On 9/5/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/4/06, Sam Korn smoddy@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...
Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote"
But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything else.
--Oskar