This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Hi Clarityfiend,

I noticed that you removed the disambiguation hatnotes I'd recently added to both Easy Living (1937 film)[1] and Easy Living (1949 film)[2] with an edit summary explanation of "-hatnote per WP:NAMB"[which links to section "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous"]. Let me share how/why I came to add the hatnotes and perhaps you'll be able to get a sense of why it might be in the best interest of readers to reconsider whether it's applicable to apply WP:NAMB to the instances at hand.

I came across a passing mention of a film named "Easy Living" in a web article. It intrigued me and caught my interest but did not supply a specific release date. When I searched for "Easy Living (film)" it was initially—in practice, in a real life experience—ambiguous to me as a reader which Wikipedia article, "Easy Living (1937 film)" or "Easy Living (1949 film)", would relate to the web article I was attempting to follow up on. So to aid future readers who might find themselves in similar circumstances I added hatnotes cross-referencing the two articles.

I considered also adding a link in the hatnotes to the full existing Easy Living disambiguation page but decided such would be 'over-kill', adding length but not substance, as anyone searching just "Easy Living" would find themselves led there anyway. The ambiguity being addressed is specifically that which arises from there being two "Easy Living (____ film)" articles—so it seemed best to limit it to such.

In the interest of better serving the greater Wikipedia readership, may we please restore the hatnotes? Or replace them with some variation to comparably serve the same purpose (i.e. to offer "the least surprise" and most ease of use to future readers interested in films named "Easy Living")?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? An uncertain reader is either going to search for Easy Living or Easy Living (film), which redirects to the dab page. The descriptions there make it clear which is which. Only someone who knows which movie they want to read about will specify the year. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I probably should have been more specific. My initial "Easy Living (film)" search was via Google Search. Through which I arrived directly into the dated articles. I later found the "Easy living" dab page via Wikipedia's internal search suggestions while looking into existing options before composing the hatnotes. Was unaware that "Easy Living (film)" existed as a separate name redirect to the dab page—don't recall seeing it in suggestions. Regardless, as other readers may well come into the articles via external search engines as I did, it seems that there is some utility (and a certain degree of courtesy) in having them cross-referenced to facilitate ease of discovery.

While at present there are existing routes to discovery via Wikipedia's search suggestions and the—somewhat long—dab page, I think short cross-referenced hatnotes would provide readers with a more 'at hand' direct streamlined path to such. Basically, it seems to me that there is added value (and little—if any—harm) for the readership in having them. At the very least it leaves the reader explicitly informed that two quite different films sharing the same name exist. Once so informed, the reader has the option to make distinctions—for clarity's sake—when referring to one or both of the films in the future.

If one prefers—instead of my previous offerings—a "This article is ... For ... see ..." format could be used. I believe there's a prefab dab template for such. Something like: "This article is about the dramatic film Easy Living. For the earlier comedy film see Easy Living (1937 film)." --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I google "Easy Living film", it brings up the two articles with part or all of the first sentence of each, more than enough to differentiate the two. So again, there is no need for hatnotes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose not a 'need' but a utility. An improvement rather than a 'requirement'. A courtesy to assist the reader. I've already stated that I recognize that there are other routes of discovery available. It is that cross-referencing in some manner within the articles serves the reader with immediate accessibility and passive discovery. A ready and elegant path. Good 'customer service', if you will, which seeks to accommodate naive general readers as well as savvy Wikipedia editors.

"While at present there are existing routes to discovery via Wikipedia's search suggestions and the—somewhat long—dab page, I think short cross-referenced hatnotes would provide readers with a more 'at hand' direct streamlined path to such. Basically, it seems to me that there is added value (and little—if any—harm) for the readership in having them. At the very least it leaves the reader explicitly informed that two quite different films sharing the same name exist. Once so informed, the reader has the option to make distinctions—for clarity's sake—when referring to one or both of the films in the future."

As hatnotes in general and disambiguation in particular are common throughout the wiki I don't see any substantial issue of surprise, clutter, or distraction for the reader in having such as long as they're brief and to the point.

I have taken the time and made the effort to lay out my position in detail—describing what I feel are multiple benefits of having the information readily accessible in the articles for readers. Including it in the articles rather than requiring of them the effort to seek such elsewhere. If you feel this would somehow be detrimental to the reader please offer the courtesy of similar elaboration. Otherwise, might the 'clarity-fiend' find the wherewithal to accept the inclusion of these brief clarifications as a service to our readers?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see utility here, merely clutter. The films are unrelated. Making connections, where none really exist, simply for the sake of making connections only opens the floodgates to meaningless "Baconization". Dab pages provide sufficient navigational aid. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do with Romeo and Juliet (films)? To be consistent, you'd have to provide lots of hatnotes in each article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The films are unrelated." Incorrect. The—I had hoped readily apparent—relationship is that the films have the same title.

Comparing to "Romeo and Juliet" seems like a 'straw man' argument as there is a significant difference in scale. Two "Easy Living" films to be distinguished vs. numerous "Romeo and Juliet" offerings. As you may be aware, established DAB guidelines suggest hatnotes when there are only two things being distinguished. In this case two films. My goal is not to set Wikipedia precedents but to serve ease of discovery and inform our general readership in the specific instance at hand. And again, I feel the value of informing readers that another film of the same title exists exceeds any 'clutter' detriment taken on by having concise cross-referencing hatnotes.

Hmm, however ... Doesn't have to be accomplished via hatnotes per se though ... some sort of "not to be confused with..." line in the body of the article would serve the same purpose; e.g. "not to be confused with the 1937 comedy film of the same name". Which is another established format used to add clarity and inform readers. Hmm, seems doing it in such a manner (in the body of the article text) addresses the "clutter" concern as it doesn't add any new elements to the overall page formating. While I personally prefer having an obvious readily apparent easily 'clicked' hatnote link up top, I'm willing to compromise and add the information to the body of the text instead so as to better streamline the page layout.

[I've been using the Wikiwand interface for some time now and have become accustomed to their manner of presenting collapsed hatnotes ... this likely accounts in part to the differing weight we've been putting on 'clutter' concerns.]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be confused by another film made 12 years earlier that was a different genre? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they're both titled "Easy Living"?

Plip!

i.e. They have identical titles. Both films share the same title. A naive reader seeking knowledge may not know the distinctions until after they've become aware of both films. As per my personal experience. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Maybe worth raising a WP:RFC at WP:NAMB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, for now I'll just streamline the phrasing a bit more and 'fly-it-up-the-flag-pole' again as a text addition. Should satisfy Clarityfiend's objection to a preceding hatnote 'cluttering' the page layout while still offering useful information to readers. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just unilaterally go about imposing your vision. Got a problem. Take it up at WP:NAMB. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the pot doth call the kettle black. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Enforcing a guideline vs insisting on having your own way, by hook or by crook? Note that Lugnuts did not endorse your stance, but merely said it might be worth discussing. I've made an RFC as he suggested. (I'd like to see what you'd do with the various John Smith#Academics.) Clarityfiend (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, after a nights sleep I do indeed see that I was reading what I wanted into Lugnuts' "point taken" comment. If I had it to do again I might inquire further—and pause—before implementing further changes to the articles. FWIW, I wasn't at my best off wiki yesterday either.

Does anyone know if there's a way to disable revert messages in the notifications icon? I think I do better receiving such info when checking my watchlist at a time of my choosing. Rather than responding to that damned red flag whilst immersed in other stuff*. Sets the stage for 'knee jerk' reactions sometimes.

*I think I was wrapping up a series of over sixty-five page moves when the revert notice popped up yesterday. Another editor had made a talk-page observation that 'The Missing Manual' didn't in fact follow its own guidelines for capitalization in titles and I'd volunteered to address the issue.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]