Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

Change in style
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 Village pump (technical) there's awareness of this and Phabricator request has been filed. I have no idea, but it is being looked into. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨

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.
 * 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. 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. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 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 producing:
 * 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 producing:
 * 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)? --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 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)
 * 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)? --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 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)

Is there a way to combine multiple hatnotes?
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)


 * 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! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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". Pam  D  08:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, that looks good. There's always something new to learn about editing Wikipedia, and hatnote group is today's new thing for me. Pam  D  08:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did it for Alien as well, since it's the same hatnote format. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 23:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Cinemaniac86! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! =) --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 19:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)