Editing Module talk:Hatnote (section)

==Inline variant==
{{stale|Discussion restarted at [[#Inline hatnotes]], below, 2+  years later.}}
I added a test to handle an "<code>inline</code>" parameter, to output hatnotes as spans instead of divs.  This will have various applications.  One I've already deployed is {{tlx|Ghat}} for non-indented hatnotes atop [[MOS:GLOSSARY|glossary]] definitions (it wraps the inline hatnote span inside a {{tag|p}}; other use cases could wrap inline hatnotes inside table cells or list items or whatever, as needed). Another is {{tlx|Hatnote-inline}}, a meta-template for inline "see also..." and "for more information...", etc., notes.<p> We've gone to great length to provide templated consistency for hatnotes above content, but their use embedded within content is a totally "unregulated" mess.  When I get back from doing other stuff this weekend, my first use of templates based on that will be in [[WP:Manual of Style]] and its subguidelines themselves, since they make frequent use of such cross-references, but do so in a haphazard manner.  Seems the best place to start, since cleaning up the style guide will be automatically exemplary. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)</p>
:I've reverted, as this could have far-reaching consequences, and I think a discussion is necessary to find consensus first. If I'm understanding you correctly here, you want to put hatnotes inside definition lists and inside body text. Firstly, I'm not sure that calling such inline use a "hatnote" makes much sense. And secondly, in the inline case this would presumably mean that we change text text like "blah blah (see [[Foo]] for more details)" into "blah blah (<code><nowiki>{{see also inline|Foo}}</nowiki></code>)". I think we should avoid adding more templates when inline wikitext will do just as well. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 23:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
::Three separate issues:
::#Hatnotes atop definitions (or sets of definitions) in dl lists serve precisely the same function they do atop sections in articles, etc., but can be formatted to suit the environment better by not being inside a div that's being indented and spaced in a way that doesn't work well in such circumstances.
::#As for actually inline-in-body-text notes, I suppose they are not really {{em|hat}}notes, but it seemed pointless to duplicate all of that code just to avoid calling it a hatnote; whatever we call them if not hatnotes, the same metatemplate and module can be called via redirects that don't call them hatnotes, and no more "problem".  The only difference at all between the block and inline ones would be div vs. span (and the positioning applied to the div to indent it).  There is no reason to standardize the block ones but let chaos reign with inline ones.  The styles used in the latter case are all over the map, and frequently take the form of unencyclopedic-tone asides and directives.  This sort of random noise could be minimized if there were a standard set of inline "unhat"notes (tienotes?)  No one would be {{em|prevented}} from creating custom inline ones, just as they can use the bare wikicode I use below, or {{tlx|Hatnote}}, to create custom block ones.  Good for good, good for gander.
::#I don't really get your "avoid templates" rationale, since it could be used to oppose most templates (at all, period), including the entire family of block hatnotes (a simple <code><nowiki>:''Insert your [[cross references here]]''</nowiki></code> can replace pretty much every hatnote on the system, if you want freeform cross-referencing like that.  The rationale would also get rid of almost every inline dispute/cleanup template and various inline typing aid templates, since most of them can be replaced with "inline wikitext [that] will do just as well".  We put these things in templates when they're used repeatedly and it'll be faster and more consistent to to template them than to keep typing them out by hand.  The very frequently added ''(See also [[article name]].)'' and ''(for more information, see [[article name]]'') parentheticals people add to articles all the time, serving exactly the same function as block hatnotes, just in a more localized context, are case crying out for templating.  This isn't some idea that just crossed my mind, it's something I've been thinking about for, I dunno, 8 years or so. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
:{{od}}Given the background provided by SMcCandlish, I don't think allowing a hatnote inline is a good thing. This is not from formatting issues, but from basic hatnote meaning (is that semantics?).
