there editing articles and dab pages, and avoidance of acrimonious discussions about possible edge cases where a helpful hatnote might or might not be allowed under current rules.

The necessary change would be to remove the section at WP:NAMB and amend the "Linking to a disambiguation page" section, which currently states

"the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. {{other uses}} may be used for this.",

to read:

"the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page. {{other uses}} may be used for this. Similar hatnotes may be added to the disambiguated pages. Note that until 2014 this was not allowed and the abbreviation "WP:NAMB" referred to the previous policy.",

and retarget WP:NAMB appropriately. (Actually I reckon the wording should be "a hatnote on the primary topic page must link...", but that's another discussion.)

I'm not sure about the best way forward, how/where to set up an RfC, etc. PamD 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)amended 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

For the anti-clutter crowd, I'd add that on pages with unambiguous titles, only a single hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page should be included. Ego White Tray (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. Let me add a comment on the RfC below, however: My beef with the current status isn't so much the poli... I mean guideline itself, but how poorly worded it is.

In other words, even if there is consensus to retain status quo (or more likely, that status quo will be retained because no consensus at all, even to retain status quo, will be reached...) I need the text to better reflect that guideline.

See my discussion with David Levy above for a very detailed explanation of my position.

Please note that my issues have nothing to do with the search engine hits. (Unfortunately, I might add, since bringing up that subject has repeatedly been used in the past as ammunition to shoot down any and all attempts at change.)

I wish your RfC the best. CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that the RfC has closed (with predictable non-results), can we focus on the important stuff: making the text of the policy better represent the policy as it stands? The current text is difficult to understand and misleading. In a nutshell, there is no general explanatory text - only the header and an example that doesn't cover everything. CapnZapp (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote to non-notable person referenced in another article

Regarding the hatnote on Scott Sizemore:

This article is about the American baseball player. For the U.S. congressional candidate, see United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2010.

There is a candidate in that election with the name "Scott Sizemore" (and he received 2.3% of the vote). Is this an appropriate usage of a hatnote? — X96lee15 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Given how brief the mention of the candidate is on the election page, I would argue no, since the link is not really providing any information for the reader. If the person was non-notable but had a significant discussion about them in an article (for example, we don't have an article on Adam Lanza but obviously needed to be discussed in the [[Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting]), then hatnotes from name conflicts and disambiguation pages make complete sense. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. I've "speedily reverted" that hatnote, since it is obvious to me there is no case. It's merely a case of two people sharing one name, one (and only one) of which is notable and with a Wikipedia article. CapnZapp (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment - hatnotes on non-ambiguous titles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

By votes, we're tied pretty much 50/50, so there's no clear consensus. Several editors (DGG's comment in particular seemed to resonate with other participants) suggested that these things should be approached on a case-by-case basis; I would suggest that that might be the most sensible way of approaching future disputes around hatnotes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The current wording on this page says that if the Wikipedia article title is not ambiguous (such as Mercury (planet), Tree (set theory) or Solaris (film)), then the hatnotes to the disambiguation page should be removed (WP:NAMB for short). Several times we have had editors not otherwise involved with this page asking why these hatnotes were being removed. Earlier discussions on this led to nothing but a disclaimer that NAMB is disputed and shouldn't be the reason to remove hatnotes.

The question is this: Should we allow pages with unambiguous titles to include hatnotes to disambiguation pages? Some editors are opposed to this, calling it unnecessary clutter that isn't necessary. Other editors, such as me, consider it necessary for user who get to the wrong page through unpredictable search engine results. Also note that even supports of the current wording agreed that some should have it, such as Treaty of Paris.

  • Include means we should generally include these hatnotes on pages with non-ambiguous titles. I would recommend limiting it to a single link to the disambiguation page
  • don't include means we should generally not include these hatnotes on pages with non-ambiguous titles

Ego White Tray (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, change it to:

  • Encourage These links should be on most pages with non-ambiguous titles
  • Allow These links should be allowed on pages with non-ambiguous titles
  • Discourage These links usually should not appear on pages with non-ambiguous titles, but on occasion can be included
  • Don't allow These links should be removed

