On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Zahd <owl(a)spaz.org> wrote:
RFC: I'm having a little throw with someone named
David over the usage of
hatnotes and whether or not to disambiguate. On the [[sola scriptura]]
article, there's a hatnote which points "for the [[Neal Morse]] album
[[Sola Scriptura (album)]]." I removed this hatnote in favor of a standard
otheruses disambig. The principle here is that the article's substance is
more *substantial than the tangential, and relatively speaking, trivial,
hatnote on top.
David thinks this is some kind of specious subjectivity - that noone can
state whether articles are more or less trivial than others - and in any
case two-article disambiguations are just wrong. I hope others here feel
differently.
-Zahd
1) Hatnotes: for use in disambiguating pages when there are only two
options. Why make people click more than once? If there are other
things out there in the world called Sola scriptura, then a disambig
page is fine. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
2) Trivial article: of course the article on the root concept is more
"important". However, readers may well be looking for the article on
the album. Disambiguation is all about improving usability for
readers. See point 1 above.
3) Don't edit war about stupid stuff [i.e., things where the outcome
no matter who wins is more or less the same -- the reader clicks
through to the page about the album regardless].
yours,
phoebe