:The guideline for hatnotes is in [[WP:HATNOTE]]. It says "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking", which is a very practical and useful rule on when to apply (at least for me. For readers: "Am I on the right page/place?)". This rule also implies: ''the hatnote is not part of encyclopedic/body/content text''. It is a navigation aid, always. So when we use it inline, we are injecting non-content into the body text.
:From this background, hatnote has outer &lt;div> tag only, not &lt;span>. This way, it is set out of body/content by html handling in general, and by format ''too''. This also explains the "chaos" SMcCandlish sees in inline and table uses: it is not intended for that place for a reason. Another intended behaviour by hatnote is a sort of "noprint" effect. Because a hatnote is ''not content'', it is omitted in content export (print, make wikibook, create pdf, republish on a website as the BBC does). This is achieved by some <code>class=</code> technique. Now when used inline, there could be a part of a sentence being cut out. And it is idle hope to write some warning in the documentation: we are not there to advise or check when such a mistake would be made.
:In general, every inline issue that makes us think about a hatnote can be solved differently as content. First and foremost: why not use a wikilink? Second: why not write as we would write it in a lead? 
:Let me apply this general statement to the example {{tl|Ghat}} as provided by SMcCandlish. As it shows, the inline hatnote does not exactly answer the readers question "am I on the right page". It is more like a lead part: this very word is spelled in various ways. It could be that a template is needed, but so far it a hatnote is not needed. It looks like this is an glossary internal question to be solved (what to do with unclear glossary terms).
:Adding re 1: as described in my main point, hatnotes may have that same "function" (visual effect, format, layout, css effect even) but do not have that same semantics (WP:HAT guideline, not content, noprint effect). re 2. With SMcCandlish I agree that a ''hat''note does not need to be in top just because of its name. For example {{tl|further}} is used at the bottom too. OTOH, [[Three foot six inch gauge railways#Installations|this]] usage of {main} standing alone in a table cell is bad, because the content-only will show an empty cell -- it should be a wikilink.
:-[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
::The important things that DePiep says here about hatnotes in the strict sense apply exactly to their inline variants (the ones that would be templated instead of rewritten away):
:::* Navigation aid to help readers locate another article they may really be seeking
:::* Not part of encyclopedic content text
:::* Injection of non-content into an article (i.e. WP self-refs in the form of references to other parts of WP as such)
:::* Not printworthy.
::Beyond this, DePiep is making unsupportable assumptions:
{{collapse top|title=Lots of them}}
:::*That we're talking about allowing or disallowing the inline equivalent of hatnotes (we {{em|do}} allow them; there are tens of thousands of them already deployed, they're simply done haphazardly and inconsistently); this discussion is about consistently formatting them, and using this module (or an offshoot of it, it doesn't really matter) to do this, instead of using old-school template code to do it.
:::*That the decision of some editors in some contexts to not use wikilinking or another form of rewriting and to instead make an explicit WP self-ref in the form of hatnote-style "See..." or "For more..." wording, is either a) a decision that must be countermanded, or b) a decision that must be left exactly as it was originally made.  This is a false dichotomy.  There is absolutely no reason that hatnotes ''per se'' should be standardized and templated while their inline but otherwise directly equivalent counterparts should be left to random whim and vagary.
:::*That the difference between divs and spans is that divs are "set out of body/content by html handling in general" (which is not correct conceptually or technically; it seems to be a miremembering of the "outside the normal document flow" wording of the description of the float CSS directive).
:::*That the chaos I'm talking about with regard to the form and formatting of inline cross-references ("inline hatnotes") has anything at all, even slightly, to do with div vs. span, much less that the difference "also explains" this chaos.  That doesn't even parse.  The inline stuff needs to use span because it's inline, and span is an inline element that can be styled and classed just like a div, but isn't block-level as a div is.  The chaos (inconsistency, encyclopedic tone problem, POV pushing, etc.) rampant in untemplated inline crossreferences is unrelated in any way to div/span, but is a matter of the lack of templates that shunt these cross-references into canonical forms the way we do with "traditional" hatnotes.
