Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Should Quantum supremacy have a hatnote giving the reader a route to Quantum Supremacy? WP:DABSTYLEVAR and naming conventions suggest that it should, but it can also be seen as advertising, so I'm seeking a third opinion. Certes (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if this exact situation is a rare enough occurrence that very few individuals remember the last time it happened just this way. And I think probably what makes it rare is that even if this hatnote has an advertising aim, the target topic is three years old, its notability is not questioned, and it's not mainly a promotional article. My guess is that this individual hatnote's legitimate value deserves more weight in the discussion than its advertising value does, and that applying the weight this way is probably only right under this limited type of circumstances. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Luckily it's quite rare, and we need to nip this in the bud before it becomes common.The problem is that it's very effective advertisement, getting your book as the very first link in the Wikipedia article about a concept!There are several books title "Quantum mechanics", and none of the is linked from a hatnote in Quantum mechanics. There are also several books titled "Classical mechanics", and Classical mechanics does have a hatnote, but to a disambiguation page, so it's not effective advertisement and I'm ok with it. Also, they are old technical books, not the problematic sort. Tercer (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics has managed to avoid the specific problem Certes is currently working on because of alt caps - Quantum Mechanics redirects to quantum mechanics. But it instead runs headlong into the other scenario in which dabfixers (a category that includes both Certes and myself) would say that Quantum Mechanics (book) should be findable from Quantum Mechanics and hence there should be a hatnote, although AFAIK nobody is actually working on clearing that much bigger and worse-defined queue. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Quantum systems redirects to quantum mechanics but the company Quantum-Systems is not easily accessible from there. Paradoctor had added a hatnote for it, but it was removed at some point. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh and of course it should be no surprise that it was removed by the same editor claiming similar reason calling the hatnote 'advertisement'. 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC) older ≠ wiser 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Restored. Valid dab hatnote. Paradoctor (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It should be possible to create some user CSS which hides navigational hatnotes from editors who prefer not to see them. That would leave the hatnote simultaneously alive and dead, with its state only being determined when someone opens the page. Certes (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant CSS classes are

.hatnote

and

.navigation-not-searchable

Hide elements that feature both, and you should be done. Paradoctor (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course it should; and no, it is not advertising. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly should be there in some form. If there are some other ambiguous entries, a disambiguation page can be created and linked from the hatnote, but with only one item, better to simply link to that item. And FWIW, this is not rare situation. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

A very rough query, with many false positives and false negatives, finds 796 similar cases. Certes (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Calling the hatnote "advertising" is missing the point. As long as we have an article on the book Quantum Supremacy, the article Quantum supremacy must have a hatnote by which readers can navigate to that article. This is just basic disambiguation. Whether that hatnote has advertising value to the publisher of the book is completely irrelevant.--Srleffler (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a desperately naïve point of view. We have enough bad-faith editors editing Wikipedia for promotional purposes as it is. We don't need to give them even more incentives. We can use the classical mechanics solution to provide disambiguation without giving advertising value. Tercer (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless you're going to argue that we shouldn't have articles on commercial products including books, you are just wrong here. An article on a book gets the same treatment as any other article. If the book is notable, we can have an article on it. If the title is ambiguous, we disambiguate it. Whether that has "advertising value" to the publisher does not matter. --Srleffler (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The advertising value is linking it from the very prominent article. Quantum mechanics had 58,218 views in the last month, but readers that go there get and advertisement for the obscure company Quantum-Systems, which only had 3,239 views. Quantum supremacy had 3,090 views, and we're giving our readers and advertisement for the book Quantum Supremacy, which only had 315 views.

Of course we should have articles on (notable) commercial products, what we shouldn't do is advertise them on other articles. And yes, I have removed a lot of this kind of spam, rarely on hatnotes though. Tercer (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Please consider whether there is a consensus for you to "remove a lot of this kind of spam". This discussion makes it pretty clear that you have a rather unique definition of "spam" and "advertising" and are remarkably resistant to the idea of abiding with the consensus whether you like it or not. Please consider retaining any removals that are supported by actual policies and self-reverting any removals that you know that many editors would disagree with. Far better than having someone else go through your edit history and doing that for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Quantum_Supremacy says that fewer than 10 of the 367 page views last month came from any Wikipedia article. Therefore, if putting a link at the top is the marketing strategy, it doesn't seem to be working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The hatnote has just been added, so we need to wait 30 days to see its effects. Tercer (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not the hatnote is effective for marketing the book is irrelevant. The hatnote is required Wikipedia navigational structure. --Srleffler (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's clearly not required, as the classical mechanics example shows. Tercer (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Red herring.

