This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theHatnote page.

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

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

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Disambiguation This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize alldisambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you canedit the page attached to this talk page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project or contribute to thediscussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

The content ofTemplate:Hatnote templates documentation wasmerged intoWikipedia:Hatnote. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.

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

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

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

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

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

Currently, the template uses '"USE1", "USE2", "USE3", and "USE4" redirect here. For other uses, seeUSE1 (disambiguation),USE2 (disambiguation),USE3 (disambiguation), andUSE4 (disambiguation). {{{text}}}.' when{{redirect-multi|text=}} is present, as seen inthis revision. It needs to be changed to '"USE1", "USE2", "USE3", and "USE4" redirect here. {{{text}}}.' for simplicity.2600:1700:6180:6290:E8C6:83FC:3353:1AB0 (talk)01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it is ok to ask this question here, but I a bit confused and want some clarification on whether adding a hatnote to a political label or pejorative term is something that is ok based on policies for hatnote.I have a similar scenario like the termZionist (used as pejorative form) onBhakti article. Currently,Bhakti has a hatnote toBhakt (pejorative). As I have mentioned in that article's talk page:

I think adding a hatnote forBhakt (pejorative) onBhakti article violates few policies. e.gWP:TRHAT - adding a political slur as a hatnote at the very top of a religious concept article seems undue and creates confusion for reader by implying the two are related even though they are not related. Also,WP:COATRACK - I think it is not NPOV to give such undue promotion to a political label on this page.

Would appreciate clarification on whether hatnote policy allows adding a hatnote to a political/pejorative term on the primary topic (religious concept).

Just a note for comparison -Zionist currently redirects toZionism, which has a hatnote forZionism (disambiguation) with no mention ofZionist as a pejorative, which seems correct because since same word but used in different context (religious / political) - but I can get clarity for this on disamb policy talk page.Asteramellus (talk)21:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are purely for navigating the reader when they entered an ambiguous term, and may be looking for different topic than the one they initially landed on. POV of the hat's target page is not a consideration for whether or not a hatnote is needed. —Bagumba (talk)22:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bagumba for quick response.Asteramellus (talk)22:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages

• Disambiguation pages not identified by Wikidata
• Wikipedia pages using copied template
• Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid