Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

Hatnote overuse?

I see this over and over again: hatnotes added to sections for no good reason IMO. I just got reverted for removing the hatnote in Thor: Love and Thunder#Documentary special. What possible purpose is served here? The link is in the first sentence of a two-sentence section. It's not particularly hard to find. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case the {{main}} hatnote is not appropriate - not because of the small size of the section, but because the section is not a summary of the hatnote target. Per {{Main}} documentation, replacing the example article and section with this specific case: "For example, in Thor: Love and Thunder, the template under the "Documentary special" section should not be {{Main|Marvel Studios: Assembled}}, because the section specifically deals with The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder as one example of a documentary and not Marvel Studios: Assembled documentaries in general."

{{Further}} is not relevant here, because Marvel Studios: Assembled does not have a section for Thor: Love and Thunder.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"because Marvel Studios: Assembled does not have a section for Thor: Love and Thunder." It may not have a section, although it does have an episode description w/ cast and crew details for it in the episode table. Per WP:BRD, I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO to let the natural discussion process run its course. I have also notified other members of the MCU taskforce at WT:MCU regarding this to gauge the perspectives of other contributors across these articles in question, as we strive to keep them consistent. I honestly did not think this one revert would cause a little stir and warrant such discussion, though I'll WP:AGF (even though sometimes we all need to keep a level head, take no for an answer, and work with each other).

There is no ill-intent with using the hatnote and it is being used to better serve our readers in navigating them to the main article on these documentary specials. If it would better service concerns to title the section header "Marvel Studios: Assembled documentary special", then that could be a form of a compromise, though removing it outright is not the intended goal here. {{See also}} could be a workable replacement, though this seems to be just another case of words being used to convey different meanings when they share the same result of how to better direct and guide our readers across this encyclopedia. Not every reader is expected to read every sentence and some just want to look for the other articles themselves for the details there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I also want to question where does it specify that hatnotes ought to point to dedicated sections only? {{Main}} states "When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often written in summary style. This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized. The Assembled article's contents of this film's special are being summarized in the section at the film article and is explained further at the Assembled article in the body and the episode table where the exact special in question is mentioned in detail. {{Further}} supports this usage: "It is typically used at the top of a section, when the topic of that section is covered in more detail by another page." Not all readers are expected to know what Assembled is, hence the brief summar in the section, though the bulk contents of the said special is covered at the Assembled article.

I will note there is also {{Broader}}, which exists (per its documentation): "It is used in sections for which there is also a separate article on the subject. It should be used when there should be a link to another article that discusses a subject more broadly, but is not a main article (which should use {{Main}}), a narrower topic (which should probably use {{Further}}), or at the same level of focus (which should probably use {{See also}})." I believe using Broader in these instances is a workable compromise that best addresses the concerns raised while also maintaining the goals of the taskforce in adequate, proper, and easy navigation for our readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It [Marvel Studios: Assembled] may not have a section [for Thor: Love and Thunder], although it does have an episode description w/ cast and crew details for it in the episode table. — in which case the appropriate hatnote would be {{further|Marvel Studios: Assembled#ep12}}. However (similar to Clarityfiend}'s original point) there is already a wiki-link (via redirect The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder) to that target in the text of Thor: Love and Thunder#Documentary special, so the hatnote is someone superfluous in such a small section. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Broader}} ... in these instances is a workable compromise — {{Broader}} "is used to make summary style explicit", but I don't think that this is an example of "summary style" as described in WP:SUMMARY, which talks about a section of one article summarising another article; what we have here is a section of one article (Thor: Love and Thunder § Documentary special) that overlaps (not summarises, because it contains extra information not in the latter) one row in a table in one section of another article (Marvel Studios: Assembled). Thor: Love and Thunder § Documentary special is a specific instance of Marvel Studios: Assembled - it is not a summary of that article. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like we just need to clean-up the links for the section: replace the current hatnote with {{further|The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder}} and remove the unnecessary links from the prose considering it is such a small section. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

replace the current hatnote with {{further|The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder}} and remove the unnecessary links from the prose — What's wrong with "leave the existing wikilink in the prose and remove the unnecessary hatnote" (considering it is such a small section, containing the words "The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder")?

Better still, remove the existing first sentence "In February 2021, the documentary series Marvel Studios: Assembled was announced" because it's irrelevant in this context. Instead reword the section as:

"The Making of Thor: Love and Thunder" – an episode of the Marvel Studios: Assembled series – was released on Disney+ on September 8, 2022, part of Disney+ Day.

No hatnote required because the linked "Making of..." is now literally the first thing in the section. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It is expected for short summary sections about a different project that the section starts with a hatnote, I don't see why we should treat this one differently. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It is expected for short summary sections about a different project that the section starts with a hatnote — Which policy or guideline says that? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Clarityfiend and Mitch Ames that a hatnote is superfluous clutter in this case. older ≠ wiser 10:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Change in style

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T367462

It appears that the style of hatnotes has changed. I've looked at various templates but I haven't managed to find where this change was actually made. Was there a discussion before the change was made? Un assiolo (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday 13 June style changes there's awareness of this and Phabricator request has been filed. I have no idea, but it is being looked into. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 

Do we have an "About-Distinguish-For" hatnote? If not, I think we should.

"About-Distinguish-For" would be a very useful template. Several articles I recall would benefit from hatnotes of that particular nature. Here's one example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departure_(2015_film)

An indie film stub, which needs development. Regardless, the hatnote:

This article is about the 2015 film. Not to be confused with Departures (2008 film). For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films.

There might be better examples, but in this instance:

1. ABOUT: Identifies which one this is, obviously.
2. DISTINGUISH: Specifically singling out the most significant (Oscar winner), and most likely to be incorrectly Wikilinked.
3. FOR: Then the disambiguation page w/ multiple other Departure-named flicks; directly to section.

While it could be done all freeform with one of those custom text ones, I was kind of surprised not to see one of these amongst the lists of potential hatnote options, considering all of the other combinations.

And I found this in the archive, which looked suitable, but unfortunately it doesn't exist: Testing //composed hatnote|about|SUBJECT|distinguish|SIMILARCONCEPT|for|USE|PAGE|text|TEXT\\. But that would be the ideal About-Distinguish-For.

I dunno if there's one that I'm overlooking somewhere OR some way to squeeze a "For-custom-text" hatnote template WITHIN an About-Distinguish one, by any chance…? Dubious. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why the 2008 and 2015 films need some special distinction separate from the other films. I think {{For|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}} producing:

For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films.

would be sufficient. If there is actually some good need to distinguish two out of the set for some reason, this can be done with {{About|the 2015 English-French film|the 2008 Japanese film|Departures (2008 film)|other films with the same title|Departure (disambiguation)#Films}} producing:

This page is about the 2015 English-French film. For the 2008 Japanese film, see Departures (2008 film). For other films with the same title, see Departure (disambiguation) § Films.

older ≠ wiser 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate that option and your POV, thank you. But it doesn't phrase it as "Not to be confused with", in the middle. Like I stated, I feel like that is one missing combo, and there are so many similar combos.

For example, there is REDIRECT-Distinguish-For. So why can't there be About-Distinguish-For?

Like I said, this may not be the quintessential example to work with, but it's AN example. Think outside the box. Is there some way to manipulate the templates to create This page is about XXXX. Not to be confused with Xx Xx. For other/similar ____, see XXXX (disambiguation)? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 00:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The multiplicity of hatnote templates with differing parameters is already very confusing. I can't see adding yet another to the mix, especially when the use case need isn't very clear. Why make more work when there is no need? older ≠ wiser 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)