Knowledge (XXG) talk:Hatnote/Archive 2

1797:

basically because it doesn't make sense to have a "For other uses go here" hatnote when the reader doesn't know what the current article is about, but the keyword is "brief" description. And this is mainly useful when viewing on a mobile phone or similar device when you can't readily see the lead paragraph to see what the article is about. I still think the hatnote seems to be catering to fringe views a little bit as usually you should work dissenting opinions or criticism of an article subject into the article, rather than link to a dissenting article in a hatnote, but I don't know how these articles developed and I'm sure there are some edit wars that go on that lead to this.

2600:, but for readers not familiar with Oregon counties, there is still considerable potential for confusion. As there are only two possibly ambiguous Oregon places with the name, a hatnote on both articles refering to the other might be helpful. A hatnote to the general dab page is not needed in this case. Similarly, the disambiguating term used for people may not always be sufficient to clearly identify an individual -- but in general the practice should be for the hatnote to link to the other ambiguous articles directly rather than a dab page, unless there is potential for confusion amongst multiple entries. 796:, that's somewhat of a unique situation; I can see why there is a hatnote since someone searching for Venom (in relation to Spiderman) might actually want the article on one of the two human hosts. This would be a reason to keep the hatnote, as a reader might go to the Venom article but really want one of these other articles, which is what hatnotes are for. Only problem is the parentheses again make it hard to get to that article without going through 31: 1699:

to that article). Down there at the bottom, where it will not be seen by those arriving at the article. Nor do we still frequently see articles consisting of several paragraphs on each of several unrelated topics (e.g. a section on ordained bishops, then a section on chess pieces, then a section on Alfonxe Bishop, a rock star, etc. Back in 2004 and 2005, I used to clean up situations like that all the time.

2282:. As originally written, this was an exceedingly (and from WP's perspective excessively) detailed guide as to the grammar and vocabulary of said constructed language. The decision was taken to move most of the less notable material to Wikibooks. At that point, people started edit warring over whether or not the article should have a hatnote guiding them towards that transwikied material, or whether a normal 904:

I've seen hat notes take up two and even three separate lines, sometimes wrapped, and they can become very distracting. It is particularly irksome in the case of "X redirects to this page. See page Y for more..." (for some lesser importance topic X and Y), which basically serves the role of a railway junction. If nothing else, it would be better if they were hidden in an expandable navbox of some type.

883:. There were long debates whether those article titles should be at the disambiguation page and it was decided to keep them to the city in England, but include the city in Massachusetts in the hatnotes because they are overwhelmingly the second-most-popular usage in both cases. The situation in this case is not the same though, g-force is not overwhemingly the second-most-popular usage. 1174:

becoming a problem that would be helpful, I haven't been on Knowledge (XXG) much lately but I haven't noticed a problem with hatnotes. My guess is this section might have been spurred by the "First planet redirects here", etc. on the planet articles, which I agree, was a bad idea and the redirect hatnotes for these are of a very limited usage. I removed the last one that I saw on the

875:. It's not implicitly said other entries should not be used, it should just be common sense I guess, but in this case, g-force is definitly not overwhelmingly more notable than other entries on the disambiguation page and therefore should not be included in the hatnote. There are a small amount of exceptions to this rule, two off the top of my head are 4606:" that there needs to be one as there are SEVERAL songs that go by that name (and a lot of them DON'T have pages), regardless if they got this (Artist song) beside there name or not PLEASE REMOVE THIS. It needs to be for all or none no half or pick and chose cause that's ridiculous. It does nothing but cause problems and edit wars. 1665:, which is a featured article about a very important and basic philosophical concept, has a hatnote to a band that would never be in a real encyclopedia (one where notability is not decided on by people who've never even seen an encyclopedia, but base notability on blog posts and twitters). This would be like having an article like 3628:, not pseudoscience. "Junk science" did not even exist in the pseudoscience article (I have subsequently corrected this). It would have been very helpful if I did not have to read the entire pseudoscience article, but simply saw a hat at top, so I put one there. But the hat content was then moved to the "See also" section 717:

doesn't work in this case either because a Google search of "Georgia" returns you both the country and the U.S. state articles. Basically the hatnotes do not aid in navigation at all and this is the sole purpose of hatnotes. So is there any good reason not to just delete the hatnotes from these articles?

2244:

right hand side in other places than the external links, but that practice seems to be somewhat deprecated because I don't see it that often anymore. I am not sure why this guideline does not specifically mention sister sites, but I have a feeling they were simply overlooked because this situation with

5459:

True, but I do have a feeling those don't get used much I know I never use the disambiguation page and half the times I forget they exist. I also want to note that the disambiguation pages aren't always reliable, I've noticed things missing on them that should be on there and have existed for awhile.

4372:

Personally I prefer shorter hatnotes (in both cases I would compact the two hatnotes into one), though sometimes it's inevitable that you need quite a lot of text to help everyone who might be arriving at the page though seeking a different article. I've also thought in the past that it would be good

3400:

as it's written is very clear and flexible, and serves to prevent over-proliferation of non-relevent material. As others have said, the reader looking for information on tall woody plants is not likely to come to "Tree (set theory)" by accident, even from external searches, and if they do, we've got

2934:

Quite. I'd add the sort of info found in a dab page, including dates when one or more of the persons named is dead or there is a large difference in date of birth enough to distinguish people - eg "This article is about the Irish novelist (1900-1920); for the Scottish author (1800-1899) see ....; for

2856:

Either of these two styles is acceptable; the choice of style in a given article is based on editors' preference and what is likely to be clearer and easier for the reader. Where an article already has a hatnote in one of these styles, editors should not change to the other style without good reason.

2796:

2061:

What Wiktionary "hatnotes" are you talking about? And consensus is definitely that sister sites are external links, that's why they are always included in the external links section. Of course it's relevant that this text is no longer on Knowledge (XXG), it was deemed unencylopedic, and it's not like

2021:

People are looking for a WP article, so IMO we should direct them to it. The fact that it's no longer on WP is irrelevant to those of our readers who are looking for it. The example that the policy was agreed on apparently did not have such things in mind. From that, I'd say there was no agreement on

1726:

article)? In this case, the article title is refined, and limited, for what is essentially a list article - to specifically 'disambiguate' (dictionary def'n) what is or isn't suitable for inclusion in the list. If this is a valid use (and I think it should be) then perhaps this type of usage should

1698:

is a chess piece. Then someone expands point (1) so that there's a long long long article on bishops, the ecclesiastical officials, and after you scroll down through many many screenfuls of material on that, you find a lone paragraph that says only that a bishop is a certain chess piece (with a link

1325:

I'd suggest the same - move all the disambiguations into the top slot. I think a reasonable rule of thumb might be that if there is a disambiguation page with a number of non-trivial items in it then the redirect hatnote should be avoided by putting the disambiguation page in the top slot, as long as

1178:

article. Problems with hatnotes like that can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Are there any other examples of problems with hatnotes? A user-specific hatnote wouldn't even be desirable or that helpful in a lot of cases because you'd still want to keep the main page (disambiguation) link so any

4987:

because if you were looking for the Speak Now song you'd type that in in the search right. Though I do wanna point this out there are those like me (and I've done this goof up a lot) who type it but not in full as the search usually pulls up all pages associated with the search and I've accidentally

4340:

In both cases they convey a lot of useful information and I can't see how they could be made shorter and still offer as much navigational aid. (Wasn't it Einstein who urged that everything should be "As simple as possible but no simpler"? Substitute "short" in the case of hatnotes.) I don't see them

3583:

When an article’s subject is nearly synonymous with another article’s subject, or when it is sometimes but not always used as a near synonym, placement of a hat referring to that other subject should be made. When a subject is a part of another subject, that other subject should be in a hat, but if

3102:

I'm afraid I don't see the connection between saying that 45% of Knowledge (XXG) traffic is external and removing/keeping hatnotes. Simply because there are any number of ways that readers can get to the wrong article doesn't necessarily justify keeping hatnotes when the search box is a more viable

2107:

This is just pure speculation. And it's very easy to use the table of contents or simply scroll to the bottom where 99% of people know external links lie. If you think the content on Wikibooks is so essential, you should be arguing that it be reincluded in the Knowledge (XXG) article. You are having

1173:

I think the user-specific hatnote based on the search term would be pretty useful but I'm not sure it is that necessary. One of the things I like doing is maintaining hatnotes so they aren't intrusive and are kept to one line as much as possible, if you could give some examples of where hatnotes are

903:

I'd like to see much greater restrictions placed on the use of hatnotes. To me these are basically low value notes that are taking away valuable real estate from the high value article lead, especially in the case of featured articles. At most the hatnotes should be limited to a single line of text.

4355:

Well, it's a matter of perspective, I suppose. To me the Hatnote is the least important aspect of the material being presented, if only because most readers won't need to see it. It's comparable to the "See also" section, which is usually at the end of an article (for good reason). It's unfortunate

3656:

Ah but that presumes the reader understands the distinction between pseudoscience and junk science (which to a certain extent is peculiar to Knowledge (XXG)). Both articles should have some indication of the distinction and the links in the See also section is appropriate. Hatnotes should really be

3054:

That observation doesn't make it nonsense, just weakens its argument ever so slightly. I still don't think we should start putting hatnotes on all disambiguated articles (it would be a change of approach involving hundreds of thousands of articles) just for the benefit of a very small proportion of

847:

is one of the entries on the disambiguation page. I do not see any reason to have the additional hatnote because it is just another use of G that is already on the disambig page and it just clutters the top of the article with the other 2 hatnotes on the article. Any input to the discussion would

791:

would go to a disambiguation page. So basically, it doesn't matter whether something is linked further in the article or not. Hatnotes are used when another article could have the same exact or very similar title and therefore a reader may be looking for that article instead of the one they got to.

350:

template does neither of those. One possible con is additional length, since providing more information has a cost; however, as most of these are less than a single line long, I don't think that that ought to be dispositive over the purpose of Knowledge (XXG) which is to provide information. What

2964:

But if the first words identify clearly the article on the page, then "the vast majority of readers" will skip the rest of the hatnote because they'll be told that they're on the right page (because the hatnote will be on the page for the primary topic), so it won't be an "unnecessary distraction"

2417:

to link a subsection in one article with an equivalent subsection in a second article. Neither article is 'main' relative to the other, and neither subsection is a summary (in the 'main' sense). The two articles present different sides of the same characters -- this arrangement was reached through

757:

hatnotes back and to another character who has used the alias even though these are linked in in the relevant areas below and should be linked in from the lead (which should be expanded). In those last two examples it would also make sense to bold the names in the lead which would draw the eye to

2949:

That would make the hatnote too long, in my opinion. I like to keep them as brief as possible - they're an unnecessary distraction at the top of the article for the vast majority of readers. Dab pages are different - each entry gets a whole line to itself, so there's room for contextual info like

2243:

The way I see it is that this guideline specifically mentions not having external links in hatnotes. There also seems to be a silent consensus that sister sites are external links because they almost always are included in that section. You are right that we sometimes see sister site boxes on the

2228:

I don't follow how it's so obviously inappropriate. WP policy appears not to address it at all. Sister projects are treated differently than run-of-the-mill external links: we don't have templates for links to the BBC that we place in the middle of breaking-news WP articles, for example, yet it's

2092:

Actually, it would be hard. That's the whole point. People aren't approaching this for the article it is, but for the article it was. It's appropriate to redirect them up front, not tuck a link down at the bottom, where they're not going to see it unless they read an article that they didn't come

1983:

I'd have thought so. We could perhaps make some templates that create appropriate hatnotes to sister sites (Wiktionary is another one, where we want to direct people to definitions of a word). If they looked a little bit different from standard hatnotes, they might be more acceptable to the blind

1484:

The point is to show what the templates will produce with given parameters which should be easy to generalize. With parameter choices like USE1, PAGE1, USE2, PAGE2 it may be easier for many readers to see what happens to the parameters than if arbitrary and irrelevant article names were chosen as

5759:

support creation of such a hatnote. On top of the reasons mentioned above, the next problem will arise: where to draw a line between relevant/irrelevant misspellings (that is: do/don't add the hatnote)? For a single title, the variants can be multiple. There are no stabilizing critaria. It would

716:

is a disambiguation page so it's impossible to get to either of these two articles unless you specifically search for them, and they both have what they are about already in the article title so there is no confusion. Furthermore, some people like to make the Google argument for hatnotes, but it

