[WikiEN-l] My irrelevant hatnote disambiguation policy

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On 9/5/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps "mock" is the wrong word.  I agree with Steve that seeing a
> > reference to some obscure band's second album or some equally obscure
> > video game character on almost every science or history article is
> > highly annoying and detracts from the seriousness of the subject.
>
> I don't get this 'detracts from the seriousness of the subject'.  Do
> science or history articles get all embarassed to be in the same
> encyclopedia as more "trivial" subjects?  Do the writers of such
> articles, or the readers?
>
> And should we care?
>
> One of the strengths of Wikipedia is its trivia.  Seriously.  It's the
> breadth of our coverage that makes us appealing, and allows us to be a
> one-stop source of information for the curious.
>
> To be honest, a good proportion of the history and science is as
> trivial as the music and videogames.  This does not mock the science,
> nor the history.
>
> -Matt

I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A
perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldid=21810147

Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"

But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.

--Oskar