I agree with this too, but there is a very easy fix for this: a disambiguation page. They work brilliantly, and the "hatnote" for them doesn't detract from it's subject at all, no matter how serious it is. No need to reform the disambiguation policy all willy-nilly to something that is less clear. It's a fine policy, it's worked great for a long time, and there are no real flaws with it. So what is the problem?

On 9/4/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't get this 'detracts from the seriousness of the subject'. Do science or history articles get all embarassed to be in the same encyclopedia as more "trivial" subjects? Do the writers of such articles, or the readers? And should we care? One of the strengths of Wikipedia is its trivia. Seriously. It's the breadth of our coverage that makes us appealing, and allows us to be a one-stop source of information for the curious. To be honest, a good proportion of the history and science is as trivial as the music and videogames. This does not mock the science, nor the history. -Matt

On 9/5/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I do think that many times such notes can be wildly out of place. A > perfect example somebody mentioned eariler is this thread is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beirut&diff=21961432&oldi… > > Clearly an inappropriate "hatnote" > > But, again. make a disambig-page and you're fine. No need for anything > else.

That example didn't require a disambiguation note. Who would mistakenly go to Beirut when looking for "Beer Pong"? Assuming good faith, whoever placed this "hatnote" has a serious misunderstanding of the concept.

BTW, I just looked at that article ([[Beer Pong]], that is), and it's a freakshow! It's got diagrams and everything, and it is rivaling many featured articles in length. Either someone has waaaaaaaaaay to much time on their hands, or something very fishy is going on. I'm tempted to put a comment in the wikitext that says "Attention! Many other articles need help! Don't waste time here!" or something ;)

On 9/4/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't get this 'detracts from the seriousness of the subject'. Do science or history articles get all embarassed to be in the same encyclopedia as more "trivial" subjects? Do the writers of such articles, or the readers?

On 05/09/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: {{otheruses}} is a template; it's used in RATHER A LOT of places, so I wouldn't mess with it without checking with the devs that something nasty wouldn't happen to the database (I remember when someone changed {{stub}} and everything ground to a halt for a while), but if you think something non-ugly can be done that would get consensus, then fine.