3356:

wording does not mislead; it just does not accommodate people who got to the page by choosing the wrong page, at the expense of inconveniencing everyone else. Your example visitor could just as easily have been searching for information on duck bills; there's nothing about them on the first UK

1963:

was moved to Wikibooks, and the WP article rewritten to cover the history and reception of the language rather than the language itself. The WP article had been a popular reference for fans learning the language (for example a basic reference at LearnNa'vi.org), and so an editor added a hatnote

1074:

To follow up on your other suggestion, it would be useful if there were a magic word such as REDIRECTNAME that contained the title of the redirect. This could then be used with conditional logic in a template like to automatically produce the appropriate hatnote only when the page is reached by

4814:

No James, Speak Now needs one, because when you type "Speak Now" it goes to the album, not the song. London also goes to the UK city, so it also needs a hat note."I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song)" does not need a hat note, because you aren't going to type in "I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song)" and be

429:

in October 2008, and some of them might be appropriate uses. 4400 is really a small number of articles. I inherently distrust bots, because I have seen so many fall flat on their faces despite good intentions. I doubt that a bot would be good at picking the one or two words that appropriately

2697:

There's a situation wherein a term links to a disambiguation page, but I feel it would be more appropriate for the term to link to one of the specific pages, and to include a hatnote linking to the disambiguation. Then again, it might be construed as bias, but I truly feel one article is more

1796:

The hatnote is better now that there are two clear article links which could possibly be confused for the article title, which is the point of a hatnote. Before the edit it was simply explaining what the article is and isn't which usually should be for the lead. The brief description thing is

1240:

That was certainly a mess but easily fixable, I think the one line method I changed it to works fine. That article is probably also a rarity having so many terms redirect to it that also have disambiguation pages, but even articles like that can have fairly simple hatnotes. I also created the

5019:

What you say kinda makes sense...but I'm usually lazy, and only type in the title, I won't add "song", "album", "episode", "character", etc. I may have heard "Speak Now" on the radio, and just type that in assuming it will go to the song, as I'd be unaware there is an album titled that also.

3584:

the subject has parts, the parts should be in hats for that part's section in the article. When the other subject is only very relevant to the article’s subject, but not nearly synonymous or does not fully contain the article’s subject, it should go in the “See also” section, not in the hat.

2979:

Well, I suppose it depends how likely people are to be looking for the other topics, and how essential the distinguishing information is. But as someone opined in a recent discussion, once the hatnote starts going onto a second line, I prefer a dab page (or a more concisely written hatnote)

2669:

to such cases less clear. The guideline conflicts with actual in-the-wild use of said templates in this respect (although cases where there are no such analogous specific templates are unambiguously against the guideline). I would likewise very much like this contradiction to be resolved.

3674:

ambiguous titles. Synonyms sometimes have subtly different useages by some, and no different usage by others, "Junk Science", "Pseudoscience", "Hoodoo Science", "Voodoo Science", and "Pathological Science" are frequently synonyms, although not everyone agrees, hence the ambiguity. E.g.,

4407:

Where there are a lot of redirected terms, rather than list them all twice -- in the X redirects here and in the link to the disambiguation page -- seems it might be less redundant to simply say "Multiple terms redirect here, for other uses see X (disambiguation), Y (disambiguation), Z

1967:

Is that what is meant? It would seem to me that an ex-Knowledge (XXG) article now at a sister project is not exactly "external", esp. when we're redirecting readers who come to WP specifically for that article—indeed, a moved WP article would seem to be the perfect use for a hatnote.

1756:

I'm not in total disagreement - however, the point is many users come to the article thinking it's about something else. I've reworked the hatnote into an about template including links to the most often 'confused-with-other-pages' articles, and moved out part of the text. Regards

4583:. I believe the notices about surnames/given names should not be hatnotes, as they're not disambiguation-related and they are not critical enough to be above the lead. They could be footnotes or built into the article, etc. Please check out that discussion and voice your opinion. 3641:

articles, not synonyms or things of which the aritcle is a part. I am fairly sure I can convince others there to move it back to the top in a hat, but I have already had to so argue before in other articles, and it is a waste of time repeating the same arguments over and over.

4766:

and a hatnote there directs those readers who might be looking for a different London to a disambiguation page. If there were only one or two other ambiguously titled articles, the hatnote could link directly to them rather than to a disambiguation page. In the case at hand,

2912:

Eh, "This article is about the novelist. For the author, see ..." Is that really helpful? Is a novelist not an author? Is the nationality really so controversial? I realize it can be at times, but usually is not. In sum, I don't see that the examples help clarify anything.

2430:

allow this. It is appropriate in a disambiguating sense, since each character section acts as an anchor point from external articles -- a user may find themselves arriving at any section depending on the link in the original article. Frankly, I don't see what the problem

2591:

Place names and people are tricky and may sometimes benefit from having a hatnote, even though the title is technically fully disambiguated. For example, there are two articles on a place named Larch Mountain in Oregon. They are currently disambiguated by county name,

957:

Yes, but the problem also arises when a page is a redirect target for several different search terms. In this case too, though, I agree with RJ that this produces too much clutter. I've seen combined hatnotes of the type "Multiple terms redirect here; see also

3059:

readers of an article; I don't think that's outweighed by the benefit you refer to. As with any web page you might get to from a search engine, if it turns out to be the wrong page you can search again (in this case using Knowledge (XXG)'s own engine, if they

1440:, where template calls with example parameters result in red links? That is not a problem. The links are not meant to go anywhere in those examples and I don't know which past changes you are referring to. The links have always been red as far as I can tell. 1768:. In summary, the hatnote serves to disambiguate, but we at SOoCC should probably have paid more attention to 'where you need to go' as 'why what you're thinking should be here isn't' - and your edit there hopefully helps us head in the right direction. -- 3078:

45% of Knowledge (XXG) traffic is external. This WP:NAMB section is being used to remove otherwise perfectly sensible hatnotes. I'm not advocating any effort on adding hatnotes only the removal of this nonsense clause that is used to remove them. Regards,

3636:

so a reader looking for something very similar can quickly get to the article they want, withtout having to scour the merely related stuff in "See also", or hunt down a link that may or may not be in the article. But "See also" should be about merely

5475:

If you want me to be honest I don't understand why we got disambiguation pages anyway for that reason. Cause I know I don't want to go and add all the pages that need to be add that are missing especially when I don't know how many pages there are.

4645:

is an album and a song by LeAnn Rimes both using the same name but they can't have a hat over there's no other album under that name WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? It should need a hat as there's the album by Rimes and the song by Rimes JUST LIKE

3261:

Again: we should not inconvenience the actual target audience of a page by going out of our way to help the (presumably) small number of people who choose to click on the wrong search term. For those folks, each page does have a search box.

1998:

Sister sites/projects are external links. They belong in the external links section. I'd remove the hatnote on that article and put a link in the external links section instead. Hatnotes are meant for internal navigation on Knowledge (XXG).

4761:

The guideline uses a different sort of example but the idea is the same. For a different example, consider that there are many places and things known as "London". But London, England, is by the most common meaning and so its article is at

3130:

section for anybody in doubt). People can always end up at the wrong page from an external search, regardless of whether the page has a disambiguation name in parentheses (a Knowledge (XXG)-specific practice). The first two Google hits on

3619:

is one example. I intended to to an edit about geological pseudoscience, as used by the president of Association of Engineering and Environmental Geology discussing a court case, and read about pseudoscience in the courts. I learned that

3357:

Google results page either, so by your reasoning, we should be ready for someone who clicks on legislative-related pages when they're really looking for the straight dope on waterfowl appendages. For these people: Search box. Solved.

2572:). Basically, the idea was that the example given (tree) was not a good one - it failed to convey the point. Considering that I encounter this a lot with place articles (e.g. on an article for One Horse, Nevada, a hatnote would say, 1669:

start with a hatnote to a band called "Death". Can we add to this page that real encyclopedic articles should link to dab hatnotes instead of starting important subjects with links to silly pages no one will care about in 10 years? --

1352:? That is, allowing us to change the "(Redirected from Foo)" message to something like "(Redirected from Foo. For X, see Y)". This could potentially remove one of the main source of hatnotes; those that explain redirects. Thoughts? 4263:. I was going to remove it from here, but perhaps it'd be best removed from there instead. Therefore, I've not touched it. Maybe someone who was involved in setting these things up knows the best way to handle this. Thanks. -- 4621:

AND DON'T BASH ME! I've had enough of that. I'm allowed to give my opinion the first person who does it I'm reporting to an admin as I'm tired of giving my opinion and getting personally attacked I'm done playing that game.

4421:

I really have a difficult time seeing the benefit of reporting what redirects to an article. If you arrived by a redirect then you're already aware of this. Otherwise, why would you care? This just seems like a list of

3408:

also recognizes that there may be pages where even a disambiguated article name is still ambiguous enough that a hatnote would be useful and gives the example of "Matt Smith (comics)" vs. "Matt Smith (illustrator)." (

4150:

According to the lead, "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article." But hatnotes are frequently also placed at the top of sections. Is this frowned upon? Either way, the article should make this point

3791:. Imagine an editor wanting to use one (as I was). (Background: recently I started to round up & cleanup the Hatnote template world. Already 20 are removed for being duplicates &tc. Documenting (inccluding: 94:

The example above (/* The present article's topic, mention or not */) is not the egregious one, both tell the person about the other choice, because it is clearly labeled as disambiguation. On the other hand, the

980:. (Of course what would be really great would be if the devs could give us a magic word for the current redirect source - then we could display a hatnote relevant only to the term the current user searched for.)-- 3315:

wording misleads with it's example to only think about following links within Knowledge (XXG), without mention the alternative links from elsewhere. This has lead some editors to start wholesale removal of these

1589:

Just to clarify: what I had in mind was to mention this somewhere in the policies and guidelines (i.e. which templates may ONLY be used under sections, vs. which ones can also be used at the tops of articles).

736:

What is the situation with hatnoting to links which are already in the article? For example if there is a film adaptation where the article is linked in from the relevant section and mentioned in the lead, as at

4373:

if hatnotes could be displayed only to those who need them (i.e. we ought to be able to make display text conditional on whether and which redirect was followed) - has anyone ever suggested this to the devs?--

640:. To me, it is confusing not to use a direct link, esp. when the location of the DAB page for "Georgia" is a contentious issue, with the country article having been requested to be moved to the un-DABed page 595:

It's illogical too - the hatnote is not part of the content of the article (i.e. it does not provide information about the article subject), so it is better not mixed in with elements of the article proper.--

502:

Placing a right-justified infobox at the top of a page with a left-justified hatnote arranges the page with both the hatnote and the infobox at the top. I think this results in a more attractive page. See

3197:

followed by a whole page of none wikipedia links starting with Meet Bill (2007) from IMDb. No Bill Clinton by the way, I guess that's because he's US focused. Anyway, you clicking the top link, come to the

867:, only the otheruses should be included. In this case, g-force is definitely not necessary, is "g" for g-force more notable than "g" for gram? I don't think so. There are plenty of other notable entries on 786:

don't need hatnotes is because it's impossible to get to those articles unless you specifically search for them or are directed towards them because of the parentheses clarification. Someone searching for

663:

it says somewhere that such redirects are preferred, or at least allowed, since they make it clear to the reader that the target is a disambiguation page (and they also help with link-fixing projects).--

3979:

This can be at article or section level. Related topics with titles that are unambiguous to everyone are better summarized in the article or listed in a see also section rather than placed in a hatnote.

521:

I believe that right-justified infoboxes are no infringment of our hatnotes at top policy since the hatnotes remain at the top of the page. I think we are being at little overzealous on this issue. --

3319:

To be clear, I'm not advocating any effort on adding hatnotes. All I am asking for is that those that exist are left alone. If they want to be removed, remove it case by case with consensus. Regards,

3914:, for which feminism is a synonym in academia. So no one made the same "sometimes a synonym" mistake, I put a hat on top, not in "see also", which included related articles, but not "near synonyms". 190:

be appropriate, or there might be something better. I do feel that the absence of guidance on its use is a problem. Because I believe that it is important to assist searchers, I think that the

5184:

Correct, but don't misconstrue what I said as true in every situation, that was for that specific one...because again, you won't type in "Sparks Fly (album)" and be looking for the Swift song.