Ego White Tray (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Include as proposer Ego White Tray (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC) see below for clarified position
  • not include per existing guideline. It is only a guideline but follows I think best practices. If hatnotes should be generally included then almost every page, i.e. all bar those with unique/obscure names, would have a hatnote pointing to a disambiguation page. The question also arises to which disambiguation page. Barack Obama is listed on both Barak (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation). Should both appear on in a hatnote at Barack Obama? Better to limit it to when its needed, when the title is ambiguous or a redirect to the page is (as Obama redirects to Barack Obama, requiring a hatnote).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, Barack Obama would not apply as the president is the primary topic. This would apply to Obama's father, though. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Not for Barack though, but he's listed at Barak (disambiguation) (which is the same as Barack (disambiguation) i.e. includes multiple spellings). A clearer example is Malcolm Sargent, which is listed at both Malcolm and Sargent but includes links to neither disambiguation page. Should both be added under the proposed guideline, or one (and which)?. Currently WP:NAMB recommends neither is needed.
It's worth noting that if unpredictable search engine results sends a reader to the wrong page it's easy to fix: just use the search box. E.g. if someone decides "this is not the Sargent I'm looking for" they can type "Sargent": they see a list of (our most popular?) Sargents or can just enter Sargent to get to the disambiguation page. Or they can enter "Malcolm". Or "English conductor" if they're looking for one but can't remember the name.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, doesn't apply as Malcolm Sargent is primary topic, as opposed to a hypothetical Malcolm Sargent (footballer) - would the footballer's page link to disambiguation is the question. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • don't include, but this is a very poorly framed rfc. The choice is not binary. There are cases where the disambiguation used for a title may not completely distinguish one from another for readers without some familiarity with the subject. But I agree with the general principle that we shouldn't be sticking these hatnotes on pages where they are superfluous. older ≠ wiser 02:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, it's not binary, but the policy as written is. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    You've presented the binary option of "include" ("we should generally include these hatnotes on pages with non-ambiguous titles") or "don't include" ("we should generally not include these hatnotes on pages with non-ambiguous titles"), with nothing intermediate. I strongly suggest that you strike/revise this portion, which invites support of the status quo by editors favoring a less extreme change. (I personally believe that "we should generally not include these hatnotes on pages with non-ambiguous titles", but I also believe that we should modify the guideline's wording to avoid implying that this is ironclad.) —David Levy 07:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow. I don't think we should generally include them and I don't think we should forbid them; it should be left up to the editors at each page. I think it is a minority of cases where they are needed, but there are articles where they are very valuable. Treaty of Paris is a good example, where it would likely take a few tries to find the right article. Another example where a hatnote to the DAB is useful is when the disambiguation page is much lower in search results, making it likely that someone coming in has arrived at Wikipedia on the wrong page and needs to be disambiguated (e.g. Mercury (planet), and Mercury (element) are very high in Google and Bing search results, while Mercury is not.)--Trystan (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Just to confirm, as they were updated after I commented, I support the Allow option above; leave it up to the editors at individual pages. We could provide situations where they are helpful, but don't need to encourage or discourage them.--Trystan (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    "Allow" is the most applicable of the bold words listed, and the description fits too. The description accompanying "discourage" (but not the word "discourage" itself) also matches your comments (and with greater specificity); the opinion that such hatnotes should be used sparingly does not constitute a belief that their use should be discouraged. The four options are poorly labeled and demarcated, with contradictions and confusing overlap. —David Levy 04:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Note the existence of exceptions. I agree with Bkonrad, who pointed out that the choice is not binary. In general, such articles don't require hatnotes, so the guideline makes sense as a general rule. But as with most guidelines, exceptions arise. The problem seems to be that some editors are attempting to enforce the guideline indiscriminately. So let's explicitly note that in some cases (such as that involving the Treaty of Paris articles) the use of a hatnote is helpful and backed by consensus. —David Levy 07:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly. CapnZapp (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow: the downside (one small hatnote on a lot of pages, which could be called "clutter" except by the reader who finds it helpful) is much less than the benefit (help the reader who finds the wrong article, possibly through an external search engine, who is not currently being alerted to the existence, let alone the whereabouts, of other articles which might include the topic they are looking for; also reduce the editors' time wasted in acrimonious discussions in future). See my longer comments above at #Time for an RfC?. PamD 09:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow including hatnotes at articles with disambiguated titles, and make it mandatory at least for those cases where there is a group of articles that belong to the same class (Treaty of Paris, notable persons with the same or very similar name, films or novels with the same title but released on different years...) I agree with Ego White Tray's suggestion to restrict the hatnote to its simplest form in articles with disambiguated titles. Diego (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've change the options above to encourage, allow, discourage, don't allow. Feel free to change your statements above to conform to this.Ego White Tray (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, why is it so important to specify a set of available responses? This is a discussion, not a plurality vote. People can state their opinions in their own words. Is there something wrong with the responses (including mine) that deviate from your your list of options?
