Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
"For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
Only added recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plankton&diff=308556264&ol...
To me, this is an example of misplacing information. If some character is named *after* plankton, then that should be a footnote in the plankton article, if even that. If there really is a chance that people will search for "plankton" in an attempt to find out about the SB character, then the hatnote should be neutral and direct people to a disambiguation page ("for other things named plankton, see here"). And I don't care if that disambiguation page only has two entries. That is an acceptable trade-off to having a spongebob squarepants character name jarring people's reading experience by being placed at the top of an unrelated article.
Carcharoth
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: "For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]].
- d.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: "For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]].
Thanks.
I feel informed now I know about:
*Plankton Man *Electroplankton *United Plankton Pictures
Purist dabbers will dispute some of those entries, but I think dab pages should be informative, as well as referring purely to things that might conceivably be searched for or linked to as "plankton".
Carcharoth
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/19 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read: "For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]].
Thanks.
I feel informed now I know about:
*Plankton Man *Electroplankton *United Plankton Pictures
Purist dabbers will dispute some of those entries, but I think dab pages should be informative, as well as referring purely to things that might conceivably be searched for or linked to as "plankton".
Hey, you missed out:
*Plankton! - episode 3b(7) of SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)
I am impressed, though, that we have this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_plankton
And *three* articles on plankton surveys. Not stubs either. Really rather nice articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_Plankton_Recorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Continuous_Plankton_Recorder_Survey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCAR_Southern_Ocean_Continuous_Plankton_Recorde...
Ooh, look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_layers_(oceanography)
I hope the SpongeBob SquarePants fans that went looking for information on their favorite characters are reading these articles! :-)
Carcharoth
PS. And people wonder why there is debate over articles on fiction?
"Carcharoth" carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote in message news:206791b10908190851j6e4a8680jbc9a61bd0bd7e445@mail.gmail.com... (snip)
I am impressed, though, that we have this article:
(...)
When you hav a body of water as big as the ocean, and it is fed by rivers, lakes along the way, and glaciers, then the [paradox] is more aptly called an equilibrium. There are also different temperatures and depths for the plankton, plus they already vary in length of life by genetics that give other varieties of plankton more hardiness -- ability to survive in different extremes -- much more complicated than a paradox, and that is a term in literature, so I go figure. I should look for a scope lens for my camera. I do not see any way to remove my current zoom lens, so I probably want an SLR for a microscope. I seeded my tank with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia ], and other things are bound to be in there. _______ [http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Moss_Filter.HTM HowTo Control Phytoplankton]
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is almost a FAQ on this list :-) The usual cure is a two-item disambig page. For an example, see what I just did to [[Plankton]].
I remember bringing this up once yarns ago, and eventually getting lots and lots of resistance to the idea of two-item disambiguations. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028499.html . People often said things like: 'If its only two items, it's inconvenient to make someone click on the (disambiguation) link just to see the actual article title,' and 'what if they are really looking for [favourite pokemon/porn star/hair band]? You would be robbing of them of their right to find it quickly and easily.'
Anyway they were wrong. And four years isn't too long I suppose for those people to finally get the notion that trivial disambiguations are unencyclopedic. Fugly too.
Now, if some serious 'medians could help me get [[McLaren]] turned into a proper Scottish surname disambiguation - overriding all the fanboys there - that would be just swell.
-Stevertigo
Carcharoth wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
"For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all places.
2009/8/19 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
"For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all places.
I still hold the best example I've seen of this was on [[Beirut]]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&oldid=21810147
''For the drinking game, see [[Beer Pong]]''
...yeah.
[[Squirrel]] also used to have a hatnote directing people to something like "Squirrels in Scientology", of all things. We actually got people writing with complaints about that one, if memory serves.
Phil Nash wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed by certain hatlinks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
When I go to look something up on plankton (a core encyclopedic article if ever there was one), do I really want to have to read:
"For the SpongeBob character, see List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants#Plankton"?
It can get worse than that! I encountered, on [[Pol Pot]], {{seealso|Paul Potts}}, and vice versa. The IP addresses resolved to [[CERN]] of all places.