1658: 4714:

is an unambiguously titled article. A hatnote is superfluous on that page. There is perhaps a tiny possibility of confusion with the LeAnn Rimes album of the same name. If you wanted to use

5539:

Knowledge (XXG) will always be a work in progress, so incompleteness is a pretty lame criticism. If you find a disambiguation page that is missing entries with existing articles, you could

4602:

This really needs to get removed it's getting on my nerves, I'm sorry but do it for all or none at all. That's how it needs to go I'm getting sick of arguing that on the LeAnn Rimes song "

458:, it does tell them about what their choice is, and a reader can anticipate some attempt at completeness on a disambiguation page. I would rather for the time being stick with looking at 2190:

That template is what I figured he meant. And those are usually not included at the top of articles, except on disambiguation pages. I prefer these not be at the top of articles either.

1277:

I think the fact that even the simple fixed proposed above would lead to a long and unwieldy hatnote shows there is something more fundamentally wrong there. What about redirecting

644:

times. I've read the guideline page here, and the issue of dierect vs. redirect links is not mentioned at all. Are there any existing guidelines on this matter elsewhere? Thanks. -

288:

in the technical sense of "reduce the status of" and not the pejorative sense, you are correct. But more importantly, I am asking for discussion of the pros and cons of preferring

5702: 4125: 2229:

common to link to WT that way. Consensus would thus appear to be that sister projects are not treated as other non-WP links are, and hatnote policy does not mention them at all.

4771:

is unambiguously titled. It is highly unlikely that a reader would get to that page when they were actually looking for one of the other unambiguously titled songs listed at

3453:

have four hat notes. I personally notice I start reading all the hat notes without thought because they seem part of the article, which is very annoying. Compare the English

4746:

That seems to make more sense to me but I'm still not understand where the section says it's inappropriate cause the example nor anything on there says it's misuse to me.

3270:

remaining title-driven ambiguity, and "Bill (payment) v. Bill (proposed law)" is a pretty good example of a place where there is not much, if any, ambiguity, IMO. Cheers,

5395:

Well if you're not a fan of Taylor Swift you wouldn't know that she had a song out called "Sparks Fly" and might mistaken it as a song by Miranda Cosgrove or vise versa.

4000:

Of course, I agree. My current issue with hatnotes is: diff between Guideline and practice. Old Guideline seems to be from "(disambiguation)" and "redirect" age only. No

2935:

the Australian cricketer (born 1990) see ... ". This allows someone to see at a glance whether the target of the hatnote is likely to be the person they are looking for.

1934: 3044:

As visitors don't exclusively come from within Knowledge (XXG) but commonly come from search engines this section is nonsense. I propose it's removal entirely. Regards,

1782:

I'd also still appreciate other editors input - specifically with regards hatnotes (or not) for disambiguation (dictionary def'n again) (ie: what the article IS NOT). --

1309:(with the possibility of rare exceptions) and making them disambiguation pages would help clean that up. You could then link to the variants from a see also section in 1124:

A most excellent idea! The thought I had was to introduce a tabbed list along the top of the page with a limited set of alternative topics, but this sounds better.—

3163:. I think we would end up with an unreasonable and annoying number of hatnotes if we try to help all searchers who made a bad choice in an external search engine. 4460:

If a reader arrives via a redirect and is looking for something else, I don't think it is obvious that he or she will expect to find what they are looking for at

1317:- it'd be no harm to drop such see also into all of those). So you'd basically be left with just one short and dimple hatnote (the current top one). Same fix for 3239:" ? Or, more to the point, how far do we want to go to cater to someone who, looking for information about invoices, chooses to visit a page that is so clearly 4795:

probably shouldn't have a hatnote as if they were looking for the song it wouldn't be likely that it might be unlikely that they'd do that as the other one is "

4664:

Hatnotes are only needed for examples such as Speak Now. They are used to show direction in which is which. I Need You (album) separates itself with (album). —

2035:

Actually, the WT links belie this argument: they are hatnotes to what you're calling an 'external' link, yet no-one complains that they violate hatnote policy.

924:

Could you point us to an example or two? 98% of the time that I see these, it can easily be fixed by making a disamb page and a single hatnote pointing to it.--

3441:

I would like to propose a maximum number of hat notes (or at least a reference to some common sense...) or even a new lay-out for the hat notes. The articles:

2156:

of an article, but will actually appear on the righthand side of the article when it is displayed. This isn't really a hatnote, any more than an infobox is.--

778:

they could be looking for either the comic book series or the film since both have the same exact name. That is why there is a hatnote for it. The reason why

385:

since it may very well be more appropriate to always have a short description in the hatnote. Yeah, those should be scrapped, maybe just redirect them to

2593: 5683:

I would say not, unless there's some genuine reason to expect people to be confused between the two words (for example, if they're very similar in form

1390: 4875:

I think I'm getting it a little. But I do think they need to post that better on there so there's no confusion on it. And CTJF83. You're awesome dude!

2541:

should not be hatnotes. The information they contain is not so important that they should be allowed to occupy such an prominent/intrusive position. __

540:

policy is not just because of appearance; screen-readers for the disabled display everything sequentially. Therefore, the hatnote must come first. See

5351:

It'd seem that {{distinguish}} would be appropriate for it though cause of one of them being an album and the other a song and by 2 different people.

4557: 2597: 1853:

The hatnote at the moment seems OK to me - needs to be that long because of the complex situation with several articles dealing with similar topics.--

1814: 4257: 2865:

This article is about the Irish novelist. For 19th century Scottish author, see James Hannay. For Irish judge and politician, see George Birmingham.

4730:

on the album article, that would likely be unobjectionable. Though it seems overkill since both are prominently cross-referenced in each article.

4468:

is not directly related to and is not an alternative meaning of "man". I still think the text could be edited to be more concise than at present.

4174:

regarding hatnote usage that I am vague about. If anyone would be willing to skip over there and take a look, I would appreciate it. Thank you! –

3840:

that related topics with unambiguous titles are better summarized in the article or listed in a see also section rather than placed in a hatnote.

3235:

If I am looking for information on the payment request type of bill, why would I click on "Bill (proposed law)", the Google summary for which is "

2418:

consensus of a group of editors several years ago. The particular template is used since it allows the anchor link to be hidden, a requirement of

581:, but please gain consensus first before changing the format. There seems to be very little benefit for a change that is solely based on style. 2378: 2885: 2474:

to the topic. There is already information in the main article that "summarizes in a subsection in conjuntion with the {main} template" at

1421:

This project is filled with red links, due to past changes. The problems are in transduced template documentation. This should be fixed. --

941:

Unfortunately I don't have one handy because I've worked to tamp down the problem. It just keeps coming up as an issue (at least for me :).—

3678:

is an example in which pseudoscience is considered a pathological science, but my edit about this was deleted on the grounds that they are

1719: 1530: 5524:

I know, that's not my point. My point is that there are some of the disambiguation pages that are unreliable because they are incomplete.

4388: 3511:

Yep, that's exactly what I mean. (I might even dispense with the "Numerous terms redirect here" at the start, to make it shorter still.)--

1839:. The hatnote currently stands at 2-3 lines long and seems to be an exception to general hatnote guidelines -- which I'm fine with, ftr. - 1836: 1964:

directing them to WB for language info. This was then removed with the argument that the policy on hatnotes prohibits "external links".

1832: 3189:

Bill is a good example. If your looking for a Bill (the payment request type) here in the UK and type Bill into Google it lists firstly

2503: 2334: 2022:

sister sites, and so they are simply not covered by our policy. That said, a specially formatted link like we have for WT would be nice.

340:

template provides only the second use, but at least the information seeker has the article in front of them about the first usage. The

1374:

I changed "Hat note" and Hatnote" from soft redirects to hard redirects. I did this because, the link wasn't to a Wiki sister project.

81: 76: 71: 59: 2395: 2359: 2324: 1742:

That is not even a hatnote, it explains what the article is, which should be the job of the lead. Hatnotes are purely for navigation.

4641:

by Taylor Swift and the song by the same name by her too. The Speak Now album has a hat because the same name and same artist thing.

4580: 2808:

Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article

2748:

Some hatnote disambiguation templates include a summary of the present article's topic; others do not. For instance, in the article

4247: 970:", which seems preferable to having three separate hatnotes. Not sure if there's a specific template for this or if you have to use 3055:

readers who have somehow managed to get to the wrong article from an external search engine. Hatnotes provide slight irritation to

1888:

or similar. Just a passing thought - I suspect the usage would be too low to justify implementation, but after I saw there was an

3685:

are examples where "pseudoscience" is synonymous with "hoodoo science", although some Wikipedians might argue that hoodoo science

3250:), it would help me at that point if there were a hatnote on the "Coleslaw" page saying "For information about proposed laws, see 5607:

is a Knowledge (XXG) epigram/link sometimes used as a reminder that there is no "they" that fixes things here. There's only "us".

1242: 691: 405: 274: 162: 2437: 1301:

on the first line anyway and so anyone specifically looking for that article can click on. We certainly shouldn't be linking to

5728: 4996: 4212: 3588:

This would have helped avoiding the same discussion being repeated on different talk pages of several pages I made edits to.

3206:" - in ther you can find what you want. So that's all good. The problem is that such useful hatnotes are being removed with 1642: 4464:. A reader might be looking for something that is neither a related term nor an alternative meaning of "man". For example, 1766:

In many cases the hatnote also includes a brief description of the subject of the present article, for readers' convenience

1686:

It is a sign of Knowledge (XXG)'s progress that we no longer see things like the following. Someone creates a page titled

5736: 4846: 4768: 4711: 4603: 2659: 2467: 1517:, it says that this template is "used for small sets of see also information at the head of article sections according to 4094:. I just want to get rid of these technical variants re "redirect", and adding "... (disambiguation)" in every variant. - 1933:

by removing article name disambiguation templates on articles with names that are not ambiguous. The relevant request is

558:

The use of infoboxes in any article pretty much disables screen-readers. Perhaps we should discuss that issue first. --

4674: 4301: 3548: 3103:

option in that we as editors can never fully anticipate all the possible things people may have been intending to find.

2388: 1675: 1462:, so I don't need more information right now. I don't understand the point of the example parameters with red links. -- 430:

distinguish between two like sounding articles. I think a more cautious approach of thinking about and discussing when

2875:

This article is about the novelist. For the author, see James Hannay. For judge and politician, see George Birmingham.

2327:) has been going around replacing one hatnote template with another, and nominating hatnote templates for deletion at 1831:

Follow-up: I'd still like to hear other editors' opinions on this. The section linked directly above was archived at

617:

In reverting the hatnote move mentione in the previous discussion, I've run into a problem with another editor on the

5322:

A hat note would be appropriate if it was still just titled "Sparks Fly", but since it isn't, no hat note is needed.

678: 660: 4356:

the "what links here" information can't be limited so that it only appears if you pass through a redirect. Regards,

3480:, it would be enough just to say "For other meanings, see..." followed by all the links that are currently listed.-- 4047: 3788: 3544: 38: 3147:

to help Google searchers? Google displays the page name. From the point of view of an Internet searcher, clicking

2860:

If the first style is chosen, keep the summary as short and succinct as possible. For example, instead of using:

2714: 1293:

to their respective disambiguation pages or moving the disambiguation over to those pages? Equally you could make

541: 318:. One pro is that those templates provide the information seeker with a basis for choosing the second term. The 5653:

This one is (hopefully) simple: Do we use hatnotes to link to similarly spelled words? Say, a hatnote linking to

2889: 1179:

redirects could probably just as easily be added in a one line hatnote without any additional technical changes.

853: 4499:

HN for "Breaking story" is my specific problem, but think it used commonly enough for mention in the article. --

3476:

I agree - I like to combine everything into one (or in extreme cases a maximum of two) hatnotes. In a case like

3009: 2617:

I'm actually more referring to the example on this page, and about adding a second example, about hatnotes like

2478:. Another user claims that the tag should be there because it has a similar title. Your opinions are welcome at 1638: 578: 47: 17: 4952:

redirected to the song or the album, then you could use a hat note...but that would be a poor redirect anyway.

4891: 4069:

I think clarification is needed to show that "main" is only going to be used on sections, not on full articles.

3898::::Why make a reader (like me) read an article I did not intend to read, or hunt down links, when a simple hat 3401:

a search box for them. There is no need to clutter the set theory page with a link to a non-mathematical page.

1023: 624: 137:

above, namely so that the searcher coming upon the hatnote doesn't have to ask, "What's the other choice?". --

4920:. However, you're not going to type in "London, Ontario" and be looking for the UK city...see the difference? 2899:

I re-added this suggestion by a banned user because I think it has some merit and would be useful to discuss.

