Talk:Wadi el Maleh

Hatnotes
I have tried several times to remove inappropriate, badly-formatted text from the top of this article, but each time you have reverted my edits. The purpose of a hatnote "is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." (WP:HATNOTE). It's implicit that this means English Wikipedia: a link to a sister project is essentially an external link which is not allowed. On two occasions, I replaced the text with a note (e.g. ) which keeps the information on the page. I think this is the best solution and it is unambiguously compliant with guidelines. What do you think is wrong with it? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A guideline is a guideline, not policy. There may be exceptions based on WP:Common sense. This hatnote disrupts nothing, but clearly explains that the reader might not getting what they were looking for. Putting this note inside the text is waste of reader's time. Disambig notes are on top for a reason. I don't think that rigorous formatting trumps readers' convenience. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have dismissed the fact that a hatnote separates the reader from the text in a way that a footnote doesn't. Guidelines are there for a reason too: hatnote-like text like your preferred version may look the same in desktop view but it doesn't look the same in mobile view. I have asked felllow editors for further opinions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked from my ancient phone and the only nuisance is the huge into-your-face "needs additional citations for verification'" refimprov. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping hatnotes from serving their purpose if the target article is in a different language Wikipedia, even though interlanguage links should be used more sparingly than on, say, disambiguation pages, because of their high prominence with articles (relevant recent discussion). However, if such a link is to be used, then the target should be an alright article (be enwiki standards), and the language it's in should either be understandable to a decent number of readers or be relevant to the subject. These conditions aren't met here: the link here is for Cebuano: a language of the Philippines is neither well known nor related to North Africa, and the target is a bot-generated page, one of several million created by automatic scraping of databases. Such links shouldn't be used even within article text: if there are decent sources about the other places with the name, then cite them directly. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I will waste some time and create an enwiki disambig page. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)