This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
Specifically for this article. I find hatnotes on multiple lines looks trashy and like we don't know what we're doing, I think both hatnotes in this scenario assume the audience is stupid but it's got consensus so I just want to tidy it up if possible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that ought to be utilizing the Redirect-Distinguish-For hatnote template. I just replaced it, so it's now combined all on one line. It follows example #4, where the "redirect" input is also the same as the "disambiguation" input, with the "not to be confused…" in the middle. Hopefully that doesn't create some kerfuffle! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's helpful: we're talking about two different kinds of navigation, and the combined hatnote is confusing. I#ve reverted to the two separate hatnotes which, I think, are clear and not "trashy". PamD08:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it looks trashy and puts a longer barrier between the reader and the important text. I've found hatnote group which does what I want per step 5 "Ideally, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page or section. Multiple hatnotes may be appropriate when they serve different purposes, such as disambiguating topics with similar names and explaining redirects. (In such cases, consider using hatnote group.)" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, good, everyone's happy! Yes, I was worried there would be an issue with the fact that the "redirect" and "disambiguation" was interrupted by the "distinguish". This solution seems most ideal, so that it doesn't look discombobulated. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to this previous discussion (which I cannot find in the archives), the resulting change has created an issue where the first item at WP:HATNOTERULES: "Link directly to other articles" seems to discourage the use of redirects in hatnotes. However, following that, we are sent to WP:Disambiguation to follow the rules for linking to redirects, but there are no specific rules for hatnotes in that guideline. Specifically this has caused an issue in this discussion. I think we need more clarity on what was intended. Personally, I don't think we should be linking to redirects as they can cause WP:EGG issues in certain cases. --woodensuperman10:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should always do what is best for readers in any given case. Usually this will mean linking to redirects with possibilities (so that when content is written at the redirect title readers are taken directly there), and to redirects that are more concise than section titles without being a SURPRISE. Constructions like "Redirect" → "Article title#Redirect" and similar (i.e. where the subject implied by the title of the redirect matches the subject implied by the title of the section) are not normally going to be surprising and will very rarely present WP:EGG issues. I agree the current guidance could be clearer on this topic, but it does make it clear that linking to WP:INTDABLINK redirects is the correct thing to do so claiming it "discourages the use of redirects in hatnotes" is nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words. It makes a specific exception for this one case, I maintain that we should still be using direct links in most other cases so that readers end up where they expect. The change in January seems poorly thought out and has just muddied the guideline. --woodensuperman15:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should be linking the redirect. A valid redirect is also not an WP:EGG link so I'm not sure how that is relevant. In the example you gave, an episode redirect is a valid link as if and when it becomes an article, the link is already there. It's also makes changing the target a simple one page edit, instead of having to edit every link to the target. That is exactly what a redirect is and that is covered by the various MoS pages on the topic. Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you need to know every article that needs editing, and then edit every one of those articles (could be one could be a hundred). Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that contravenes the guideline then the guideline is wrong and needs changing, but per Bagumba's quote it is actually compatible: The Magic Johnson article contains "Earvin "Magic" Johnson" in the lead (and thus contains the term "Earvin Johnson" and the redirect could absolutely served as an alternative title for the article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've worked out what's wrong with the guideline. I think it makes it clearer, and I now believe this is what is intended by the current wording, if we changed it to something along the lines of: