Sample identifiers and metadata to support data management and reuse in multidisciplinary ecosystem sciences

I'd like to follow up on the topic related to the Duchy of Poland stub article, which was converted into a redirect to the History of Poland during the Piast dynasty article. I would like to restore and expand this article because from around 1031—1076, 1079–1138, and 1138–1227 the Duchy of Poland was in existence when the Kingdom of Poland was fragmented. Also, the Civitas Schinesghe article, which describes the earliest years of the Piast dynasty would only pertain to 966-1000, after which we see clear historical references to the Prince/Duke of Poland or Principality/Duchy of Poland. Please advise if I can revert your change to redirect and start to expand the Duchy of Poland article. E-960 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: Improvements are always welcome! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Róbert Gragger. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Anglican Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 16 § Anglican Church until a consensus is reached. Notifying previous commenters on old RfD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know this but it appears that NmWT has renamed themselves and retired. Not exactly the outcome I wanted but I thought it may be of interest to you in case you didn't know. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

so, I'm working on a project that involves a lot of navigating from near-miss to intended articles via dab links, and I'm coming to realize that I generally like how dab pages are being written but generally dislike how hatnotes are being written.

Ugh! This type of notice needs to be as short as possible to be as sweet as possible; pointless duplication isn't as bad as it would be in the article body... no, it's worse!

I've been trying to trim the bloat and sprawl as I go, and the workarounds I've come up with are very much along the same lines as yours - stumbling upon one of your

ones was particularly nice, because I'd been intending to use that phrasing for a while but, never having seen anyone else do so, never quite had the nerve to. Much appreciated!

For multiples, my current favourite pattern is to use {{for-text}} like so (real cross-linked use cases this time):

(Heh, looks like I missed the title markup there, but never mind, for these intents and purposes.) It's about as short as the grammatical structure allows, and what may be even more important is that the information structure is consistent that way. I suspect the vast majority of users are familiar enough with Wikipedia hatnotes that they rarely really read them, but instead take in the crucial words, meaning "album" and "film" in the first case, at a glance, and mentally discard the rest as filler. This is facilitated by reproducing the placement and punctuation predetermined by the qualified "(album)" link for the unqualified one, IMO. (ETA: For applying this to a more complex case, see Funeral.)

Anyway, to get to my main point, my impression is that bad hatnotes along the lines of my first "2024 Some Artist album" example are as common as they are not only because editors adopt each others' bad habits, but also because there are underlying systemic issues. Like, MOS:DAB explicitly says to "avoid descriptions that simply repeat information given in the link", using

• "Dark Star" (song), a song N

as a how-not-to example. WP:HATNOTE similarly starts out by saying stuff like "should generally be as concise as possible" and "lead text, not the hatnote, should explain what the article is about", but then uses

as its first how-to example, instead of actually implementing those ideas and reducing it to

Now, with phrases as short as these, even I don't believe it makes much of a difference in an article. But in a guideline, the bar should be set a bit higher, and first laying out what "should" be and not be, only to then follow up with examples that don't really adhere to those "shoulds", strikes me as, um, sub-optimal?

That said, I reckon at the true root of the problem are the templates themselves. The {{for}}-type requires a description, and when none is needed, placeholder phrases like "other uses" are inserted. The {{distinguish}}-type doesn't allow for a description, so when one is needed, it has to be added via the freeform "text" variants and parameters.

It stands to reason that this is precisely the wrong way 'round, surely. "For" is typically used for stuff that has the same name, and so needs a qualified title (like "Turkey (bird)"), which takes care of the description. "Distinguish" is typically used for stuff that has a merely similar name, and so doesn't need and therefore doesn't have that conveniently descriptive qualifier built in. Plus, mentioning the potential for "confusion" in the latter's very wording, but then failing to reduce it by supplying additional information, seems outright wrong-headed.

The sense I'm getting from all this is that people somehow settled on those phrasings early on, and then let their respective grammatical structures decide for them where information should and shouldn't go. Thus putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

Finally and even more fundamentally, I don't think I agree with the implicit notion that because hatnotes are part of proper articles, they need to be in proper prose, as opposed to the fragmentary style that's fine for dab pages. Functionally, hatnotes work like miniature dab sections, and by that reckoning, the information should be presented in a more rather than less compressed form than on a full page.

Okay, I think that's everything I meant to cover - here's hoping I had you mostly nodding in agreement, as opposed to nodding off! :P

- 2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes I do agree with everything you say. It's just that trying to change guidance by consensus is painful and sometimes has unintended consequences, so like you I proceed in accordance with guidelines but conservatively, or minimalistically if you like. Personally I would rarely use the 2nd parameter of {{about}}, but very often use the text= facility in {{distinguish}}. Happy editing - and I would urge you to operate from a registered account rather than as an IP editor, which would give you more credibility and make it easier for you to receive Talk page comments: see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you revert your move here? Marcus Octavius the tribune of 133 BC is only marginally better known than his homonym here. There is no primary topic for this name. T8612 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I was guided by Marcus Octavius (name) which specifically says: "The most known member was the tribunus plebis in 133 BC...". So either he is the most known member, and his article is the primary topic; or there is no primary topic and the (name) page is moved to the base name. Is that latter option what you advise? The situation where the base name is a redirect to one or other of those pages is unacceptable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is the most known member for the specialists of the period, not for the average Wikipedia reader, for whom they all are nonentities. There are very few Romans of the Republic that are primary topics, because they had a very limited number of first names, and things rapidly get confusing if we don't have (magistracy+year) after their names. In the case of Marcus Octavius, there is a homonym, also tribune of the plebs, who passed a law on the same topic a generation later. The (name) page should be turned into a disamb page. T8612 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:.  Done Thanks for your help. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Kitchener%E2%80%94Conestoga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Kitchener_South%E2%80%94Hespeler

Not much this time, but it is the pattern. The Banner talk 12:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner:. I know. So fix them! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave cleaning up the mess to you, as you created them. The Banner talk 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I did not create them. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the original dab-page, but with your revert you at least recreated the mess. The Banner talk 12:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you removed "Wisconsin" from Juneau County. US counties also include the state name, per WP:USPLACE. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Sorry - fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMy_God%2C_my_God%2C_why_hast_Thou_forsaken_me%3F&diff=1223178101&oldid=1223167436 ? Christian75 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Christian75: My mistake, I'm sorry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bank station (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shhhnotsoloud. I saw you converted Frederick Newton (disambiguation) to a dab page and I had to look at what was I thinking! I think I intended to redirect it to Fred Newton, as I had added another article there, Frederick Robert Newton. That article was missing from the hatnote at Frederick Newton. It is now missing from the dab page you created. I didn't want to arbitrarily overwrite your change, just wanted to let you know my mistake. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tassedethe:. I hadn't finished my train of thought either. I had intended to merge/redirect Fred Newton to Frederick Newton (disambiguation). That OK with you? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Tassedethe (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as the proposer I've replied to your comment on the above. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shhhnotsoloud. Can you please explain in further detail your edit here? I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I didn't understand it. I had thought my previous edit had been a straightforward application of WP:ONEOTHER. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello @Arbitrarily0:. "One other" disambiguation pages are quite common: see Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic. You can't just redirect them to the primary topic because the primary topic isn't a disambiguation page and you're making a redirect which helps no-one and clutters the Search system. They should instead be deleted. What you should do is tag them with {{one other topic}}, and then optionally apply a {{proposed deletion}} tag or take it WP:AFD. Pages in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic get the attention of editors like me, and those pages will eventually be deleted or expanded. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, stop changing my Zonca page to a disambiguation page. It is INTENDED to be a surname page. The inclusion of just ONE other article doesn't justify the change. That is the way I intended to make it and that is how it's supposed to be. Stop changing it. OmniFrieza994 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OmniFrieza994: If God had an opinion it would be that He wants you to read the Talk page, Talk:Zonca, and discuss it there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]