Secondly, I'm sure that this wasn't your intent, but your change has altered at least one response's apparent meaning; Trystan was the first to include the word "allow" in bold, commenting that "I don't think we should generally include them" and "I think it is a minority of cases where they are needed", which seems to fall under your description of the "discourage" response. This illustrates the new format's confusing nature. (The solution is to have no preordained magic words, not to add more.) —David Levy 18:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought of writing something after Bkonrad's post, agreeing that this is a poorly drafted RFC and it just got much worse. Given the discussion so far it's unclear how this RFC is actionable: what changes if any should be made to the policy. And expanding the options just makes it worse. It's also unclear which if any of the options is supposed to describe the current policy. A better RFC would be a clear proposal for an alternative policy, i.e. saying exactly what the proposer thinks should replace WP:NAMB. Then we could have a straightforward straw poll. It's still possible that discussion could lead elsewhere but at least there would be a chance the RFC would arrive at consensus at some alternative proposal, or to keep the current one. This RFC seems unlikely to arrive at at any consensus.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Encourage as proposer - the "clutter" of hatnotes is absolute minimal and the benefit to this is great for our readers. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Anything as long as the resulting guideline is properly explained and easily understood by a newcomer. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    Added comment: My opinion is detailed here: Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Understanding WP:NAMB. In short, change it or don't. What's really important is that the current version is badly explained, not motivated, and easy to misunderstand. So even if there is consensus to not change the actual guideline, its wording still needs work. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bkonrad and David Levy. We generally do not need a hatnote. As for noting the existence of exceptions, WP:NAMB already has an example: Matt Smith (comics) linkling to Matt Smith (illustrator). When a specific title is still ambiguous with another article, there would be a hatnote linking to that page. Linking to a disambiguation page is nothing special. If there are several articles which are still likely to be confused with, naturally the target would be a disambiguation page. Adding an example specifically about linking to a disambiguation page might be helpful. --Kusunose 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Discourage. If it's not ambiguous, hatnotes are rarely helpful, although there may be exceptions. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Discourage Leanness is a virtue. Hatnotes do contribute to clutter, and while in many cases the benefits outweigh this (i.e., hatnotes on primary topics), they're gratuitous on articles with non-ambiguous titles. If the general philosophy of hatnotes is extended to "linking to articles that sort of have similar titles," their overall usefulness will be eroded. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Discourage. Occasionally, when certain redirects to an article are maybe a bit ambiguous, it might be best to have a hatnote. Like, drum kit is an unambiguous title, but drums redirects there, so it rightly has a hatnote. (You could debate that, but it does. The drums almost certainly should redirect there, at least.) So I have no problems with that hatnote. And I would want to leave a little gray area just in case in other cases. But yeah, unnecessary hatnotes are unnecessary, and they keep people from the actual article, if only for a second or two. Red Slash 02:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Discourage, but I don't have a good handle on the problem situations that Ego White Tray alludes to in the proposal. Perhaps it would be better to focus on enhancing the "allowable exceptions to the rule" with more examples. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • do whatever is helpful. This is not one of the things that has to be uniform. Sometimes it can be clearer using a hatnote than trying to explain in the first paragraph. I wouldn't discourage it even: it's a valid rhetorical choice. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Encourage. Who's to say what a reader will find ambiguous? bd2412 T 18:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oh, I see. I went back and looked briefly at the section above this RfC and realized that it was hard to understand the context for this RfC without at least skimming through that discussion first. So, I assume this RfC is asking for comments on situations like this. So, my question is, how does a reader unintentionally land on The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) when they are actually looking for some other "Snows of Kilimanjaro", and hence need to be expediently guided off of that article? If the need for this hatnote can be explained, I could potentially change my !vote to "encourage", at least in some scenarios. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As the editor adding that particular edit, let me explain that this is the so-called "Google discussion". In other words, the question you are asking is highly Wikipedia-centric, when, in practice, significant traffic to Wikipedia articles come directly from search engines. As an editor, I found that the The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) article lacked a crucial feature: a link back to the work(s) that shared its title. In other words, the article about the film completely lacked any hint that the title of the film isn't some random collection of words, but taken from Hemingway's work. Now, if you view Wikipedia as an isolated island, I understand the argument that you can't arrive at that page without passing through that knowledge and thus any kind of link "back" to more ambiguously titles are unneeded.
The issue becomes complicated since the editor contesting my addition of that hat note simply referred me to NAMB instead of explaining his reverts in his own words. The problem for me isn't so much the guideline in itself (as under discussion here), but the fact that the referral to NAMB was not useful to me, I could not understand that the NAMB guideline actually forbade my kind of edit from reading the guideline (and still find it severely lacking). In the end, the resolution was for me to instead add the link "back" under a See also header (which wasn't contested and is still in place when I checked just now).
Hope that gives you a clear and fair summary and that I have not misrepresented anyone's position. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If the film is related to Hemingway's work, the article should document it and link to Hemingway's work, not to the disambiguation page. And not as a hatnote, because WP:RELATED and WP:LEGITHAT discourage adding an encyclopedic content to a hatnote. Now I read the article, I found the title is not from Hemingway's work, but is a reference to Pascal Danel's song, and a link is already there. Please note WP:SEEALSO also discourages adding a link to disambiguation page in the see also section. --Kusunose 01:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There are several issues here.
  • CapnZapp, you're right in assuming that I don't think that much about Google when editing Wikipedia. I think that mostly Google should and does adjust their search results to best reflect our content, so we shouldn't be too concerned with adjusting our content to suit Google. In the example given, when I search for "Snows of Kilimanjaro", The Snows of Kilimanjaro—the disambiguation—comes up #2 in the results, and no other Wikipedia article comes any where near the top of the results. So readers coming from Google search are highly likely to pass through the disambiguation. I realize that this may not always be the case for other topics, and Google may customize their results based on the user's browsing history. If someone were to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of the dab page not surfacing to near the top of Google's search results then I may be open to an exception.
