Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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. --woodensuperman 10:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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. --woodensuperman 15:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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. --woodensuperman 15:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is that redirects do not (generally speaking) mislead readers as you keep claiming. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

MOS:DABREDIRECT recommends using redirects when

1. the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and
2. 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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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? --woodensuperman 09:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Discussion at Template talk:Main § UI improvement requested (30 September 2024)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Main § UI improvement requested (30 September 2024). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)