574: 5687:

have similar meanings). We don't want to clutter the top of articles with hatnotes any more than necessary.--

4297: 5596: 5531: 5491: 5483: 5467: 5417: 5410:

Well probably the Sparks Fly (album) should have one so you don't have to scroll down to the track listing.

5402: 5358: 5314: 5219: 5176: 5132: 5066: 5011: 4905: 4895: 4882: 4806: 4753: 4695: 4657: 4629: 4613: 4208: 2507: 2338: 1704: 1671: 1310: 1223: 5720: 3254:." But it would be incrementally detrimental to everyone else who came there to read about tasty shredded 2535: 472:, although it is possible that it may not have one. I look forward to others joining in the discussion. -- 5747: 3603:

Without some tangible examples, I'm not even sure what that all means, let alone whether I agree with it.

2848: 2826: 2788: 2766: 2525: 2499: 2399: 2353: 2318: 2253: 2195: 2113: 2067: 2004: 1802: 1747: 1250: 1184: 888: 813: 797: 722: 4171: 4949: 4025: 3255: 3168: 2703: 2479: 2297: 2234: 2098: 2040: 1973: 1566: 1490: 1445: 1359: 1010: 931: 468:

and seeing if we can identify the "good intentions" of the creators, and figure out its proper place on

3853:

If they are, or can be, summarized in the text -- no hatnote needed. Agree. Still: 70 templates left. -

1226:

and various other articles, just to add to the problems here! Dab page needed, no time just right now.

5556:

99% of articles on Knowledge (XXG) are incomplete...essentially if it's not a FA/FL, it's incomplete.

5708: 5638: 4862: 4725: 4717: 4461: 4435: 4137: 4088: 3814:

If that's a proposal, it would have been helpful in some cases I had to deal with. Mabye change to "

3426: 3373: 3275: 2679: 2649: 2639: 2626: 2581: 2561: 2161: 1946: 1314: 1075:

following a redirect. I.e., if the page were reached by a redirect from X, the hatnote would display

849: 705: 687: 618: 462: 434: 419: 401: 369: 344: 270: 194: 176: 158: 127: 99: 5604: 5586: 5540: 4293:. At first I thought it was a bad accent joke and reverted on the former article, but he's serious. 4152: 3837: 3704: 2565: 2471: 2419: 1762: 1723: 1437: 872: 469: 441: 110: 106: 5688: 5055: 4588: 4374: 4156: 3878:

If that was a serious proposal, it in no way evades my original qustion, but resolves the problem.

3512: 3481: 3199: 3190: 3089: 3061: 2981: 2951: 2837: 2777: 2621:, where it's quite unambiguous, yet people still want to put an unnecessary hatnote on the pages. 2146: 1985: 1854: 1623: 1467: 1426: 1145: 1111: 1061: 997: 981: 664: 596: 389: 321: 302: 214: 117: 5771:. I don't think this is within Hatnote-territory. More like a long-term WP development strategy. - 4423: 1558: 1522: 1518: 5692: 5590: 5525: 5477: 5461: 5411: 5396: 5352: 5308: 5297: 5213: 5170: 5126: 5109: 5060: 5005: 4990: 4899: 4876: 4800: 4747: 4689: 4651: 4623: 4607: 4541: 4504: 4378: 4216: 4191: 3731: 3534: 3516: 3485: 3466: 3093: 3065: 2985: 2955: 2286: 1989: 1858: 1844: 1700: 1595: 1538: 1149: 1115: 1086: 1078: 1065: 1047: 1043: 1039: 985: 967: 963: 959: 868: 668: 632:. I've attempted to correct this to the direct link, but been reverted twice, the second time at 600: 586: 548: 448: 426: 379: 248: 4912:

No, you're not going to type in "Blue (LeAnn Rimes album)" and be looking for the song. See how

4688:

specifically. It seems to me that it'd be need there as there are songs that do not have pages.

3014: 2564:

on my user talk page about the "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous" section of

365:

I'll admit you make a good point. And now that you mention it, there really isn't a purpose for

4024:

That's a different issue, but I like "guidelines", as long as they have qualifications per the

3934:

If there might be confusion about meaning or content, place a hatnote. Confusion can come from:

1915: 1525:

doesn't actually say this. Could you please clarify whether these templates can be used at the

5548: 5118: 4780: 4735: 4473: 4465: 4413: 4323:? To me they strike me as excessively bloated and distracting from the main article. Regards, 3951: 3845: 3760: 3712: 3662: 3608: 3503: 3304:

You'd click on Bill because there is nothing else remotely relevant, you could simply give up.

3156: 3108: 2918: 2605: 2576:), supplementing or replacing the existing example with a place name would be quite helpful. 2349: 2314: 2307: 2249: 2191: 2109: 2063: 2000: 1903: 1798: 1743: 1613: 1580: 1551: 1514: 1331: 1322: 1246: 1195: 1180: 1096: 884: 809: 805: 763: 718: 709: 454:, as that template does let the individual know that they are going to a disambiguation page, 5622: 4850: 3405: 3397: 3365: 3361: 3353: 3312: 3263: 3207: 3127: 2881: 2666: 2569: 2409:

It would be courteous to allow both sides of the story. The article in question makes use of

1930: 1922: 5776: 5114: 4796: 4565: 4527: 4517: 4449: 4396: 4361: 4328: 4296:

Do we have a policy for this? Is this a likely point of confusion in a text-based medium? --

4118: 4099: 4055: 4015: 3868: 3858: 3800: 3556: 3247: 3164: 2699: 2475: 2463: 2447: 2425: 2367: 2293: 2230: 2094: 2036: 1969: 1911: 1897: 1822: 1787: 1773: 1732: 1562: 1486: 1441: 1379: 1353: 1175: 1129: 1004: 974: 946: 925: 912: 649: 563: 526: 512: 477: 356: 235: 142: 5669:? There's a silly dispute going on currently and I'd like some general opinions on this. -- 5614: 4285:

has seen it fit to add disambiguation hatnotes to the articles on former New York mob boss

4043: 2328: 1634: 1349: 1141: 1107: 5674: 5634: 4917: 4916:

goes the UK city. It needs a hat note because you may type in "London" and be looking for

4854: 4268: 4129: 3911: 3422: 3414: 3369: 3320: 3271: 3211: 3080: 3045: 2671: 2622: 2577: 2279: 2245: 2157: 1960: 1938: 1606: 1219: 1199: 828: 783: 779: 742: 682: 396: 265: 153: 134: 5630: 5618: 4434:

This article is about adult human males. For related terms and alternative meanings, see

1657:

The Atheist dab with 4 links that was created to prevent a hatnote to a unimportant band

5780: 5696: 5677: 5642: 5598: 5579: 5551: 5533: 5516: 5485: 5469: 5451: 5419: 5404: 5389: 5360: 5345: 5316: 5285: 5249: 5221: 5207: 5178: 5163: 5134: 5101: 5068: 5043: 5013: 4975: 4943: 4907: 4884: 4865: 4838: 4808: 4783: 4755: 4738: 4697: 4678: 4659: 4631: 4615: 4592: 4569: 4545: 4531: 4508: 4476: 4455: 4416: 4402: 4382: 4367: 4350: 4334: 4305: 4272: 4234: 4197: 4160: 4140: 4103: 4078: 4059: 4037: 4019: 3992: 3923: 3887: 3872: 3848: 3827: 3804: 3715: 3698: 3676: 3665: 3651: 3611: 3597: 3560: 3538: 3520: 3506: 3489: 3470: 3430: 3418: 3377: 3360:

I have no idea whether people are doing wholesale deletions of hatnotes based purely on

3323: 3279: 3214: 3172: 3111: 3097: 3083: 3069: 3048: 3034: 2989: 2974: 2959: 2944: 2921: 2903: 2893: 2726: 2707: 2682: 2630: 2608: 2585: 2550: 2511: 2488: 2451: 2403: 2371: 2342: 2300: 2257: 2238: 2199: 2165: 2117: 2102: 2071: 2044: 2008: 1993: 1977: 1949: 1862: 1848: 1826: 1806: 1791: 1777: 1751: 1736: 1708: 1646: 1599: 1583: 1570: 1542: 1494: 1471: 1449: 1430: 1410: 1383: 1364: 1335: 1272: 1254: 1235: 1211: 1188: 1153: 1135: 1119: 1099: 1069: 1015: 989: 952: 936: 918: 892: 857: 817: 767: 726: 696: 672: 653: 604: 590: 567: 552: 530: 516: 481: 410: 360: 279: 239: 167: 146: 4584: 4346: 4282: 4221: 4074: 4033: 3988: 3919: 3883: 3823: 3694: 3647: 3593: 3088:

Can you give an example of a hatnote you consider sensible but others want to remove?--

3075: 3027: 2970: 2940: 2815: 2755: 2722: 2546: 1463: 1422: 1406: 1268: 1231: 1207: 793: 754: 750: 292: 204: 4537: 4500: 4004: 3967: 3773: 3657:

limited to distinguishing articles with ambiguous titles, not merely related topics.

3530: 3462: 3410: 2900: 2483: 2412: 1841: 1591: 1534: 582: 544: 536:

I have reverted these edits for now; please gain consensus first. The reason for the

5544: 5122: 4988:

hit the wrong one cause the mouse wasn't actually on the one. Speaking of redirect

4776: 4731: 4650:. Like I've said this pick and chose stuff is dumb and it needs to be all or none. 4469: 4409: 3841: 3708: 3658: 3625: 3604: 3499: 3251: 3140: 3104: 2914: 2601: 1576: 1327: 1092: 801: 759: 334: 312: 258: 224: 3863:

Must say, I might be evading the original question by PDdd. May be back on that. -

3547:. 70 templates (think 3 variants per template). And subcategories. Please follow 3364:, but if they are, there's a major leap from that happening to proposing removing 2717:

for the term Could you show us which term or hatnote you're concerned about here?

2470:. I say it should not be there because clearly links to an article that is highly 1902:

or maybe not - on reflection, this idea is too friendly to the kind of stuff that

105:

template does not let the searcher know what the choices are at all. The text at

2825:

This article is about the insect-produced fluid. For other uses of the term, see

2765:

This article is about the insect-produced fluid. For other uses of the term, see

1091:

And if reached directly without a redirect the hatnote would not display at all.

5772: 5558: 5495: 5430: 5368: 5324: 5264: 5228: 5186: 5142: 5080: 5075: 5050: 5049:

Exactly that's why they should have them in case of that type of accident. LOL!

5022: 4954: 4922: 4817: 4665: 4561: 4523: 4445: 4392: 4357: 4324: 4095: 4051: 4011: 3864: 3854: 3796: 3736:

Must say, and can say: no more hatnotes, no more rules. The Guideline should be:

3552: 2443: 2363: 1907: 1893: 1818: 1783: 1769: 1728: 1459: 1375: 1125: 942: 908: 746: 645: 559: 522: 508: 473: 352: 231: 138: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5763:

What we could use is a google-style search engine, one that asks "did you mean

1326:

we make sure the main page it was redirecting too is on the top of the list. (

5670: 5625:. These are so rare that they're considered worthy of showcasing. Similarly, 5425: 5303: 5074:

LOL, you can easily retype in case of accident...Ya, although it is listed at

4772: 4707: 4685: 4290: 4286: 4264: 3237:

A bill is a proposed law under consideration by a legislature. A bill does ...

3194: 3148: 3136: 1884:

is there advantage in having a syntax-identical variant with the leadin text

1294: 5744:

For names, where spelling is not defined by a language, there is the hatnote

444:

page and let things come out in the wash. I don't quite get your point about

5262:, because they are two very similar words, but completely different things. 4791: 4637:

Another point I want to make here is this. There's an article for the album

4342: 4253:

is duplicated at the bottom. This seems to be because it's also included in

4070: 4029: 3984: 3915: 3907: 3879: 3819: 3690: 3643: 3589: 3020: 2966: 2936: 2718: 2542: 1458:

Yes, that is what I am referring to. I found an example of what I wanted at

1402: 1227: 1203: 880: 395:

or something. Think a bot could that for us? It'd save us all the work ...

3202:

article and helpfully it has a hatnote, "For other uses of the term, see:

863:

Generally, if there a lot of other uses for something, as is the case for

758:

the relevant links and it seems to make the hatnote redundant. Thoughts? (

5366:

No, how would you confuse an album by one person with a song by another?

