On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Tony Sidaway<tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/8/21 Tony Sidaway
<tonysidaway(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone else get annoyed by certain
hatlinks?
I don't see the problem here. Be bold and
remove crap, whether
pointless hatnotes or anything else.
It's an editorial issue. The two-item disambig is one workaround,
though more than two items is nice.
I don't know whether this is related, but the other day I found that the
article Vienne contained two separate hatnotes, one disambiguating the
French town of Vienne from the canton, and the other pointing to the article
on Vienna. I changed it to a two-item disambiguation relevant to the
context. I don't think this is a huge problem at all.
But you've used a two-item disambiguation *hatnote*, whereas what
others (including me) would do is create a three-item disambiguation
page and link that from the top of the two items in question (but not,
obviously, for Vienna). Plus look for other things called Vienne.
i.e
Vienne can refer to:
*a département of France
*a French river
*a French city
*the French name for Vienna
Carcharoth