  • If a film is based on a book, the film's article should generally say that in its lead section, with a link to the book's article if that exists.
  • Likewise if there is a song with the same name, that is sung in the movie, and there's an article about the song, link to it from the film article's lead or body.
  • I would discourage a hatnote in this situation, confirming my opinion above.
  • Yes, the guideline is that article see also sections should generally not link to disambiguation pages; that practice is mostly limited to other disambiguation pages.
  • However, you may individually link to any of the four other items listed in the disambiguation, saving readers the extra click to read the dab, if they are not already linked from the article body, as the song is, and are at least peripherally related to the topic of the article.
  • There is no primary topic for "Snows of Kilimanjaro". The most likely candidate in my opinion is The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film), but the short story is a close-enough second-place topic to keep the 1952 film off PT. But theoretically, if the 1952 film were primary topic, then "Snows of Kilimanjaro" would redirect to the film and a hatnote to The Snows of Kilimanjaro (disambiguation) then becomes appropriate.
  • A reader unfamiliar with The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) might incorrectly assume that it is a remake of the 1952 film. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to include a note in the 2011 film's article body saying something like, "this film is not related to the 1952 film of the same name, which was based on Hemingway's book. Rather than inclusion in "see also" which incorrectly implies that they are related.
  • Having said all that, I do appreciate the opinion do whatever is helpful stated above. I think the hatnote here is good, and the guidelines shouldn't prohibit it. But this hatnote, not so good, and even this one isn't sufficiently helpful. Guédiguian and King? Who are they? Did Guédiguian remake King's film? Hatnotes should not be that obscure. Maybe this could be handled with a better hatnote, but for anything very complicated to explain, do it in the article body.
  • Sure, this is a lot of complex information for an editor to absorb, and the guidelines could use some improvements to make the issues more clear. Hope this helps. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow as per DGG. DES (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Discourage/don't allow to me, the presence of a bracketed disambiguator in an article's title tells me that I'm not at the primary topic, and all I have to get there is put in the title minus the bracketed disambiguator. Doing this by typing/dragging the term to the search box is the lesser of two evils when compared with unneeded hatnotes (that make it a click away) spreading throughout Wikipedia like a rash in my opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you realize those are perfect reasons why the hatnote is needed? "A power user can do magic to circumvent the lack of a hatnote" is more the reason to include it. Navigation helps are for people who are not power users; anyone who doesn't understand Wikipedia's title disambiguator conventions or who doesn't know how to edit a URL will benefit greatly at that very situation where you don't need the hatnote. Diego (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Power user"? "Magic"? "Editing URLs"? I think you're overestimating me and underestimating readers if you're suggesting they're unaware of the search box (which displays potential matches as you're typing in it). I certainly don't edit URLs. Don't you think people can figure out that if they're at an article whose title has a bracketed word at the end of it, then it's because there are other articles of the same name which probably have different bracketed words after them so that each article can be uniquely named? How else could it possibly work? I'm not arguing against the use of hatnotes such as {{distinguish}} (which is very useful in some cases, e.g. Steve Smith (wide receiver, born 1985)/Steve Smith (wide receiver, born 1979)). I'm arguing against introducing the thin end of a situation where hatnotes appear on every single article that isn't uniquely named.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow on a case-by-case basis, per DGG BMK (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pick something – Currently, even though this situation often exists on its own, the section is labeled with "This section is frequently disputed and should never be used as the sole reason to remove a hatnote." So, basically: here's a rule, but it's not a rule. This is useless. We need a guideline, even if imperfect, so we're not repeating the same debate on thousands of pages. Serial debating here is plenty. If I must pick, I pick no extra hatnote. ENeville (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Discourage per DGG. Hatnotes, or perhaps more appropriately dablinks, are self-references that we put up with, and only very rarely are needed to assist in finding the correct article. {{redirect}} and the suite of {{main}} templates are of course generally excepted from this (I don't consider them dablinks). But the obvious cases like having a page like (the hypothetical) "John Smith (British archaeologist)" article have a {{otherpeople}} dablink is pointless. Even on the off chance our reader is doing research into people named John Smith, he won't reach that article and wonder why he didn't get a monster list of people by that name instead. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is not "John Smith (British archaeologist)" per se, it's when you have "John Smith (British archaeologist)", "John Smith (American archaeologist)" and "John Smith (Australian archaeologist)", which makes it extremely difficult to assess wheter you are at the right article unless you're already an expert on the topic. If there are only two such pages, {{distinguish}} can be used, but for such situations where there are many articles in the same class, a link to the DAB page that contains additional disambiguation text is better. Note that this is just a subclass of all the possible articles with disambiguated titles, but one that should be recognized (and in fact that is already recognized when there are just two articles in the class). Diego (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If I understand your point, you're suggesting that someone who reached "John Smith (British archaeologist)" might actually have been looking for "John Smith (American archaeologist)" as a result of their not knowing ex ante whether the John Smith they were looking for was a British or American archaeologist? Interesting, you might have a point. I still think in 90+% of the cases, however, where a title is truly disambiguated, a dablink should not be used. For instance, if there is a book and movie called "Jamestown", with articles "Jamestown (book)" and "Jamestown (film)", there should not be dablinks pointing to each other even if the two are based on each other (address it in the prose), and there should not be dablinks pointing to "Jamestown (disambiguation)". If, however, there's another, less prominent book or film of the same name, the disambiguated title should have a dablink pointing to the more specifically disambiguated title. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of hatnote?