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ec
Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too.
-Stevertigo
2009/8/19 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too.
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road? A. HITLER!!
- d.
David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road? A. HITLER!!
Not accurate. It was actually the eugenics policies of the factory on the east side of the strasse that motivated the crossing. Goebbels Gobbles had better benefits too.
-Steven
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140908191119i5ad73bd4sd5cbac1abaf78ad4@mail.gmail.com...
2009/8/19 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
It boggles the mind to imagine what Pol Pot would have done with a nuclear facility; he could have outdone his relative, Stew Pot.
Ah. Cambodian genocide jokes. Just before lunchtime, too.
Q. Why did the chicken cross the road? A. HITLER!!
As long as we are crossing into non-sequitur.
Why did the blonde cross the road? To get her clothing.
We do already have on this guideline wording on this, for anyone wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term (in which case disambiguation links may or may not be desirable on the specific topic articles – see below). If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary."
more at these two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Examples_of_proper_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages...
I sympathise with the distaste for linking to popular culture entities from hatnotes (pokemon and beanie babies should all burn in some spikey hellscape...), but I'm not sure whether creating new disambig pages just for 2-items is a reasonable solution.
In this particular instance, the new disambig page is also breaking the guideline about inclusion-criteria. "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." IAR is a good policy, but it needs rationalisation for usage -- If we make exceptions at [[Plankton (disambiguation)]] for [[Electroplankton]] and [[United Plankton Pictures]], then why not also for [[Zooplankton]] and [[Phytoplankton]] and [[Aeroplankton]] and [[Continuous Plankton Recorder]], etc? Because, then the guideline would be pointless, and the mess it is intended to prevent would proliferate.
Therefor, in my opinion, and according to my limited-understanding of the disambig guidelines, there doesn't need to be a [[plankton (disambiguation)]] page at all, and the [[plankton]] article doesn't need a hatnote at all.
If someone wants to find the Spongebob character, "Sheldon J. Plankton", they can search for "plankton spongebob", and obtain far more information on the variety of places the character is mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:search?search=plankton+spongebob&go...
Seem reasonable? Quiddity
quidditypandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
We do already have on this guideline wording on this, for anyone wondering: "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then
[argument (against trivial disambiguations)] = strong [counterargument] = doesn't work alternative tactic = [point to policy] (where [policy] = old, inadequate, wrong)
-Stevertigo
quidditypandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
Therefor, in my opinion, and according to my limited-understanding of the disambig guidelines, there doesn't need to be a [[plankton (disambiguation)]] page at all, and the [[plankton]] article doesn't need a hatnote at all.
Hm. I don't agree. We need to at least point people to the fact that there are other uses, even if they are trivial. We are in the business of information, after all. The only distinction being is that we don't need to mention the trivia in the substantive article, and that satisfies the substance-fascists like myself that still think en.wiki can be an encyclopedia.
-Stevertigo
Some disambiguation pages have "see also" sections for things that aren't strictly disambiguation. But yes, it can be difficult to draw the line between classic disambiguation and a topic overview of loosely related terms, annotated in a way that is more informative than search results would be (at this point, someone will probably mention the 'overview' articles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overviews
It seems that non-standard disambiguation pages, lists, overviews, categories, topic navboxes, and true topic articles, all lie on a spectrum trying to do similar but different things, in different ways.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM, quidditypandiculation@gmail.com wrote:
We do already have on this guideline wording on this, for anyone wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term, then a disambiguation page should normally be created for that term (in which case disambiguation links may or may not be desirable on the specific topic articles – see below). If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary."
more at these two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Examples_of_proper_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages...
I sympathise with the distaste for linking to popular culture entities from hatnotes (pokemon and beanie babies should all burn in some spikey hellscape...), but I'm not sure whether creating new disambig pages just for 2-items is a reasonable solution.
