Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hatnote page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Disambiguation 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.

The content of Template:Hatnote templates documentation was merged into Wikipedia:Hatnote. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

WP:NOTAMB interpretation

Hi. The user @Gruesome Gary massively adds hatnotes on pages of places (mostly in Southeastern Europe) with the same name (see their recent contributions). I disagree with that. In my opinion, this is clearly in violation of WP:NOTAMB and I don't see a similar practice being followed by places in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, etc. I tried to discuss this topic with him, but was basically ignored. That's why I'm asking here if you think places with the same name should be linked like this, or is it against NOTAMB and should be stopped. Thank you for your opinion. FromCzech (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that hatnote can be useful, for example, for places with the same name that are located close to each other and are referenced from one to the other, but the current practice of mass creation of links to the disambiguation page is imo against WP. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FromCzech, never meant to ignore you so apologies for that. Saw that was three years ago, so could not recall that earlier but will stop adding the hatnotes pending the outcome here. No bad intentions here from my side. Gruesome Gary (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMB speaks for itself: "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous". There's no reason to ignore this guideline in these cases. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Shhhnotsoloud. Hatnotes are an (at times useful) eyesore and a distraction to the reader. They should be used only when their benefit, in terms of clarity and disambiguation, outweighs the cost of clutter and distraction. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 28 § Template:Highway detail hatnote

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 28 § Template:Highway detail hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect-multi needs to be change for simplicity

Currently, the template uses '"USE1", "USE2", "USE3", and "USE4" redirect here. For other uses, see USE1 (disambiguation), USE2 (disambiguation), USE3 (disambiguation), and USE4 (disambiguation). {{{text}}}.' when {{redirect-multi|text=}} is present, as seen in this revision. It needs to be changed to '"USE1", "USE2", "USE3", and "USE4" redirect here. {{{text}}}.' for simplicity. 2600:1700:6180:6290:E8C6:83FC:3353:1AB0 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]