I was reverted by AussieLegend, wrongly it seemed by me and explained and then reverted again. Is a hatnote forbidden for non-traditional things (see "GENERIC TEXT")? I could have used, not-a-hatnote, but it seemed ok and is used in other places without helping "readers locate a different article". In this case however, it helps locate Windows XP.. comp.arch (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My take is that AussieLegend was quite correct in removing that hatnote. I would have removed it as well. such announcements are not at all what hatnotes are used for on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the previous, that is not what hatnotes are for. See WP:LEGITHAT. It would be fine material to include in the article, just not in a hatnote. Jeh (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but see: Talk:Windows_XP#Security_announcement._Reverted_-_breaking_the_rules. about this security issue that might allow for an exception and its rationale. comp.arch (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection resource. You've attempted to use the hatnote format in a manner fundamentally inconsistent with its accepted purpose and Wikipedia's mission. —David Levy 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. As I said that page, I am afraid it is a gross violation of our neutral point of view policy and suffers from systematic bias. WP:IAR is a mean of protecting Wikipedia's mission when policies interfere with it; this is not the case here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The use of some section hatnotes contradicts this guideline.

Section hatnotes such as {{See also}} and {{Details}} are frequently used, yet they are at odds with how this guideline suggests hatnotes be used, i.e. to help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. These templates, as opposed to {{Main}} (which appropriately directs readers to the main topic article summarised in the section), give undue weight to links which should normally be featured after the article text, and distract readers from the actual content of the section. For example, in many city articles, under the Culture section, there is a see also hatnote linking to lists of theatres, cinemas, museums, etc. in the city, which I find distracting. This is comparable to WP:RELATED, which is listed under this guideline as an improper use of (article) hatnotes. I think the use of such section hatnotes should be discouraged. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If the guideline contradicts common use, it's the guideline the one which needs to be amended. Though the example you cite is adequate, and it doesn't really contradict this guideline. As you note, WP:RELATED discourages article hatnotes; but that's because articles have a stand-alone See Also collection links, and sections don't have it. In the Culture section, if prose doesn't lend itself to mention the city theatres or museums, it's reasonable to inform readers that a list exists about them. Diego (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if changing these templates to section footnotes (moving them to the bottom of sections instead) would reduce the distraction and improve article flow. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
That would make them attached to the header of the next section, which will be totally unrelated. Seriously, what is it that you find distracting about section hatnotes? I find its current placement utterly convenient. When navigating from the table of contents, I often click on the link to the section and instantly see that there's a "See also", "Main article" or "Further details" link, so I know that there is expanded coverage in Wikipedia for the sub-topic beyond what the current article provides. That is a huge benefit that shouldn't be lost in an attempt to hide related links, which should be reasonably prominent anyway per Wikipedia:BUILDTHEWEB. Diego (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Diego. Allow me to remind you of a prevalent form of edit that is not according to guideline: Vandalism. It is prevalent, yet we don't change our policies to favor vandalism for one good reason. This guideline violation is just like that; its excessive use is simply disruptive to Wikipedia's mission because contributors use when they are in a hurry to make the reader stop reading the current article and go to the other.
Nevertheless, I do believe that their use outside article space is justifiable. Policy pages and help pages, for instance, are several standalone sections in one page. So, yes, they need standalone "See also" of their own too. In that light, I find Paul's suggestion very reasonable.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation of similar-sounding foreign names?