In this particular instance, the new disambig page is also breaking the guideline about inclusion-criteria. "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." IAR is a good policy, but it needs rationalisation for usage -- If we make exceptions at [[Plankton (disambiguation)]] for [[Electroplankton]] and [[United Plankton Pictures]], then why not also for [[Zooplankton]] and [[Phytoplankton]] and [[Aeroplankton]] and [[Continuous Plankton Recorder]], etc? Because, then the guideline would be pointless, and the mess it is intended to prevent would proliferate.
Therefor, in my opinion, and according to my limited-understanding of the disambig guidelines, there doesn't need to be a [[plankton (disambiguation)]] page at all, and the [[plankton]] article doesn't need a hatnote at all.
If someone wants to find the Spongebob character, "Sheldon J. Plankton", they can search for "plankton spongebob", and obtain far more information on the variety of places the character is mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:search?search=plankton+spongebob&go...
Seem reasonable? Quiddity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Some disambiguation pages have "see also" sections for things that aren't strictly disambiguation. But yes, it can be difficult to draw the line between classic disambiguation and a topic overview of loosely related terms, annotated in a way that is more informative than search results would be (at this point, someone will probably mention the 'overview' articles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overviews
It seems that non-standard disambiguation pages, lists, overviews, categories, topic navboxes, and true topic articles, all lie on a spectrum trying to do similar but different things, in different ways.
Carcharoth
I think you mean Outlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge But yes, I agree with the spectrum comparison.
For example, we have these pages, that are variously explicating, disambiguation, and listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Water which in the main article, [[Water]], even manages to bring us back to the original topic, of yes, excessive or inappropriate hatnotes could be considered harmful!
Quiddity
2009/8/21 quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com:
For example, we have these pages, that are variously explicating, disambiguation, and listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Water which in the main article, [[Water]], even manages to bring us back to the original topic, of yes, excessive or inappropriate hatnotes could be considered harmful!
I see the "outlines of X" pages are spreading. Last I saw, they were being added in "see also" sections - when did they leap to the forefront of the article?
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/8/21 quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com:
For example, we have these pages, that are variously explicating, disambiguation, and listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Water which in the main article, [[Water]], even manages to bring us back to the original topic, of yes, excessive or inappropriate hatnotes could be considered harmful!
I see the "outlines of X" pages are spreading. Last I saw, they were being added in "see also" sections - when did they leap to the forefront of the article?
It was an experiment that was being tested a few months ago. No new hatnotes are being added for these (afaik), but the old ones haven't all been cleaned up yet.
Quiddity
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
2009/8/21 quiddity pandiculation@gmail.com:
For example, we have these pages, that are variously explicating, disambiguation, and listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Water which in the main article, [[Water]], even manages to bring us back to the original topic, of yes, excessive or inappropriate hatnotes could be considered harmful!
I see the "outlines of X" pages are spreading. Last I saw, they were being added in "see also" sections - when did they leap to the forefront of the article?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The irony that this discussion has encapsulated plankton and water, two of the key components of our being able to write these emails knows no bounds. ~Keegan
Anyone else see something wrong here? ---- [[Beauty contest]] ''A C-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia''
:''For the concept in economics and game theory, see Keynesian beauty contest.'' A '''beauty contest''', or '''beauty pageant''', is a competition based mainly... ----
-Stevertigo
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@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.
2009/8/21 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@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.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/8/21 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@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.
To be perfectly frank, many English Wikipedia articles look way too busy. Not just with "front matter" but with "end matter" and many other kinds of ancillary tables and charts, which are genuinely useful all, in their intended circumstances, but do have a visual effect -- regrettably -- not a million miles away from those caused by advertisements.
If I were a cartoonist, and had to draw a caricature of a wikipedia article, it wouldn't look anything like wikipetan, but would be reminiscent of something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Onemanband.jpg
There is absolutely no chance of a silver bullet to fix this. The best we can do is to be aware of the issue, and keep reminding ourselves that it is going to ever be a trade-off; and a huge problem is that people want cookie-cutter solutions, but also regrettably wish to mold the cookie- cutters around the most monstrous cases, not the cases where applying the rigid framework is way too draconian.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/21 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@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.
