Talk:Scott Sizemore

Hatnote

In response to this: notability isn't required for a hatnote. I think, since hatnotes are cheap, there's no harm in having them (or having redirects) even for candidates who only got a few hundred votes. In this case 3,000 votes isn't a lot in the context of the election, but it's 3,000+ people who might want to search for him; by way of comparison we have countless articles on settlements with many fewer residents than that (I wonder if, were "Scott Sizemore" a small town rather than a congressional candidate, there'd be any objection). Basically, relatively little benefit in having it but absolutely no harm. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this until the little red "revert" notification appeared. I'm still not convinced the hatnote is warranted. What if the politician had appeared in more than one election? Which would the hatnote link to? Also, there's one a single mention of any biographical information about the politician on the election page. That hatnote unnecessarily clutters up the page and I don't think it provides any information to a person searching for the politician.

If there was a Scott Sizemore small town (whether it had an article or not), I would endorse a hatnote because I feel the town is notable. In this case, I don't think the politician is notable. If he was, then he'd have a Wikipedia article. And if he eventually gets a Wikipedia article, then I'll endorse the hatnote. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is notability so much as it is plausibility as a search term. If it's plausible that someone could arrive at this article while looking for information on the politician (and I contend that it is) then we should point that reader in the right direction regardless of whether we have a whole article on the politician. Though you're right to note there isn't a lot of information on the guy, what we have is a short description, an explanation of where and when he ran, who he ran against and how many votes he received. Although we're not offering comprehensive coverage, it can't be said that the hatnote doesn't provide "any information".

(I don't think it's directly relevant in this case, or that a hard-and-fast rule for such cases would be useful, but if he'd been a candidate in multiple elections while remaining non-notable I think we'd include a hatnote [or if the name wasn't ambiguous, a redirect per WP:POLITICIAN] to the article that offered the most information, which would usually be that relating to the most recent election.) Though it doesn't seem like it's intended to be comprehensive I'd also note that the relevant guideline contains a list of less acceptable uses of hatnotes, none of which resemble this one or reflect arguments that seem similar to yours. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm not still not sure if this is an appropriate usage of a hatnote, I've asked the hatnote experts here: Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Hatnote to non-notable person referenced in another article. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote definitely not warranted. You need to show at least some notability for the target Scott Sizemore, a mention as a distant runner up in one of several tables of an otherwise unrelated article does not cut it. Please treat the identical names as mere coincidence and not something worth mentioning (or crossreferencing). CapnZapp (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any policy- or guideline-based explanation for why notability has anything to do with it. Likewise "otherwise unrelated article" and "mere coincidence" – I mean, no shit, but linking articles for unrelated people and topics that coincidentally share names is one of the primary uses of hatnotes. Would you apply similar reasoning to cases where non-notable people are mentioned on disambiguation pages? Because MOS:DAB seems pretty clear that doing that is often advisable. Or where (for example) the name of a non-notable candidate for office redirects to an election in which they were involved? Because that's recommended by WP:POLITICIAN. Given that those guidelines don't treat notability as a concern when dealing with other methods of disambiguation, why should hatnotes be any different? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have hatnotes? Reading the policy, we get the answer "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking." So in order to add a hatnote, you should ask yourself "might readers seek the linked article?" and thus, "is this link useful from this location?". In this case, the probability that a reader arriving here is really looking for the Washington elections page is slim, but the usefulness of that page as pertaining to Scott Sizemore the politician is next to none. You simply won't get any good info on him by following yourt proposed hatnote. In fact, you will not even understand why you were sent to the elections page unless you do a page search and find the obscure mention of him hidden away in a table. You are assuming prior knowledge of that person - don't do that. If, on the other hand, that person had his own page, or even a substantial presence on the linked page, then a hatnote would have been absolutely welcomed. But you can't replace the non-notability of a person by a hatnote "mention". In short, the link to the elections page is useless considering our starting point, and I oppose its inclusion. If you want to add Scott Sizemore the politician to the Wikipedia project, you need to provide real info (with all the notability questions that brings), and not "sneak" him in from this completely (apart from the coincidental naming) irrelevant page. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I explained why I think readers may be looking for Sizemore the politician in my first post above (31 December), and what I think the elections article offers such readers (i.e. more than just a mention in a table) in my second (11 January). It might be more useful to address those points directly than to assert without explanation or evidence that the chances readers are looking are for that article are small, or that its usefulness is negligible. You've also not addressed the question of why you think hatnotes differ from other forms of disambiguation – do you object, for example, to Bob Jeffers-Schroder, which redirects to the same section of the same article? Or to the entry at the disambiguation page William Hoffman linking to the same target? If so, give that they're recommended by guidelines, why? If not, why are they any different from the hatnote on this article? To reiterate, I've seen no reason based in Wikipedia policies or guidelines (for example the examples of improper uses of hatnotes), or indeed based in anything much other than personal preference, for why the hatnote doesn't belong in this case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)