Is it appropriate to use the {{Distinguish}} template to forestall confusion between names (or other words/phrases) — especially non-English names — that are completely unrelated except that they sound very similar?

For example, there have recently been content disputes at the articles for Boko Haram (a Nigerian terrorist group) and Procol Harum (a British rock band) — some people want to put a hatnote on each of these articles to alert readers that it is "not to be confused with" the other article, while others have insisted this is inappropriate because the two entities are totally unrelated and (presumably) no one is going to confuse them. I, personally, am inclined at the moment to support inclusion of the hatnote in a case like this, but I'd like to hear what others say (including possibly a pointer to an existing guideline if one exists). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no need for hatnotes where one part of a title sounds like one part of another title. {{Distinguish}} could be used on Haram and Harum, but how is the reader looking for Procol Harum supposed to have reached Boko Haram incorrectly? Or vice versa? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
They could in theory if we had a speech interface to WP, but we don't, and though there are some on computers and now phones dealing with their inaccuracies is I think well beyond the scope of this encyclopaedia. Besides for in particular non-English titles there are often far too many possibilities, for different degrees of comprehension of the native language, regional and national English accents (the pen-pin merger for example). Boko Haram and Procol Harum seem especially dissimilar to me so need no disambiguation. Maybe they sound similar in some accents but that's not something WP should have to deal with.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Most of our disambiguation efforts goes into totally unrelated names. For example Argus Monitor and Argus monitor. So, I say yes, any reasonable similarity needs disambiguation, though I do understand that attempting to disambiguate Knight and Night surely makes everyone angry.
I say include them. If someone heard a friend mention a band Procul Harum, and this person was familiar with the terrorist group, they might reasonable assume the band and group had the same name. They would then expect the hatnote on Boko. Let them have it. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple hatnotes

What are the common practices about using more than one hatnote template in the same section? I didn't see anything about it on the page or in the archives. Is it avoided? Not a big deal? Might be worth mentioning on the page since it's something I've wondered a few times. For instance, both a {{Main}} and {{See also}} template in a section that spins out a few articles summary style. czar ♔ 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I'm not sure I would call those hatnotes, but I'm not sure what you call them. In my view, there should only be one in this case - so at United States#History you would only link to History of the United States and to no other article. If there is something else to link to, work it into the text. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Should we be linking readers (via disambiguation notes, etc.) to the Wikipedia/Help/Manual namespaces from the mainspace?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Should we be linking readers (via disambiguation notes, etc.) to the Wikipedia/Help/Manual namespaces from the mainspace? and comment. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Contentious hatnote

Feel free to comment at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote/Archive_5&oldid=1090631600"