Talk:Charles Taylor (MP for Totnes)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 207.161.86.162 in topic Hatnote
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Hatnote
editRegarding your recent reversion, Babegriev, how do you believe the hatnote complies with the spirit of WP:NOTAMB? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whereas WP:NAMB advises the removal of disambiguation hatnotes, it is also clear in specifying that this will not always apply to all circumstances, particularly in articles with titles that, while not ambiguous, are similar to many others (example provided Treaty of Paris). Unlike hatnotes for related articles, which direct to a specific article, and would be inappropriate, when the subject (not strictly just the title) of the article can easily be mistaken for countless others of the same name (and in this particular situation, at least one individual with the same career), a disambiguation would be useful for the casual reader.
- This is not a hill I am willing to die on, however, I stand by the belief that this article would not be served well by WP:NAMB to the lost, confused or otherwise frustrated visitor of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babegriev (talk • contribs) 05:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- By this logic, would you include advocate the inclusion of disambiguatory hatnotes in all articles whose titles use parenthetical disambiguators? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not unilaterally, however, in many cases yes. Articles should be discussed on an individual basis, and articles where a reader could easily be confused between two or more articles (even with different parenthetical disambiguators) should include a hatnote wikilink to a broader disambiguation page. Even if it is clear which article a reader is on, it is still plausible to assume that they could be confused with another of a similar title, and therefore a clarification is useful and convenient.Babegriev (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- What would be an example of an article whose title uses a parenthetical disambiguator in which it would not be appropriate, in your view, to include a disambiguatory hatnote? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not unilaterally, however, in many cases yes. Articles should be discussed on an individual basis, and articles where a reader could easily be confused between two or more articles (even with different parenthetical disambiguators) should include a hatnote wikilink to a broader disambiguation page. Even if it is clear which article a reader is on, it is still plausible to assume that they could be confused with another of a similar title, and therefore a clarification is useful and convenient.Babegriev (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- By this logic, would you include advocate the inclusion of disambiguatory hatnotes in all articles whose titles use parenthetical disambiguators? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)