:::*That there is some special difference between a hatnote at the top of a page versus one used atop a table or in some other infra-page context; if this were actually the case, we would have no section-level hatnotes, yet {{tlx|Main}} is exclusively such a hatnote and one of the most-used hatnotes on the system.  DePiep latermakes a point of observing hatnotes even in the more formal sense being used in his view correctly at the bottoms of pages, so the entire point is moot.
:::*That DePiep's own re-wording of [[WP:HATNOTE]] as asking "Am I on the right page?" is accurate or even relevant, or that the wording there, intended to cover hatnotes at the tops of pages only, indicates anything about how they (or things like them, but inline) are and should be used elsewhere than at page-top.  It's a [[red herring]].
:::*That {{tlx|Ghat}} has anything to do at all with "unclear glossary terms" (its principal use is for {{tlx|Main}}-style cross-references).
:::*That because "there could be a part of a sentence being cut out" that templating inline equivalents of hatnotes "is idle hope"; but one cannot simultaneously suggest that a) the way around using what amounts to an inline hatnote is to write more carefully, and also say b) that we can't use inline hatnotes (cross-references) because it's impossible to write more carefully.  Cases where an inline cross-reference is integrated so tightly into a sentence that it cannot be templated, that's obviously a good case for rewriting to just flow into the sentence with wikilinking of words in context instead of making explicit cross-references, exactly as DePiep suggests in the first place.
:::*That the semantics between the uses (true hatnote and inline crossreference) are in fact different (they are not, except, as already noted, in cases where an inline crossreference is so integrated into a sentence that it should be rewritten to not be a WP self-ref, rather than be rewritten to use an inline crossreference template such as we're discussing here.
:::*And so on.
{{collapse bottom}}
::When addressed in series, DePiep's points actually unintentionally support what I'm proposing here. Which again is not a question of "should we allow inline crossreferences, i.e. equivalents of hatnotes?", it's "should we repurpose this code to help bring consistency to the many thousands of inline crossreferences we already have, or should that be be addressed some other way?".  I'll be addressing it one way or another. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
::: Hello [[user:SMcCandlish|SMcC]], your plans for inline style unification interest me greatly and I would like to subscribe to your hatnoted newsletter.  I think implementing such points of style in the code here makes sense, rather than (say) a bot-mediated workaround.  <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<span style="color:#f90;">&nbsp;+</span>]]</span> 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Folding serious comments by the OP (instead of replying)? Useless. I wont even go into this. That also implies, there cannot be a change form this talk. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
*@{{U|Mr. Stradivarius}}, @{{U|Sj}}, {{ping|DePiep}}: Inline "hat"notes – i.e., inline cross-references marked up as such in definable ways – have been used now for about two years with zero incidents or objections, and in multiple ways, from {{tlx|Crossreference}} mostly used between pages to {{tlx|See above}} used inside a particular article, to {{tlx|Ghat}} used as a hatnote (as such) inside glossary entries.  We should probably merge the modules again, perhaps as [[Module:Crossreference]] (or [[Module:Cross-reference]] if you prefer the hyphen).  "Hatnote" was is a weird name, a bit of jargon from WP's early days, that isn't terribly meaningful.  Two years is more than long enough for proof-of-concept and for any problems to have been identified. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::No. Please read [[WP:HATNOTE]] first. And don't ping me for this any more. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Since your input is just [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] filibustering, I won't. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::::No. My input is: ''the concept of "Hatnote" does not accomodate inline usage''. As others have decribed here too. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Which is a classic case of IDONTLIKEIT.  In the end, it doesn't matter whether your personal reality tunnel for categorizing things by their names isn't happy with the genuine reality that hatnotes as {{tag|div}} structures do not work well or at all in every scenario. That genuine reality is not going to magically change just because you frown about it. If the cognitive dissonance is just too much for you, we can rename them to not have "hat" in the name. Even the {{tag|div|o}}-based ones are often used at the end of things, not atop them (e.g. {{tlx|More}}).<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)