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/21 Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com:
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@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
On 8/22/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Tony > 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).
Ah, in part that's a question about when to go for primary topic disambiguation. I happen to favor such disambiguation strongly, but again this is something that gets worked out in the course of editing. I would say that primary topic disambiguation is probably correct in the case of Vienne (if they wanted the river they'd go for River Vienne, if they wanted Vienna they'd go for Vienna). The multiple hatnotes are one way of handling the disambiguation but at some point you may want to create a "Vienne (disambiguation)" page and have a single-item hatnote.
Far worse than hatnotes, I'd say, are the ever-more-garish templates we now use for matters such as tagging for NPOV, cleanup, and so on. In my opinion we were better off when such templates produced a single line of italics akin to a hatnote. These pastel-colored boxes we've been struggling with for the past four or five years are horrible.
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Tony > 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).
Ah, in part that's a question about when to go for primary topic disambiguation. I happen to favor such disambiguation strongly, but again this is something that gets worked out in the course of editing.
Yes. And this should probably go on-wiki when we get down to nuts and bolts like this.
I would say that primary topic disambiguation is probably correct in the case of Vienne (if they wanted the river they'd go for River Vienne, if they wanted Vienna they'd go for Vienna).
It's more a case of people linking "Vienne" from other articles or projects. There are several reasons why they might end up here looking for a "Vienne" mentioned in English sources, and be gratified to be pointed to "Vienne (disambiguation)" to learn they needed to go to Vienna, or to the river. People *searching* will type in either "Vienne" or "river Vienne", but those linking might only link to "Vienne". The best way to confirm this is to look at what currently links to "Vienne".
Well, that would be the normal way to disambiguate, but the infuriating thing is that this page is linked from seven templates, several of which are massive geographical lists, so when you are looking down the list of links to "Vienne", it is difficult to know which are links from transcluded navbox templates, and which are links from article text.
Templates are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target...
Full list of links here here (somewhere between 500 and 1000):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Vienne&n...
If you were trying to find out which of those links were pointing to Vienne the department, Vienne the city, Vienne (Vienna) or Vienne the river, where would you start? This is an example of where massive template over-proliferation is making it almost impossible to disambiguate links. I'm really rather annoyed here, and hope there is a technical fix somewhere for this.
The multiple hatnotes are one way of handling the disambiguation but at some point you may want to create a "Vienne (disambiguation)" page and have a single-item hatnote.
Which is what I was talking about all along at the start of the thread.
Far worse than hatnotes, I'd say, are the ever-more-garish templates we now use for matters such as tagging for NPOV, cleanup, and so on. In my opinion we were better off when such templates produced a single line of italics akin to a hatnote. These pastel-colored boxes we've been struggling with for the past four or five years are horrible.
Didn't the colours get standardised recently after some massive discussion and several polls?
No jokes about arguments over the colour of the bike shed.
Carcharoth
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Far worse than hatnotes, I'd say, are the ever-more-garish templates we now use for matters such as tagging for NPOV, cleanup, and so on. In my opinion we were better off when such templates produced a single line of italics akin to a hatnote. These pastel-colored boxes we've been struggling with for the past four or five years are horrible.
I have some sympathy with that. On the other hand, as both an editor and Wikipedia user/reader, I find the garish boxes a spur to action. I feel compelled to resolve the issue so I can get rid of the ugly box and put in the edit summary "now resolved" or somesuch. I think if the garishness was not there perhaps I wouldn't feel so motivated.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Tony Sidawaytonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/19/09, Carcharoth carcharothwp@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.
They are not pointless. Usually some form of disambiguation and hatnote is needed, but the question is how to do it. Refer neutrally to a disambiguation page (of whatever size) or take something from a wildly unrelated topic and plaster it across the top of an article just because there are only two things of that name (as far as we know).
On the wider point, one person's crap is another person's informative link. There are currently debates going on about overlinking and it is actually very difficult to get people to agree on what the right level of linking in any particular article is. Different people will link different things for different reasons.
Carcharoth