3903: 2556:"Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous": Change the example 1398: 876: 775: 738: 504: 183: 1815:

Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#The_hatnote_.2F_disambiguation

5658: 5140:...you need to answer if they should or shouldn't have a hat note lol. 4316: 3132: 1662: 1609:, it is not appropriate to use some other template as though it were a 1394: 844: 774:

Hatnotes are purely for navigational purposes. If someone searches for

713: 704:

This brings up another question though, why are there even hatnotes on

629: 4209:

Talk:Physical education#Hatnote for Community episode by the same name

2108:

the wrong argument because this is a very obvious misuse of hatnotes.

5666: 5654: 5259: 4913: 4763: 4010:, while that is so valuable. In general: hatnotes should be simple. - 3742:

If there might be confusion about meaning or content, place a hatnote

3526: 3477: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3246:

If I am looking for proposed laws, and accidentally type "coleslaw" (

2698:

appropriate - or at least more popular - than the other. Thoughts? --

1955:

does, or should, the ban on "external" links include WP sister sites?

1929:

Hi, I'm requesting approval for bot-assisted editing to help enforce

1318: 1302: 1298: 1263: 1259: 832: 788: 5717:

can apply to both meaning and spelling. The same can be said about:

3747:

From there on, do disambiguation, redirects, main articles ad more.

5078:, you shouldn't have to scroll through the page to find the album. 3458: 753:, even though it is mentioned a couple of lines below in the lead. 244:

That sounds demeaning. At the very least, it should be on par with

5662: 2809: 2749: 2394:

as a main-article-link instead of a hatnote. Please help resolve.

1666: 1619:

template at the top of an article either. For instance, although

1282: 871:

as well. This section implies only the otheruses should be used:

4219:, besides that the user doesn't appear to like the show. Thanks. 3836:

In general, those are reasonably succinct. But I also agree with

2438:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Disambiguation#Template:For2 only a hatnote?

1937:. Any comments, etc. would be appreciated at the request page. -- 839:. MickMacNee has added a hatnote "{{See also|g-force}}" because 5255: 4552:

On lists: proposal to separate hatnotes from maintenance notices

3753:- Same spelling of the title, different meaning (disambiguation) 3203: 3160: 3152: 3144: 2965:

for them. For other readers, distinguishing details are useful.

2713:

It sounds as if this is a discussion about which article is the

1653:

Notable featured articles with hatnotes to unimportant articles.

1436:

Are you referring to the many red links after the word "see" in

1286: 1020:

Not exactly, I suspect. The syntax I have in mind would be like

3703:

I'd consider these to be related topics, not ambiguous topics.

5661:, or (assuming those would be actual articles) one linking to 4514:

I think a breaking story does not need a hatnote, but the box

4427: 4320: 3941:

Same spelling of the title, different meaning (disambiguation)

3266:

is already written to agree that hatnotes are appropriate for

2574:

for other places by this name, see One Horse (disambiguation).

1306: 1290: 1278: 841:

it is notable enough to not be hidden away on line 50 of a dab

330:

between the two terms by the provision of USE1 and USE2. The

25: 3461:. The German version seems much clearer to me. Any thoughts? 5621:", an article that is considered to be so well written that 4522:. Also, I don't know which hatnote template would be used. - 4211:? I am at a loss for why this user opposed the hat-note for 3783:

Now this could be at article or section level. All in all a

679:

Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages

200:

template should be depreciated to a secondary status, below

4560:. Proposal to separate hatnotes from maintenance notices. - 1835:-- apparently there was no discussion there, only later at 3683: 2440:

where I asked for clarification that there was no problem.

1722:

is appropriate (I do, but it's not really covered by this

1559:

Knowledge (XXG):Layout#Section templates and summary style

4815:

looking for "I Need You (The Beatles song)". Understand?

4046:

proposal, I'll support it. For now, I am cleaning up the

3787:

of hatnotes could do. Now what happens? Today, there are

1348:

Is there interest here in developing the idea I proposed

864: 836: 182:

should be used. For example, as a second hatnote on the

5295:

LOL! I accidentally mistaked them once. But that's when

4319:

article be considered "short"? How about on the article

2062:

it would be hard to find in the external links section.

1575:

I agree that see also is not right for an article lead.

1194:

For an example of clunkiness of hatnotes, you could see

5169:

From what you said on your talk page album/song no lol

4084:

Agree. There are more similar minor points, like using

3617: 3495: 2618: 2498:

FYI, there's a discussion on the need for hatnoting at

633: 5226:

No, those are only for closely, but different titles.

4894:

should have a hatnote as the song page is also called

4890:

But for arguments sack lets make sure I'm getting it.

2384:

I am in a dispute with an editor who insists on using

1906:

talks about avoiding above, and might promote same --

573:

Feel free to discuss that issue first. Bring it up on

172:

No, I am suggesting a discussion about when and where

5053:

should have a hatnote though right? As there is also

1935:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 3

440:

might be useful, putting appropriate guidance on the

5623:

no one will ever find anything to change in it again

3902:

can easily fix this? Another example is the article

1083:

And if reached by redirect from Y, it would display

4598:

Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous

3005:We are debating something posted by a banned user? 1921:Notification of Bot Request for Approval regarding 1605:Just to interject, based on a disagreement over at 1561:. I don't think it belongs at the top of the lead. 133:should be depreciated for the very reason given by 5585:Okay slow down here, two confusing things what is 3143:. Do you also think they should have a hatnote to 3008:Banned for making a huge fuss over trivial issues 4849:doesn't need a hatnote per simple application of 3682:always so related, causing an ambiguity, and here 4050:. Your contribution would be well appreciated. - 3632:, which vioates the very purpose of a hat being 2152:template that is often placed at the top of the 1694:is a certain ecclesiastical official; and (2) A 1633:topics, it is strictly intended for purposes of 1297:a disambiguation. All those pages would link to 5212:But they probably both need a {{distinguish}}? 3931: 3581: 3311:, I think it's perfectly reason you don't. The 1629:could conceivably be used to point a reader to 843:. The article already has {{otherusesof}} and 542:Knowledge (XXG):Accessibility#Article structure 5741:(four alikes is a lot, but out of this topic). 3307:We seems to have an interpretation of what is 800:first, but I suppose someone might search for 113:correctly, in my opinion, suggests the use of 5752:, which allows for differently spelled names. 1529:of an article? As an example, I have in mind 824:Hatnote in addition to Disambiguation hatnote 254:. I, however, have never seen a use for that 8: 4853:and its lack of any confusable redirects. -- 745:)? Also the question of hatnotes came up at 5701:Just some months ago this one was deleted; 3769:- More elaborate article of the title (use 3707:, related topics go in a see also section. 2422:and none of the other templates, including 2278:Just to be specific here, the test case is 1438:Knowledge (XXG):Hatnote#Otheruses templates 1389:I changed them back, because the result of 873:WP:Hatnote#Linking to a disambiguation page 3017:. Banned == banned. No discussion needed. 2594:Larch Mountain (Washington County, Oregon) 4558:Category talk:Hatnote templates for lists 3963:More elaborate article of the title (use 2598:Larch Mountain (Multnomah County, Oregon) 732:Hatnoting to links already in the article 621:page. The second part of the note stated 1892:template, I thought I'd mention it... -- 4203:Hatnote for similar disambiguated title 3756:- Associated meaning of the title (use 3498:? I agree with both of you by the way. 1833:(Archive9) The hatnote / disambiguation 1401:might as well be treated the same way. 1038:Multiple terms redirect here; see also 123:which does provide that. I think that 2379:Major characters in The Railway Series 1106:My thoughts exactly. Worth raising at 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5428:is a dab page instead of a redirect. 4430:article, why not say something like: 4114:Input would be appreciated regarding 3947:Associated meaning of the title (use 2462:There is now a hatnote at the top of 2142:I assume this is in reference to the 1085:Y redirects here; for other uses see 1077:X redirects here; for other uses see 284:Assuming that you are using the word 7: 5490:HUH??!?! It's so you can find other 5258:which has a not to be confused with 4789:So going by what you're saying then 3210:being given as the reason. Regards, 1720:Scientific opinion on climate change 1718:Do editors here feel the hatnote at 1531:Judicial_review_in_the_United_States 1218:Aaargh - there isn't any route from 1198:, which I fell over when looking up 808:, so I'll leave that hatnote alone. 415:I don't know. There are only ~4400 351:other plus and minuses are there? -- 4341:as a distraction from the article. 1880:Since the about template kicks off 1817:following your comments. Thanks. -- 1727:be included in the article here. -- 638:direct links hinder fixing dablinks 5589:suppose to do? And what is FA/FL? 5107:LOL! Okay. Let me try another one 3494:You mean like I just attempted at 3159:when they are looking for another 3151:when they are looking for another 2693:Which article is more appropriate? 2389:Hatnote/Archive 2 (disambiguation) 1761:, I also refer the following from 425:transcluded articles according to 24: 2665:, etc. make the applicability of 2348:FYI-2 -- user has new IP address 5705:. The TfD discussion noted that 4728:|I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song)}} 4536:Thanks. That's what I wanted. -- 3910:there reverted as being best of 1243:Happy Christmas (disambiguation) 29: 5767:?" with the search results for 5760:clutter the article top indeed. 4983:Well I figured that because of 4258:Hatnote templates documentation 3793:help finding the right template 2292:template was more appropriate. 1505:"See also" as a hatnote at the 111:Two articles with similar title 4997:I Need You (LeAnn Rimes album) 4213:Physical Education (Community) 2727:07:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 2708:10:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 2294:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1900:) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1863:09:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1849:06:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 4847:I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) 4769:I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) 4712:I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) 4104:18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 4079:06:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 4060:23:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 4038:23:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 4020:23:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3993:23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3924:23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3888:23:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3873:23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3849:22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3828:23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3805:22:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3716:22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3699:21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3666:21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3652:21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3612:21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3598:20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3561:22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 3173:16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3112:16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3098:15:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3084:15:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3070:09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3049:02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 3040:Knowledge (XXG):NAMB nonsense 2834:Alternatively, one might use 2812:, one might use the template 2774:Alternatively, one might use 2752:, one might use the template 2468:Meet the Parents (soundtrack) 2452:22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 2404:16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 2372:22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 2343:08:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 2301:12:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC) 1557:for sections is mentioned at 1315:Mom (disambiguation)#See also 899:Restrictions on hatnote usage 818:19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 768:14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC) 727:20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 152:Are you suggesting deletion? 5781:12:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 5697:08:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 5678:08:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 5643:13:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 5254:Like "Heroine" redirects to 4477:20:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 4456:14:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 3539:14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 3521:14:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 3507:14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 3490:09:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 3471:19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 3437:Maximum number of Hat Notes? 3035:16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2990:13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2975:12:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2960:07:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2945:07:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2922:03:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2904:02:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2894:02:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 2818:|the insect-produced fluid}} 2758:|the insect-produced fluid}} 2258:18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 2248:is very rare if not unique. 2239:06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 2200:23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 2166:23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 2118:01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 2103:00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) 2072:22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 2045:22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 2009:18:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 1994:13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 1978:12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 1916:06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1827:09:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 1807:19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1792:06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1778:06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1752:04:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1737:02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 1709:00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 613:Redirected links in hatnotes 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Hatnote 5599:00:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5580:00:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5552:00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5534:00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5517:00:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5486:00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5470:00:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 5452:23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5420:23:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5405:23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5390:23:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5361:23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5346:23:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5317:23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5286:23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5250:23:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5222:23:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5208:23:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5179:23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5164:23:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5135:23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5102:23:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5069:23:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5044:23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 5014:22:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4976:22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4944:22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4908:22:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4885:22:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4866:22:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4839:22:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4809:22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4784:21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4756:21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4739:21:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4698:21:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4679:21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4660:19:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4632:18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 4616:18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 3689:applies to social science. 3579:I propose this addition - 3431:07:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 3378:23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 3324:23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 3280:22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 3215:22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 2476:Meet the Parents#Soundtrack 1950:11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC) 1875:Lists alternate for 'about' 1837:(Archive10) hatnote removal 697:17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 673:07:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 654:03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 605:07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 591:23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 568:23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 553:23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 531:22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 517:16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 482:00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC) 411:21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 361:20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 280:20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 240:20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 168:20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 147:19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 5799: 4710:is a disambiguation page. 4198:18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 4166:Non-disambiguating hatnote 4161:15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 3543:Well, I recently put them 3155:seems similar to clicking 2683:03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 2631:01:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 2609:17:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 2586:14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 2489:16:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 2386: 1397:into a soft redirect, and 1037: 1028:to produce a message like: 893:21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 858:12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 4684:Well what about the song 4593:03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 4579:I've posted a discussion 4575:Surname/given name notice 4570:20:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4546:16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 4532:10:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 4509:10:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 4141:08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 4126:which is currently at TfD 3749:Confusion can come from: 2737:I propose the following: 2517:Should these be hatnotes? 2331:for the last few weeks. 1647:13:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1600:13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1584:10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1571:10:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1543:05:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1495:14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1472:13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 1450:23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 1431:21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 792:Regarding the hatnote on 741:(we don't do the same at 628:, but the DAB page is at 4948:If for some poor reason 4892:Blue (LeAnn Rimes album) 4722:on the song article and 4417:15:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 4403:14:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 4387:I posted a query to the 4383:13:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 4368:22:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 4351:22:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 4335:19:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 4315:Can the hatnotes on the 4306:18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 4273:09:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC) 4248:Navbox hatnote templates 4240:Navbox hatnote templates 4235:11:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC) 4042:If you push this into a 3368:entirely, as you have.