Talk:Easy Living (1949 film)

Disambiguation hatnote

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]

Hatnotes (or the equivalents)

Consensus against adding Hatnotes (or the equivalents). Alsee (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kevjonesin included hatnotes linking two unrelated, disambiguated films (the other being Easy Living (1937 film)), contrary to WP:NAMB. When I reverted that, the discussion above ensued, ending in an attempt at an end-around, and two more reversions. And here we are. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion of the other film (or films). WP:NAMB is pretty clear. I created the article for Home (2008 Swiss film) after seeing the film. I searched to see if it existed already with Home (film). That took me to Home (disambiguation). There's at least six films with a similar year of release that could be confused with each other. Should they all be refered to in each others repective article on the off-chance a user might also be confused? The answer is no. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

I'd not call it an "end around". I'd call it an attempt at compromise which was described on this talk page before implementation. An attempt to address both our concerns as discussed in the section above. Pardon my recent quick reverts. I'm tired and allowed myself to take umbrage at the "sneaky" accusation in one of the revert edit summaries—as I'd openly stated my intent and reasoning in advance here on this talk page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is that there is precedent for disambiguating two items (two films in this case) differently (e.g. WP:TWODABS) from disambiguating many items. Hence, again I feel bringing up "what if blah-blah article with a gazzillion alternatives" is a form of straw-man argument. As I've stated in the preceding talk page discussion, my concern is with the two films at hand and their relevant articles. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose use of hatnotes regarding the other film(s) WP:NAMB is quite clear about this. DAB pages take care of a readers needs. MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have the same issue that MarnetteD has. A disambiguation page already solves this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NAMB. There may have been a case for this at one time but film articles have full disambigation these days per WP:NCF#Between_films_of_the_same_name. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informing readers of duplicative titles

As I feel that there is more than a style issue at hand, I'm also inviting general RfC input.

Is it of use to readers—in regards to the articles Easy Living (1949 film) and Easy Living (1937 film)—to inform them on the article pages that duplicative film titles exist? Please refer to preceding discussion laid out in the preceding section for more detail and ongoing discussion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For info, I've dropped a note at WT:FILM for more input. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the appropriate spot for a "general" RFC. WP:HAT is MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts, thanks for posting to WT:FILM.

@MarnetteD, I think you missed that this subsection is in regards to what information is to be included, regardless of the format (i.e,. hatnote or otherwise) as a copy edit to the body of text is under dispute as well. Therefor WP:HAT would seem an overly limited venue. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not miss anything. Your own post says that it is a "general RFC input" which does not belong on a page for a specific film. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're using the word "general" differently. I'm just using it as a synonym for 'unsorted' as I used a generic RfC template to attract comment from a broader sampling of our peers. FWIW, I'd just come from the RfC guidelines page back to this talk page intending to initiate an RfC when I discovered Clarityfiend had already started such—but with a more narrow template and intro than I was inclined to. I did look a bit for some sort of 'RfC|Film' template but didn't find one. Is there one I missed perhaps? --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about films in general, this RFC will need to be moved elsewhere. If we're talking about this page in particular, oppose for the same reason as above; we already have a disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Easy Living DAB page covers many things other than films. My question is "Is it useful to a reader to be informed—directly in the relevant articles—that these two films sharing the same name exist?". So as to be aware of possible ambiguity when they refer to one or both of them in the future. In 'real life' circumstances, not just within Wikipedia. I would have considered it a courtesy if the information had been presented to me when I came to the page as a reader and so am attempting to ease the path for those who follow. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Kevjonesin, both articles have sufficient disambiguation to differentiate themselves from the other, and if anyone should type in an ambiguous search term, it is covered by the disambiguation page. Therefore, it is clear in this case that since the names of the articles are not ambiguous, hatnotes are simply unnecessary on these particular articles, per WP:NAMB. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if the films are connected—either as a remake or a sequel—then it is reasonable to point out the connection, but that's clearly not the case here. It is very clunky to incorporate disambiguation into the lede, and that is what we have hatnotes for. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that adding the other titles goes against WP:NAMB, but I don't like the results of applying that guideline here. The main purpose of article titles is to assure the reader they've gotten to the correct page. If I'm looking for film X, and I remember it's black and white, and see "X (1949 film)", I may too quickly assume it's the one I wanted, skipping "X (1937 film)" without realizing it. Adding a quick "there's another film like this" hatnote helps assure the reader about the right page, and does no harm.

(We might hatnote "X (film)" instead of each film; I'm okay either way.)

I often see this sort of hatnote used, despite the strict wording of NAMB. For example, Georgia (U.S. State) has a hatnote for Georgia (country) even though NAMB says not to do this because the two names are not ambiguous.

NAMB says it applies "In many cases..." -- not in "all" cases, not even "most" cases. The example it gives for Tree (set theory) seems rather special; it's hard to see how a user would click on a link to the set theory when they actually wanted an oak, because the set theory and the oak are so different. I don't think that actually applies very often; most things with similar names are similar in nature, and are more easily confused than this.

I don't think any change is needed at NAMB; we just need to loosen our strict interpretation of it. We should especially avoid saying "clearly" when applying it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.