Editing Module talk:Hatnote (section)

==Rename the module and meta-template to reflect actual usage==
"Hatnote" no longer describes the function of this module and the meta-template that uses it, and its descendant templates. Rather, it describes only the most frequent use case. Confusion stemming from this has lead to over two years of unproductive circular discussions that deny the reality of the code's live deployment.
* At very least, the templates that are directly categorized in [[:Category:Cross-reference templates]] and which are using [[Module:Hatnote]] are often not used as hatnotes above content, but as "shoenotes" below it.
* Some, like {{tlx|More2}}, can {{em|only}} be used this way, since they would make no sense at the top. (There's generally not much point in forcing these to use {{tlx|Hatnote}}'s presently mandatory {{tag|div|o}}; it just wastes space and interrupts the flow of the document in many cases.)
* Others, like {{tlx|Qnote}}, are something completely different (in this case, asides or footnotes, which can optionally be numbered), and are not cross-references or WP self-references at all.
* The inline variants (using {{tag|span|o}} and produced by what is presently [[Module:Hatnote inline]]) need not continue to have a forked codebase. They are not often used in "hat" position ({{tlx|ghat}} being an exception).
Clearly, the "hat" scenario limitation has nothing to do with how the actual codebase of this module and its dependent meta-template are being used in reality.

Since at least two editors in previous discussions on this page want to take a literal interpretation of the term "hatnote", as a note that sits at the top of content like a hat, the obvious (perhaps only) solution is to just rename this.  [[Module:Meta-note]] and [[Template:Meta-note]] would work fine. Simple solution, zero drama.  The term "hatnote" would then, much more clearly, continue to be used at [[:Category:Hatnote templates]], etc., as a description of templates that are in fact used in hatnote position (whether they are generated by this module or not).  This solution would allow us to separate form and function here in a way that increases clarity and prevents further unproductive approaches to this module. <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> 05:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

:I'm concerned that the renaming, and/or expanding of scope, would undo some structural norms currently set by hatnotes. Right now, there is at least ''broadly'' the expectation that hatnotes always go at the top of pages or sections, and that most navigational meta-content—excepting big topical navboxes—comes in the form of hatnotes. For example, consider how important {{tl|main}} is to [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]. These structural norms help make hatnotes valuable because people can rely on them occurring in the same places in the same roles; consider the case in particular of someone who might decide to restyle the <code>hatnote</code> CSS class—the class has no value if it isn't used consistently and semantically.
:Of course, broadening isn't necessarily bad if it makes things more consistent. "Hatnotes" were originally more strictly for the tops of pages, rather than for sections … and I had a hand myself in broadening that standard when I created {{tlf|rellink}} in 2009 (now merged to {{tl|hatnote}}), lumping together "related links" under a meta-template in the same way that "disambiguation links" ({{tlf|dablink}}, since renamed to {{tlf|hatnote}}) did.
:I can see value in allowing hatnotes to be used inline for a few cases where &lt;div&gt; elements would be disruptive, but we should be sure, before we jump to broadening scope, that we could not exercise discipline and normalize articles that are using hatnotes in unusual ways (e.g. your "shoenote" example), rather than broadening the templates to fit the myriad uses. Moreover, many of the examples here are ''exceptions'': [[Module:Hatnote inline]] is [https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=828&name=Hatnote+inline only used on ~300 articles], while the main, normative [[Module:Hatnote]] [https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=828&name=Hatnote has broken the 1 million mark]. Your example {{tl|more2}} currently has ''1'' mainspace transclusion and is described in its documentation as "where {{tl|details}} is too verbose}}"—it acknowledges its own redundancy!
:I'm sympathetic to the idea that there exist good use-cases, but there's ''huge'' value in having the hatnote system be as simple and uniform as possible, since it's a key element of article structure that should be made accessible to newbies. It doesn't help your case that I think I can reasonably pull off the devil's-advocate argument in the other direction: why shouldn't we instead ''tighten'' scope and eliminate {{tl|hatnote inline}} and its like entirely? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{&#123;[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]&#8202;&#124;[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]&#8202;&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|edits]]}&#125;</span> 00:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::I'll take that in the spirit offered and go for a rebuttal of these points.  This broad expectation of "topness" is a phantasm. Various templates of this sort long pre-date the existence of this module, and used the original {{tlx|Hatnote}} meta-template before Lua, and many of them have routinely been used below not above content since Olden Tymes.  E.g., {{tl|Details}} dates to mid-2005 and has frequently been used this way (which is not against any guideline or policy, or common sense), and {{tl|More2}}, which makes no sense at all above content, dates to 2009.<p>I agree, of course, that we have structural norms, but these are not set by obscure <code>Module:</code>-namespace pages, that probably most editors and certainly almost all readers don't even know exist; they're set in plain English by [[MOS:LAYOUT]], [[WP:HATNOTE]], [[WP:SUMMARY]], etc., which aren't suddenly going to change and say "by the way, you can use a confusing layout with inline notes", but will continue to recommend the traditional indented-div hatnote at the top for most purposes (proof: they still do, despite the availability of inline hatnotes for some time now, which remain used for specific, other things.) What the meta-template is called has no effect on whether SUMMARY recommends {{tl|Main}} or what that template's name is. Reuse for a new purpose of a tool more commonly used for another purpose does not endanger or invalidate the original use (I regularly use my comb as a backscratcher, my phone as an MP3 player).</p><p>There is no scope {{em|expansion}}, only a scope merger between two modules with mostly redundant code. This is not a request for permission to create a new set of templates; it's a suggestion to combine two extant overlapping ones for efficiency and maintenance ease.</p><p> There is no way around the fact that some markup situations cannot have divs shoved into them. (And it's not template editors' job to act as Layout Police, forcing all articles to conform to a limited set of layout possibilities just for the sake of avoiding, for no clear reason but at all costs, the merger of two almost identical modules; that would be one dog's tail wagging the whole breed.) In other cases (e.g. that addressed by {{tl|Ghat}}) there's no way around the problem that the indentation is not desirable in certain circumstances (other than by doing some other custom code, which puts us back in the same boat).</p><p>The inline functionality isn't widely deployed mainly because of the div and span template/module split, the consequent lack of documentation support, and the low priority level of converting inline cross-references to use {{tl|crossref}} (it's more of a AWB or bot kind of task). If I or anyone else decided to spend an hour with AWB on it, it would be used in an order of magnitude more pages.  All new-ish templates are used in few pages, until they're used in lots of pages.  All templates with limited applicability are used in fewer pages than those with much broader applicability. Those with formally prescribed functions will be found more consistently than those without them. There is no "delete templates that aren't used 1mil times" standard.  By TfD standards, 300 is more than sufficient to keep, and it will eventually be much, much higher.</p><p>Your devil's advocacy case could be made to eliminate every single template on the system that is not absolutely essential for WP to function. Yet we don't do that; editors are free to create, improve, and merge templates in useful, sane ways.  We have millions of inline cross-references, being formatted manually, willy-nilly in wildly inconsistent ways, often quite unhelpfully. There is no practical argument against cleaning that up, and the most obvious way is the way already under active deployment: by repurposing the hatnote code, with templates using a span instead of a div, and starting to normalize these cross-refs into some predictable formats (notwithstanding that the experimental see-above template needs to be clean-slated and replaced, which is already on my to-do list). The very fact that we had manually-created, random, and confusingly inconsistent proto-hatnotes all over the place was why the hatnote template was created in the first place; the cases are closely parallel. And the guidelines and norms for their use developed after efforts began to standardize them.</p><p>The gist: WP works by incremental improvement, and is not bound by bureaucracy. The code is already working. It's just more practical to have merged code. This "it must be killed because its not a {{em|hat}}note and isn't a div" stuff is putting form before function, and past above the present. <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> 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)</p>
* The proposed name "meta-note" OTOH is too wide. It suggests to include other notes like ENGVAR messages, and maintenance tags (these are meta too). Also, to "separate form and function" this would make a ''descriptive template title'' for the module/template instead of a ''name''. This being editors space (not content space), there is no requirement to be this correct. We can freely choose & keep a catchy name, and fill in its meaning as we prefer. It may be incorrect in descriptive minor points, as a ''name'' it is OK. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)