Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hatnote page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 90 days

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Change in style

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T367462

It appears that the style of hatnotes has changed. I've looked at various templates but I haven't managed to find where this change was actually made. Was there a discussion before the change was made? Un assiolo (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday 13 June style changes there's awareness of this and Phabricator request has been filed. I have no idea, but it is being looked into. SchreiberBike | ⌨

Do we have an "About-Distinguish-For" hatnote? If not, I think we should.

"About-Distinguish-For" would be a very useful template. Several articles I recall would benefit from hatnotes of that particular nature. Here's one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departure_(2015_film)

An indie film stub, which needs development. Regardless, the hatnote:

This article is about the 2015 film. Not to be confused with Departures (2008 film). For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films.

There might be better examples, but in this instance:

ABOUT: Identifies which one this is, obviously.
DISTINGUISH: Specifically singling out the most significant (Oscar winner), and most likely to be incorrectly Wikilinked.
FOR: Then the disambiguation page w/ multiple other Departure-named flicks; directly to section.

While it could be done all freeform with one of those custom text ones, I was kind of surprised not to see one of these amongst the lists of potential hatnote options, considering all of the other combinations.

I dunno if there's one that I'm overlooking somewhere OR some way to squeeze a "For-custom-text" hatnote template WITHIN an About-Distinguish one, by any chance…? Dubious. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the 2008 and 2015 films need some special distinction separate from the other films. I think {{For|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}} producing:

would be sufficient. If there is actually some good need to distinguish two out of the set for some reason, this can be done with

{{About|the 2015 English-French film|the 2008 Japanese film|Departures (2008 film)|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}}

producing:

older ≠ wiser 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate that option and your POV, thank you. But it doesn't phrase it as "Not to be confused with", in the middle. Like I stated, I feel like that is one missing combo, and there are so many similar combos.

For example, there is REDIRECT-Distinguish-For. So why can't there be About-Distinguish-For?

Like I said, this may not be the quintessential example to work with, but it's AN example. Think outside the box. Is there some way to manipulate the templates to create This page is about XXXX. Not to be confused with Xx Xx. For other/similar ____, see XXXX (disambiguation)? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 00:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The multiplicity of hatnote templates with differing parameters is already very confusing. I can't see adding yet another to the mix, especially when the use case need isn't very clear. Why make more work when there is no need? older ≠ wiser 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to combine multiple hatnotes?

Specifically for this article. I find hatnotes on multiple lines looks trashy and like we don't know what we're doing, I think both hatnotes in this scenario assume the audience is stupid but it's got consensus so I just want to tidy it up if possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that ought to be utilizing the Redirect-Distinguish-For hatnote template. I just replaced it, so it's now combined all on one line. It follows example #4, where the "redirect" input is also the same as the "disambiguation" input, with the "not to be confused…" in the middle. Hopefully that doesn't create some kerfuffle! --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's helpful: we're talking about two different kinds of navigation, and the combined hatnote is confusing. I#ve reverted to the two separate hatnotes which, I think, are clear and not "trashy". PamD 08:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks trashy and puts a longer barrier between the reader and the important text. I've found hatnote group which does what I want per step 5 "Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section. Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects. (In such cases, consider using hatnote group.)" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks good. There's always something new to learn about editing Wikipedia, and {{hatnote group}} is today's new thing for me. PamD 08:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, good, everyone's happy! Yes, I was worried there would be an issue with the fact that the "redirect" and "disambiguation" was interrupted by the "distinguish". This solution seems most ideal, so that it doesn't look discombobulated. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Did it for Alien as well, since it's the same hatnote format. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Cinemaniac86! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! =) --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 19:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in hatnotes again

With reference to this previous discussion (which I cannot find in the archives), the resulting change has created an issue where the first item at WP:HATNOTERULES: "Link directly to other articles" seems to discourage the use of redirects in hatnotes. However, following that, we are sent to WP:Disambiguation to follow the rules for linking to redirects, but there are no specific rules for hatnotes in that guideline. Specifically this has caused an issue in this discussion. I think we need more clarity on what was intended. Personally, I don't think we should be linking to redirects as they can cause WP:EGG issues in certain cases. --wooden superman 10:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should always do what is best for readers in any given case. Usually this will mean linking to redirects with possibilities (so that when content is written at the redirect title readers are taken directly there), and to redirects that are more concise than section titles without being a SURPRISE. Constructions like "Redirect" → "Article title#Redirect" and similar (i.e. where the subject implied by the title of the redirect matches the subject implied by the title of the section) are not normally going to be surprising and will very rarely present WP:EGG issues. I agree the current guidance could be clearer on this topic, but it does make it clear that linking to WP:INTDABLINK redirects is the correct thing to do so claiming it "discourages the use of redirects in hatnotes" is nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of WP:INTDABLINK in this guideline is about making an exception to the direct link rule and using redirects when linking to disambiguation pages from hatnotes. --wooden superman 15:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a guideline not a rule, and as you now agree it doesn't discourage all redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words. It makes a specific exception for this one case, I maintain that we should still be using direct links in most other cases so that readers end up where they expect. The change in January seems poorly thought out and has just muddied the guideline. --wooden superman 15:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that redirects do not (generally speaking) mislead readers as you keep claiming. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should be linking the redirect. A valid redirect is also not an WP:EGG link so I'm not sure how that is relevant. In the example you gave, an episode redirect is a valid link as if and when it becomes an article, the link is already there. It's also makes changing the target a simple one page edit, instead of having to edit every link to the target. That is exactly what a redirect is and that is covered by the various MoS pages on the topic. Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd only need to edit the hatnote should the article ever be created. --wooden superman 08:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you need to know every article that needs editing, and then edit every one of those articles (could be one could be a hundred). Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodensuperman: It's at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 9#Redirects in hatnotes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, only archive up to 8 was showing in the sidebar (now removed). --wooden superman 07:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABREDIRECT recommends using redirects when

the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and

the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section.

Seems that the spirit can apply to hatnotes as well.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. Criteria #2 would certainly never be appropriate for a hatnote. --wooden superman 08:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Ervin Johnson, the hatnote would be more compact using the redirect as "For the former Los Angeles Lakers player, see Earvin "Magic" Johnson" instead of "For the former Los Angeles Lakers player named Earvin Johnson, see Magic Johnson." —Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the hatnote as it is. It's clear and you know where you're going and why. --wooden superman 09:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is clearer, more concise and you know where you're going and why. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if people are invoking MOS:DABREDIR as the guideline we should be following for hatnotes, this without a doubt contravenes this. --wooden superman 09:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that contravenes the guideline then the guideline is wrong and needs changing, but per Bagumba's quote it is actually compatible: The Magic Johnson article contains "Earvin "Magic" Johnson" in the lead (and thus contains the term "Earvin Johnson" and the redirect could absolutely served as an alternative title for the article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've worked out what's wrong with the guideline. I think it makes it clearer, and I now believe this is what is intended by the current wording, if we changed it to something along the lines of:

Link directly to other articles; do not pipe non-disambiguation links. Links to redirects may be appropriate if they meet the criteria at the disambiguation guideline. Links to disambiguation pages should always end in "(disambiguation)".

What does anyone else think? --wooden superman 09:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to linking to the more relevant Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages § Where redirecting may be appropriate (and had mentioned it at the previous discussion) —Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]