-- 2551:07:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 2512:00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 1813:Started a discussion at 1411:22:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1384:22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1365:13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1336:17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 1273:20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1255:15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1236:10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1212:10:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1189:09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 1154:17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1136:17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1120:15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1100:14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1070:14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 1016:13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 990:08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 953:17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 937:21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 919:20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 907:My $ .02 worth. Thanks.— 681:covers this quite well. 625:Georgia (disambiguation) 5713:covers the need, while 5076:LeAnn_Rimes#Discography 4896:Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) 4207:Can someone jump in at 4170:I started a discussion 3525:Nice :-) I will go for 3417:was used as an example 2566:Knowledge (XXG):Hatnote 1313:(as is already done at 1311:mother (disambiguation) 1305:through something like 1224:Happy Christmas (album) 1202:. Not a pretty sight. 470:Knowledge (XXG):Hatnote 442:Knowledge (XXG):Hatnote 107:Knowledge (XXG):Hatnote 5615:Knowledge (XXG) jargon 5000:but got redirected to 4391:. Thank you. Regards, 3982: 3906:; I had my edit about 3586: 2849:Honey (disambiguation) 2827:Honey (disambiguation) 2789:Honey (disambiguation) 2767:Honey (disambiguation) 2500:Talk:Full Metal Jacket 1523:Knowledge (XXG):Layout 1519:Knowledge (XXG):Layout 1222:(another redirect) to 798:Venom (disambiguation) 498:Hatnotes and infoboxes 5729:Redirect-distinguish2 4720:|I Need You (album)}} 4110:The "Further" hatnote 4048:cat:Hatnote templates 4026:Doctrine of Absurdity 3818:associated meaning". 3789:~70 hatnote templates 2635:The existence/use of 2480:Talk:Meet the Parents 1759:purely for navigation 1714:Appropriate Hat Note? 1678:), 2009-07-18t20:33z 1370:Soft to hard redirect 749:where it hatnotes to 42:of past discussions. 5755:As for myself, I do 5737:Redirect-distinguish 5703:Template:Misspelling 4462:Man (disambiguation) 4436:Man (disambiguation) 4311:How short is "short" 4289:and Biblical figure 3929:Modified proposal - 3838:the current guidance 3419:the last time around 2847:For other uses, see 2787:For other uses, see 2660:Other hurricane uses 2521:It seems to me that 2387:For other uses, see 1874: 1266:are even worse.. -- 706:Georgia (U.S. state) 623:For other uses, see 619:Georgia (U.S. state) 90:Distinguish template 5649:Hatnotes for typos? 5056:LeAnn Rimes (album) 4408:(disambiguation)." 3200:Bill (proposed law) 3191:Bill (proposed law) 3126:(This is about the 3013:We don't need this 831:and I are having a 5298:Sparks Fly (album) 5110:Sparks Fly (album) 5002:I Need You (album) 4994:was originally on 4991:I Need You (album) 4950:Blue (LeAnn Rimes) 4298:Lenin and McCarthy 4217:Physical education 3622:at Knowledge (XXG) 2362:) - see below. -- 2308:User: 174.3.98.236 1890:otherhurricaneuses 1882:This page is about 1087:Y (disambiguation) 1079:X (disambiguation) 1048:Z (disambiguation) 1044:Y (disambiguation) 1040:X (disambiguation) 968:Z (disambiguation) 964:Y (disambiguation) 960:X (disambiguation) 869:G (disambiguation) 835:about hatnotes on 636:, with the reason 326:template actually 324:|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} 5119:Sparks Fly (song) 4466:Manhood Peninsula 3875: 3735: 3624:, this is called 3575:Proposed addition 3157:Tree (set theory) 3033: 3015:instruction creep 2880:This also avoids 2804:Summarize or not? 2744:Summarize or not? 2560:I recently had a 1984:rule enforcers.-- 1904:User:LonelyMarble 1847: 1690:. It says (1) A 1515:Template:See_also 1417:Lots of red links 1323:Holiday greetings 1321:and looking over 1196:Holiday greetings 1110:or on Bugzilla?-- 806:Venom (Spiderman) 710:Georgia (country) 695: 661:WP:Disambiguation 409: 278: 166: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5790: 5751: 5740: 5732: 5724: 5712: 5619:featured article 5578: 5576: 5573: 5570: 5567: 5564: 5561: 5515: 5513: 5510: 5507: 5504: 5501: 5498: 5450: 5448: 5445: 5442: 5439: 5436: 5433: 5388: 5386: 5383: 5380: 5377: 5374: 5371: 5344: 5342: 5339: 5336: 5333: 5330: 5327: 5284: 5282: 5279: 5276: 5273: 5270: 5267: 5248: 5246: 5243: 5240: 5237: 5234: 5231: 5206: 5204: 5201: 5198: 5195: 5192: 5189: 5162: 5160: 5157: 5154: 5151: 5148: 5145: 5115:Miranda Cosgrove 5100: 5098: 5095: 5092: 5089: 5086: 5083: 5042: 5040: 5037: 5034: 5031: 5028: 5025: 4974: 4972: 4969: 4966: 4963: 4960: 4957: 4942: 4940: 4937: 4934: 4931: 4928: 4925: 4860: 4837: 4835: 4832: 4829: 4826: 4823: 4820: 4797:Speak Now (song) 4729: 4721: 4670: 4521: 4262: 4256: 4252: 4246: 4233: 4190: 4187: 4184: 4181: 4178: 4172:at the help desk 4146:Section hatnotes 4135: 4123: 4117: 4093: 4087: 4009: 4003: 3972: 3966: 3956: 3950: 3862: 3795:) is a horror. - 3778: 3772: 3765: 3759: 3729: 3457:with the German 3032: 3030: 3024: 3018: 2841: 2819: 2781: 2759: 2715:WP:Primary topic 2677: 2664: 2658: 2654: 2648: 2644: 2638: 2540: 2534: 2530: 2524: 2486: 2464:Meet the Parents 2458:Hatnote question 2436:Please also see 2429: 2416: 2291: 2285: 2151: 2145: 1944: 1840: 1628: 1622: 1618: 1612: 1556: 1550: 1176:Mercury (planet) 1027: 1024:SomeTemplateName 1013: 1007: 1002: 996: 979: 973: 934: 928: 685: 507:for example. -- 467: 461: 453: 447: 439: 433: 424: 418: 399: 394: 388: 384: 378: 374: 368: 349: 343: 339: 333: 325: 317: 311: 307: 301: 297: 291: 268: 263: 257: 253: 247: 229: 223: 219: 213: 209: 203: 199: 193: 181: 175: 156: 132: 126: 122: 116: 104: 98: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5798: 5797: 5793: 5792: 5791: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5745: 5734: 5726: 5718: 5706: 5651: 5574: 5571: 5568: 5565: 5562: 5559: 5557: 5541:fix it yourself 5511: 5508: 5505: 5502: 5499: 5496: 5494: 5446: 5443: 5440: 5437: 5434: 5431: 5429: 5384: 5381: 5378: 5375: 5372: 5369: 5367: 5340: 5337: 5334: 5331: 5328: 5325: 5323: 5280: 5277: 5274: 5271: 5268: 5265: 5263: 5244: 5241: 5238: 5235: 5232: 5229: 5227: 5202: 5199: 5196: 5193: 5190: 5187: 5185: 5158: 5155: 5152: 5149: 5146: 5143: 5141: 5096: 5093: 5090: 5087: 5084: 5081: 5079: 5038: 5035: 5032: 5029: 5026: 5023: 5021: 4970: 4967: 4964: 4961: 4958: 4955: 4953: 4938: 4935: 4932: 4929: 4926: 4923: 4921: 4918:London, Ontario 4858: 4833: 4830: 4827: 4824: 4821: 4818: 4816: 4723: 4715: 4677: 4666: 4600: 4577: 4554: 4515: 4497: 4313: 4280: 4260: 4254: 4250: 4244: 4242: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4220: 4205: 4194: 4188: 4185: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4168: 4148: 4133: 4121: 4115: 4112: 4091: 4085: 4007: 4001: 3970: 3964: 3954: 3948: 3912:Feminist theory 3776: 3770: 3763: 3757: 3577: 3439: 3415:Romance (genre) 3248:thanks, iPhone! 3243:about invoices? 3042: 3028: 3022: 3019: 2886:199.126.224.245 2835: 2813: 2806: 2775: 2753: 2746: 2735: 2695: 2675: 2662: 2656: 2652: 2646: 2642: 2636: 2558: 2538: 2532: 2528: 2522: 2519: 2496: 2484: 2460: 2423: 2410: 2392: 2382: 2311: 2289: 2283: 2149: 2143: 1959:The content of 1957: 1942: 1927: 1886:This page lists 1877: 1716: 1684: 1655: 1626: 1620: 1616: 1610: 1607:Radon transform 1554: 1548: 1511: 1419: 1372: 1220:Happy Christmas 1200:Merry Christmas 1051: 1021: 1011: 1005: 1000: 994: 977: 971: 932: 926: 901: 850:A new name 2008 826: 784:Watchmen (film) 780:Wanted (comics) 743:Wanted (comics) 734: 683:Lord Sesshomaru 615: 500: 465: 459: 451: 445: 437: 431: 422: 416: 397:Lord Sesshomaru 392: 386: 382: 376: 372: 366: 347: 341: 337: 331: 319: 315: 309: 305: 299: 295: 289: 266:Lord Sesshomaru 261: 255: 251: 245: 227: 221: 217: 211: 207: 201: 197: 191: 179: 173: 154:Lord Sesshomaru 130: 124: 120: 114: 102: 96: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5796: 5794: 5786: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5761: 5753: 5742: 5650: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5608: 5583: 5582: 5554: 5522: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5393: 5392: 5349: 5348: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5210: 5167: 5166: 5105: 5104: 5047: 5046: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4946: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4787: 4786: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4701: 4700: 4673: 4635: 4634: 4599: 4596: 4576: 4573: 4553: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4534: 4496: 4495:Breaking story 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4312: 4309: 4283:User:JesseRafe 4279: 4276: 4241: 4238: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4204: 4201: 4192: 4167: 4164: 4147: 4144: 4111: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4040: 3976: 3975: 3959: 3943: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3781: 3780: 3767: 3754: 3748: 3746: 3737: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3576: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3438: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3402: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3358: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3317: 3305: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3259: 3244: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3100: 3076:Alexa Internet 3041: 3038: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2907: 2906: 2878: 2877: 2868: 2867: 2854: 2853: 2832: 2831: 2805: 2802: 2794: 2793: 2772: 2771: 2745: 2742: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2694: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2612: 2611: 2557: 2554: 2518: 2515: 2495: 2492: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2441: 2433: 2432: 2381: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2310: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2280:Na'vi language 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2246:Na'vi language 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2093:here to read. 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1961:Na'vi language 1956: 1953: 1926: 1919: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1780: 1715: 1712: 1683: 1680: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1639:Sławomir Biały 1635:disambiguation 1587: 1586: 1573: 1510: 1509:of an article? 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1453: 1452: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1371: 1368: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1215: 1214: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1122: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 955: 900: 897: 896: 895: 825: 822: 821: 820: 794:Venom (comics) 755:Venom (comics) 751:Venom (comics) 733: 730: 702: 701: 700: 699: 614: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 556: 555: 538:hatnotes first 499: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 427:David Göthberg 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5795: 5782: 5778: 5774: 5770: 5766: 5762: 5758: 5754: 5749: 5748:Other people5 5743: 5738: 5730: 5722: 5716: 5710: 5704: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5694: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5676: 5672: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5656: 5648: 5644: 5640: 5636: 5632: 5631:featured list 5628: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5612: 5609: 5606: 5603: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5597: 5594: 5593: 5592:JamesAlan1986 5588: 5581: 5577: 5555: 5553: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5532: 5529: 5528: 5527:JamesAlan1986 5518: 5514: 5493: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5484: 5481: 5480: 5479:JamesAlan1986 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5468: 5465: 5464: 5463:JamesAlan1986 5453: 5449: 5427: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5418: 5415: 5414: 5413:JamesAlan1986 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5403: 5400: 5399: 5398:JamesAlan1986 5391: 5387: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5359: 5356: 5355: 5354:JamesAlan1986 5347: 5343: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5315: 5312: 5311: 5310:JamesAlan1986 5306: 5305: 5300: 5299: 5287: 5283: 5261: 5257: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5247: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5220: 5217: 5216: 5215:JamesAlan1986 5211: 5209: 5205: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5177: 5174: 5173: 5172:JamesAlan1986 5165: 5161: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5133: 5130: 5129: 5128:JamesAlan1986 5124: 5120: 5116: 5112: 5111: 5103: 5099: 5077: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5067: 5064: 5063: 5062:JamesAlan1986 5058: 5057: 5052: 5045: 5041: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5012: 5009: 5008: 5007:JamesAlan1986 5003: 4999: 4998: 4993: 4992: 4986: 4977: 4973: 4951: 4947: 4945: 4941: 4919: 4915: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4906: 4903: 4902: 4901:JamesAlan1986 4897: 4893: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4883: 4880: 4879: 4878:JamesAlan1986 4867: 4864: 4861: 4857: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4836: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4807: 4804: 4803: 4802:JamesAlan1986 4798: 4794: 4793: 4785: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4765: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4754: 4751: 4750: 4749:JamesAlan1986 4740: 4737: 4733: 4727: 4719: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4699: 4696: 4693: 4692: 4691:JamesAlan1986 4687: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4676: 4671: 4669: 4662: 4661: 4658: 4655: 4654: 4653:JamesAlan1986 4649: 4644: 4640: 4633: 4630: 4627: 4626: 4625:JamesAlan1986 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4614: 4611: 4610: 4609:JamesAlan1986 4605: 4597: 4595: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4574: 4572: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4519: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4494: 4478: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4453: 4452: 4447: 4443: 4438: 4437: 4432: 4431: 4429: 4425: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4415: 4411: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4365: 4364: 4359: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4332: 4331: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4310: 4308: 4307: 4303: 4302:Complain here 4299: 4294: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4277: 4275: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4259: 4249: 4239: 4237: 4236: 4232: 4230: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4202: 4200: 4199: 4196: 4195: 4173: 4165: 4163: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4145: 4143: 4142: 4139: 4136: 4132: 4127: 4120: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4090: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4006: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3981: 3980: 3974: 3969: 3960: 3958: 3953: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3930: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3876: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3775: 3768: 3762: 3755: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3745: 3743: 3738: 3733: 3732:edit conflict 3717: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3705:By convention 3702: 3701: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3664: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3640: 3635: 3631: 3630:at the bottom 3627: 3623: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3585: 3580: 3574: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411:Romance novel 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3394: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3260: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3216: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3129: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3113: 3110: 3106: 3101: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3082: 3077: 3074:According to 3073: 3072: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3058: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3039: 3037: 3036: 3031: 3026: 3025: 3016: 3011: 3010: 3006: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2923: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2876: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2858: 2852: 2850: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2839: 2830: 2828: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2811: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2792: 2790: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2770: 2768: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2757: 2751: 2743: 2741: 2738: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2692: 2684: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2668: 2661: 2651: 2641: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2555: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2537: 2527: 2516: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504:70.29.210.155 2501: 2493: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2427: 2421: 2414: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2390: 2385: 2380: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2335:70.29.210.242 2332: 2330: 2326: 2323: 2320: 2316: 2309: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2288: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2148: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1965: 1962: 1954: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1936: 1932: 1924: 1920: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1725: 1721: 1713: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1701:Michael Hardy 1697: 1693: 1689: 1681: 1679: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1625: 1615: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1553: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1508: 1504: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1369: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1351: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1270: 1265: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1140:Mentioned at 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1123: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1088: 1082: 1080: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1025: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1008: 999: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 976: 969: 965: 961: 956: 954: 950: 949: 944: 940: 939: 938: 935: 929: 923: 922: 921: 920: 916: 915: 910: 905: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 848:be helpful. 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 790: 785: 781: 777: 773: 772: 771: 769: 765: 761: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 731: 729: 728: 724: 720: 715: 711: 707: 698: 693: 689: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 626: 620: 612: 606: 602: 598: 594: 593: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 554: 550: 546: 543: 539: 535: 534: 533: 532: 528: 524: 519: 518: 514: 510: 506: 497: 483: 479: 475: 471: 464: 457: 450: 443: 436: 428: 421: 414: 413: 412: 407: 403: 398: 391: 381: 371: 364: 363: 362: 358: 354: 346: 336: 329: 328:distinguishes 323: 314: 304: 294: 287: 283: 282: 281: 276: 272: 267: 260: 250: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 226: 216: 206: 196: 189: 185: 178: 171: 170: 169: 164: 160: 155: 151: 150: 149: 148: 144: 140: 136: 129: 119: 112: 108: 101: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5768: 5764: 5756: 5721:Distinguish2 5714: 5684: 5652: 5626: 5610: 5591: 5584: 5526: 5523: 5478: 5462: 5458: 5412: 5397: 5394: 5353: 5350: 5309: 5302: 5296: 5294: 5214: 5171: 5168: 5127: 5123:Taylor Swift 5108: 5106: 5061: 5054: 5048: 5006: 5001: 4995: 4989: 4984: 4982: 4900: 4877: 4874: 4855: 4801: 4790: 4788: 4748: 4745: 4690: 4667: 4663: 4652: 4647: 4642: 4638: 4636: 4624: 4608: 4601: 4578: 4555: 4498: 4450: 4433: 4397: 4362: 4329: 4314: 4295: 4281: 4243: 4222: 4206: 4175: 4169: 4149: 4130: 4113: 4068: 3983: 3978: 3977: 3962: 3946: 3940: 3933: 3932: 3928: 3899: 3897: 3896: 3815: 3792: 3784: 3782: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3728: 3686: 3679: 3671: 3638: 3633: 3629: 3626:junk science 3621: 3587: 3582: 3578: 3440: 3308: 3267: 3240: 3236: 3141:Bill Clinton 3056: 3043: 3021: 3012: 3007: 3004: 2879: 2874: 2869: 2864: 2859: 2855: 2846: 2842:to produce: 2833: 2824: 2820:to produce: 2807: 2799: 2795: 2786: 2782:to produce: 2773: 2764: 2760:to produce: 2747: 2739: 2736: 2696: 2672: 2573: 2559: 2536:Chinese name 2520: 2497: 2461: 2396:174.3.99.176 2393: 2383: 2356: 2350:174.3.99.176 2333: 2321: 2315:174.3.98.236 2312: 2250:LonelyMarble 2192:LonelyMarble 2153: 2110:LonelyMarble 2064:LonelyMarble 2001:LonelyMarble 1966: 1958: 1939: 1928: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1879: 1878: 1799:LonelyMarble 1765: 1758: 1744:LonelyMarble 1717: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1685: 1656: 1630: 1588: 1526: 1521:." However, 1512: 1506: 1420: 1393:was to make 1373: 1360: 1354: 1347: 1267: 1247:LonelyMarble 1181:LonelyMarble 1172: 1130: 1084: 1076: 1003:does this.-- 947: 913: 906: 902: 885:LonelyMarble 840: 827: 810:LonelyMarble 802:Venom comics 735: 719:LonelyMarble 703: 641: 637: 622: 616: 557: 537: 520: 501: 455: 327: 285: 187: 93: 65: 43: 37: 5715:Distinguish 5709:Distinguish 5424:That's why 5051:LeAnn Rimes 4726:distinguish 4718:distinguish 4424:miscellanea 4278:Homophones? 4089:misspelling 3165:PrimeHunter 2700:Arielkoiman 2650:otherplaces 2640:otherpeople 2526:Korean name 2466:linking to 1925:enforcement 1659:was deleted 1563:PrimeHunter 1487:PrimeHunter 1460:Joe Montana 1442:PrimeHunter 1006:Fabrictramp 927:Fabrictramp 747:Eddie Brock 659:I think at 463:Distinguish 435:Distinguish 420:Distinguish 370:Distinguish 345:Distinguish 195:Distinguish 186:article it 177:Distinguish 135:Largo Plazo 128:Distinguish 100:Distinguish 36:This is an 5635:NapoliRoma 5605:WP:SOFIXIT 5587:WP:SOFIXIT 5426:Sparks Fly 5304:Sparks Fly 4773:I Need You 4708:I Need You 4686:I Need You 4643:I Need You 4604:I Need You 4426:. For the 4291:John Gaddi 4287:John Gotti 3900:at the top 3634:at the top 3423:NapoliRoma 3370:NapoliRoma 3321:SunCreator 3309:reasonable 3272:NapoliRoma 3268:reasonable 3212:SunCreator 3195:Bill Gates 3149:Bill Gates 3137:Bill Gates 3081:SunCreator 3060:prefer).-- 3046:SunCreator 2980:instead.-- 2838:other uses 2778:other uses 2623:SchuminWeb 2578:SchuminWeb 2562:discussion 2482:. Thanks, 2472:WP:RELATED 2420:WP:LINKING 2158:NapoliRoma 2147:wiktionary 1763:WP:HATNOTE 1724:WP:HATNOTE 1624:otheruses4 1485:examples. 1295:Motherhood 1012:talk to me 998:otheruses4 933:talk to me 833:discussion 829:MickMacNee 579:WT:INFOBOX 390:Otheruses4 322:otheruses4 303:otheruses4 215:otheruses4 118:otheruses4 5301:was just 4985:Speak Now 4898:. Right? 4845:Exactly. 4792:Speak Now 4706:The page 4648:Speak Now 4639:Speak Now 4585:Designate 4444:Regards, 4153:Biosketch 3908:bad faith 3816:sometimes 3455:en:Danube 3404:However, 3316:hatnotes. 2494:Hatnoting 2287:wikibooks 1464:DThomsen8 1423:DThomsen8 1269:OlEnglish 881:Worcester 634:this diff 575:WT:ACCESS 449:Otheruses 380:Otheruses 286:demeaning 249:Otheruses 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5689:Kotniski 4675:contribs 4538:Pawyilee 4501:Pawyilee 4389:idea lab 4375:Kotniski 4231:eworlebi 4193:galaxies 3952:see also 3904:Feminism 3761:see also 3531:Joost 99 3529:myself. 3513:Kotniski 3482:Kotniski 3463:Joost 99 3459:de:Donau 3396:I think 3352:No, the 3090:Kotniski 3062:Kotniski 2982:Kotniski 2952:Kotniski 2950:dates.-- 2901:Dcoetzee 2884:issues. 2733:Proposal 2485:Reywas92 2360:contribs 2325:contribs 1986:Kotniski 1855:Kotniski 1842:PrBeacon 1682:Progress 1614:See also 1592:Agradman 1552:See also 1535:Agradman 1399:Hat note 1146:Kotniski 1112:Kotniski 1062:Kotniski 1026:|X|Y|Z}} 982:Kotniski 877:Plymouth 776:Watchmen 739:Watchmen 665:Kotniski 597:Kotniski 583:Dabomb87 545:Dabomb87 505:Colorado 184:Arianism 5765:Furries 5659:Furries 5617:for a " 5492:Londons 4851:WP:NAMB 4518:Current 4317:Century 4151:clear.— 4119:further 3639:related 3406:WP:NAMB 3398:WP:NAMB 3366:WP:NAMB 3362:WP:NAMB 3354:WP:NAMB 3313:WP:NAMB 3264:WP:NAMB 3256:cabbage 3208:WP:NAMB 3128:WP:NAMB 2667:WP:NAMB 2570:WP:NAMB 2426:details 1931:WP:NAMB 1923:WP:NAMB 1672:Jeandré 1663:Atheism 1661:. Now, 1631:related 1395:Hatnote 1391:the Afd 1328:Emperor 975:dablink 845:g-force 760:Emperor 714:Georgia 630:Georgia 39:archive 5773:DePiep 5769:Furies 5667:Groove 5655:Furies 5629:is a " 5260:Heroin 5117:& 4914:London 4863:(talk) 4764:London 4668:Status 4562:DePiep 4524:DePiep 4138:(talk) 4096:DePiep 4052:DePiep 4044:WP:HAT 4012:DePiep 3865:DePiep 3855:DePiep 3797:DePiep 3553:DePiep 3527:Danube 3496:Mother 3478:Mother 3451:Danube 3447:Father 3443:Mother 2740:From: 2680:(talk) 2444:EdJogg 2364:EdJogg 2329:WP:TFD 2154:source 1947:(talk) 1908:Jaymax 1894:Jaymax 1845:(talk) 1819:Jaymax 1784:Jaymax 1770:Jaymax 1729:Jaymax 1696:bishop 1692:bishop 1688:Bishop 1376:ask123 1319:father 1303:mother 1299:mother 1289:, and 1264:Father 1260:Mother 1245:page. 1142:WP:VPT 1108:WP:VPT 789:Wanted 646:BillCJ 560:Buaidh 523:Buaidh 509:Buaidh 474:Bejnar 353:Bejnar 232:Bejnar 139:Bejnar 5671:Conti 5665:from 5663:Grove 5657:from 5549:wiser 5545:older 4859:cobra 4856:Cyber 4781:wiser 4777:older 4736:wiser 4732:older 4474:wiser 4470:older 4414:wiser 4410:older 4265:Trevj 4134:cobra 4131:Cyber 3846:wiser 3842:older 3785:dozen 3713:wiser 3709:older 3670:They 3663:wiser 3659:older 3609:wiser 3605:older 3549:TfD's 3504:wiser 3500:older 3193:then 3109:wiser 3105:older 3023:Chzz 2919:wiser 2915:older 2816:about 2810:Honey 2756:about 2750:Honey 2676:cobra 2673:Cyber 2606:wiser 2602:older 2568:(aka 2313:FYI, 2231:kwami 2095:kwami 2037:kwami 1970:kwami 1943:cobra 1940:Cyber 1667:death 1581:wiser 1577:older 1361:melon 1355:Happy 1283:Mommy 1097:wiser 1093:older 692:edits 677:Yep, 406:edits 293:About 275:edits 230:. -- 205:About 163:edits 16:< 5777:talk 5733:and 5693:talk 5639:talk 5633:".-- 5256:Hero 4589:talk 4581:here 4566:talk 4556:See 4542:talk 4528:talk 4505:talk 4451:talk 4398:talk 4379:talk 4363:talk 4347:talk 4343:PamD 4330:talk 4300:| ( 4269:talk 4157:talk 4128:. -- 4100:talk 4075:talk 4071:PamD 4056:talk 4034:talk 4030:PPdd 4016:talk 4005:main 3989:talk 3985:PPdd 3968:main 3920:talk 3916:PPdd 3884:talk 3880:PPdd 3869:talk 3859:talk 3824:talk 3820:PPdd 3801:talk 3774:main 3695:talk 3691:PPdd 3687:only 3675:here 3648:talk 3644:PPdd 3616:Here 3594:talk 3590:PPdd 3557:talk 3545:here 3535:talk 3517:talk 3486:talk 3467:talk 3449:and 3427:talk 3421:).-- 3413:vs. 3374:talk 3276:talk 3252:Bill 3204:Bill 3169:talk 3161:Tree 3153:Bill 3145:Bill 3139:and 3135:are 3133:Bill 3094:talk 3066:talk 2986:talk 2971:talk 2967:PamD 2956:talk 2941:talk 2937:PamD 2890:talk 2870:use 2800:To: 2723:talk 2719:PamD 2704:talk 2627:Talk 2619:this 2596:and 2582:Talk 2547:talk 2543:meco 2531:and 2508:talk 2448:talk 2413:for2 2400:talk 2368:talk 2354:talk 2339:talk 2319:talk 2298:talk 2254:talk 2235:talk 2196:talk 2162:talk 2114:talk 2099:talk 2068:talk 2041:talk 2005:talk 1990:talk 1974:talk 1912:talk 1898:talk 1859:talk 1823:talk 1803:talk 1788:talk 1774:talk 1748:talk 1733:talk 1705:talk 1676:talk 1643:talk 1596:talk 1567:talk 1539:talk 1491:talk 1468:talk 1446:talk 1427:talk 1407:talk 1403:PamD 1380:talk 1350:here 1332:talk 1287:Moms 1262:and 1251:talk 1232:talk 1228:PamD 1208:talk 1204:PamD 1185:talk 1150:talk 1131:talk 1116:talk 1066:talk 1046:and 986:talk 966:and 948:talk 914:talk 889:talk 879:and 854:talk 814:talk 782:and 764:talk 723:talk 708:and 688:talk 669:talk 650:talk 601:talk 587:talk 577:and 564:talk 549:talk 527:talk 513:talk 478:talk 456:i.e. 402:talk 375:and 357:talk 308:and 271:talk 236:talk 220:and 159:talk 143:talk 109:for 5757:not 5685:and 5613:is 5121:by 5113:by 4799:"? 4446:RJH 4428:Man 4393:RJH 4358:RJH 4325:RJH 4321:Man 4215:on 4183:oςc 4180:αun 4177:Ker 3680:not 3672:are 3241:not 3057:all 2882:pov 2431:is! 1527:top 1513:At 1507:top 1307:Mom 1291:Mum 1279:Mom 1144:.-- 1126:RJH 943:RJH 909:RJH 804:or 642:six 335:For 313:For 259:For 225:For 188:may 5779:) 5750:}} 5746:{{ 5739:}} 5735:{{ 5731:}} 5727:{{ 5725:, 5723:}} 5719:{{ 5711:}} 5707:{{ 5695:) 5641:) 5627:FL 5611:FA 5547:≠ 5543:. 5307:. 5125:? 5059:. 5004:. 4779:≠ 4775:. 4734:≠ 4724:{{ 4716:{{ 4591:) 4568:) 4544:) 4530:) 4520:}} 4516:{{ 4507:) 4472:≠ 4454:) 4412:≠ 4401:) 4381:) 4366:) 4349:) 4333:) 4304:) 4271:) 4261:}} 4255:{{ 4251:}} 4245:{{ 4189:ia 4186:op 4159:) 4124:, 4122:}} 4116:{{ 4102:) 4092:}} 4086:{{ 4077:) 4058:) 4036:) 4028:. 4018:) 4008:}} 4002:{{ 3991:) 3971:}} 3965:{{ 3961:- 3955:}} 3949:{{ 3945:- 3939:- 3922:) 3886:) 3871:) 3861:) 3844:≠ 3826:) 3803:) 3777:}} 3771:{{ 3764:}} 3758:{{ 3711:≠ 3697:) 3661:≠ 3650:) 3607:≠ 3596:) 3559:) 3537:) 3519:) 3502:≠ 3488:) 3469:) 3445:, 3429:) 3376:) 3278:) 3171:) 3107:≠ 3096:) 3068:) 3029:► 2988:) 2973:) 2958:) 2943:) 2917:≠ 2892:) 2840:}} 2836:{{ 2814:{{ 2780:}} 2776:{{ 2754:{{ 2725:) 2706:) 2670:-- 2663:}} 2657:{{ 2655:, 2653:}} 2647:{{ 2645:, 2643:}} 2637:{{ 2629:) 2604:≠ 2584:) 2549:) 2539:}} 2533:{{ 2529:}} 2523:{{ 2510:) 2502:. 2450:) 2428:}} 2424:{{ 2415:}} 2411:{{ 2402:) 2370:) 2341:) 2296:- 2290:}} 2284:{{ 2256:) 2237:) 2198:) 2164:) 2150:}} 2144:{{ 2116:) 2101:) 2070:) 2043:) 2007:) 1992:) 1976:) 1914:) 1861:) 1825:) 1805:) 1790:) 1776:) 1750:) 1735:) 1707:) 1645:) 1637:. 1627:}} 1621:{{ 1617:}} 1611:{{ 1598:) 1579:≠ 1569:) 1555:}} 1549:{{ 1541:) 1533:. 1493:) 1470:) 1448:) 1429:) 1409:) 1382:) 1334:) 1285:, 1281:, 1253:) 1234:) 1210:) 1187:) 1152:) 1134:) 1118:) 1095:≠ 1068:) 1060:-- 1042:, 1022:{{ 1009:| 1001:}} 995:{{ 988:) 978:}} 972:{{ 962:, 951:) 930:| 917:) 891:) 856:) 816:) 770:) 766:) 725:) 712:? 690:• 671:) 652:) 603:) 589:) 566:) 551:) 529:) 515:) 480:) 466:}} 460:{{ 452:}} 446:{{ 438:}} 432:{{ 423:}} 417:{{ 404:• 393:}} 387:{{ 383:}} 377:{{ 373:}} 367:{{ 359:) 348:}} 342:{{ 338:}} 332:{{ 320:{{ 316:}} 310:{{ 306:}} 300:{{ 296:}} 290:{{ 273:• 264:. 262:}} 256:{{ 252:}} 246:{{ 238:) 228:}} 222:{{ 218:}} 212:{{ 208:}} 202:{{ 198:}} 192:{{ 180:}} 174:{{ 161:• 145:) 131:}} 125:{{ 121:}} 115:{{ 103:}} 97:{{ 5775:( 5691:( 5675:✉ 5673:| 5637:( 5595:* 5575:3 5572:8 5569:F 5566:J 5563:T 5560:C 5530:* 5512:3 5509:8 5506:F 5503:J 5500:T 5497:C 5482:* 5466:* 5447:3 5444:8 5441:F 5438:J 5435:T 5432:C 5416:* 5401:* 5385:3 5382:8 5379:F 5376:J 5373:T 5370:C 5357:* 5341:3 5338:8 5335:F 5332:J 5329:T 5326:C 5313:* 5281:3 5278:8 5275:F 5272:J 5269:T 5266:C 5245:3 5242:8 5239:F 5236:J 5233:T 5230:C 5218:* 5203:3 5200:8 5197:F 5194:J 5191:T 5188:C 5175:* 5159:3 5156:8 5153:F 5150:J 5147:T 5144:C 5131:* 5097:3 5094:8 5091:F 5088:J 5085:T 5082:C 5065:* 5039:3 5036:8 5033:F 5030:J 5027:T 5024:C 5010:* 4971:3 4968:8 4965:F 4962:J 4959:T 4956:C 4939:3 4936:8 4933:F 4930:J 4927:T 4924:C 4904:* 4881:* 4834:3 4831:8 4828:F 4825:J 4822:T 4819:C 4805:* 4752:* 4694:* 4672:{ 4656:* 4628:* 4612:* 4587:( 4564:( 4540:( 4526:( 4503:( 4448:( 4439:. 4395:( 4377:( 4360:( 4345:( 4327:( 4267:( 4226:X 4155:( 4098:( 4073:( 4054:( 4032:( 4014:( 3987:( 3973:) 3957:) 3918:( 3882:( 3867:( 3857:( 3822:( 3799:( 3779:) 3766:) 3744:. 3734:) 3730:( 3693:( 3646:( 3592:( 3555:( 3551:- 3533:( 3515:( 3484:( 3465:( 3425:( 3372:( 3274:( 3258:. 3167:( 3092:( 3064:( 2984:( 2969:( 2954:( 2939:( 2888:( 2851:. 2829:. 2791:. 2769:. 2721:( 2702:( 2625:( 2580:( 2545:( 2506:( 2446:( 2398:( 2391:. 2366:( 2357:· 2352:( 2337:( 2322:· 2317:( 2252:( 2233:( 2194:( 2160:( 2112:( 2097:( 2066:( 2039:( 2003:( 1988:( 1972:( 1910:( 1896:( 1857:( 1821:( 1801:( 1786:( 1772:( 1746:( 1731:( 1703:( 1674:( 1641:( 1594:( 1565:( 1537:( 1489:( 1466:( 1444:( 1425:( 1405:( 1378:( 1358:‑ 1338:) 1330:( 1249:( 1230:( 1206:( 1183:( 1148:( 1128:( 1114:( 1089:. 1081:. 1064:( 1050:. 984:( 945:( 911:( 887:( 865:G 852:( 837:G 812:( 762:( 721:( 694:) 686:( 667:( 648:( 599:( 585:( 562:( 547:( 525:( 511:( 476:( 408:) 400:( 355:( 298:/ 277:) 269:( 234:( 210:/ 165:) 157:( 141:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Hatnote/Archive 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index