• Classical Mechanics (disambiguation)
• Quantum Systems (disambiguation)
• Quantum Supremacy (disambiguation)

WP:ONEOTHER applies to the latter two, but not classical mechanics. Paradoctor (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And not to derail us, but per WP:TWOOTHER there is a decent argument to update the hatnote at Classical mechanics. But I agree this is a red herring regardless of how we deal with Classical mechanics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Tercer, you really need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Disambiguation before engaging on this topic.--Srleffler (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I raised that matter earlier at User talk:Tercer#Quantum supremacy and received an reply. Certes (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a small correction - WikiNav does show that there were some clicks from other articles towards the book article, but none of these could be identified as the quantum supremacy article. That in turn could only possibly be up to 9 clicks within the filtered category (because if it was 10 or over, it would have been identifiable).

I agree that hatnotes are not a great advertizing mechanism, because readers are fairly accustomed to them and often also seem to ignore them.

At the same time, on a more general note, I am more amenable to the argument that when hatnotes are placed on top of articles with high volumes of traffic - they could plausibly mislead some portion of the readers. The larger a group of readers is, it's more likely there will be some who are completely unaware of what hatnotes mean, and they could plausibly catch the attention of some of these readers unnecessarily.

I remember making an argument before at Talk:Hrvatska that was somewhat similar. However, there we were talking about an article averaging 250k monthly views. Here, it's just 5k, so it's much less likely to matter.

Sadly, we don't have the real data on this. We don't poll these large contingents of readers to tell us about their experience with our navigation elements, nor do we try to spy on their behavior. It's hard to tell if our inferences about the reader behavior are correct. --Joy (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

plausibly mislead Poe's law. A neutrally worded hatnote can mislead a reader only if they do it to themselves. Some people will misunderstand you despite your best efforts. Sure, we could try to accommodate this fragment of our audience, but, at least in this case, the only alternative requires us to abandon the target audience for which these hatnotes exist: those who are not looking for the primary topic. Nirvana fallacy 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding "they could plausibly mislead some portion of the readers". How could the words

For the 2023 book see Quantum Supremacy.

possibly mislead anyone? Even someone who is "completely unaware of what hatnotes mean"? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

When we're talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of probably different people, what you and I may have a hard time understanding may well actually start to happen.

We have a recently documented example at Talk:King Charles where a seemingly meaningless visual change appeared to help a measurable portion of readers in the long tail.

So it's not implausible that some people would just act as if they were saying ooh shiny link at the start, I wonder where it leads to :) I'm not saying it's logical, I'm saying it becomes plausible at certain scale.

In the aforementioned example, we were at readership levels of about 10k views a month, and the topic was fairly general. So, again, this probably would not apply to quantum supremacy. --Joy (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that harsh of a view of the possible alternatives is accurate. For cases where there's a genuine risk of this - again, probably not quantum supremacy - we could also keep a hatnote but make it generic, have it lead to a disambiguation page. This would require one more click, but provide more helpful captions. It would be a tad artificial and we'd probably have to modify the guideline that says "no single-item disambiguation lists", but it seems like a reasonable alternative. Again, in cases where there's so much traffic it's harder to predict reader behavior. --Joy (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

A hatnote has also just been added to Quantum mechanics, and I think the article is popular enough to matter, as it has 58,378 monthly views. Tercer (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As just mentioned above, the most obvious way to try to get the single topic out of the hatnote would be to find if there's perhaps other topics that are plausibly searched for under the same title, and compose a disambiguation page to be linked instead.

A cursory search shows that there exists a reference in Node (physics) to a 1966 book called "Quantum Mechanics" by Albert Messiah. If this book was also notable and if it was reasonable to mention it, let alone if it had an article of its own, then the list could include those two topics. --Joy (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Likewise for several others listed in List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. --Joy (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be an acceptable solution. Messiah's book is clearly notable, it is still commonly used today in universities around the world.

The problematic hatnot is not to Quantum Mechanics (book), though, but to Quantum-Systems. Tercer (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I see how it can be a bit annoying to see that hatnote while the more obvious ambiguous name Quantum Systems doesn't even exist. At the same time, it is still completely reasonable to assume there can be viewers looking for the company with that logo by just looking up "quantum systems". --Joy (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It is very reasonable, so much that I even retargeted quantum systems to redirect to Quantum-Systems, as I think this is not what someone looking for quantum mechanics would type. I got immediately reverted though. Tercer (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If there is disagreement about the proper redirect target for Quantum systemsQuantum systems you can start a formal WP:RFD discussion. Take a look at the edit history and Talk:Quantum system for some relevant background. If you're unfamiliar with RFD, the procedure for listing a redirect can be a bit intimidating. If you want help, let me know. You can always message me on my user talk page. (For the record, I think the redirect to Quantum mechanics is appropriate, but value the community input at RFD.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the natural target for Quantum system is actually quantum state. Quantum systems is a very unnatural way to write it, I believe people typing this are indeed more likely to be looking for Quantum-Systems.

And no, I'm not unfamiliar with RFD, I have participated in countless ones already. I have been editing Wikipedia longer than you. Tercer (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I meant no offense. Good grief. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Then you might want to avoid such comments in the future. They are perceived as patronising even if that was not how they were meant. Tercer (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Longer? Sure, about 5%.

Also, less. About 65%.

SMH Paradoctor (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The consideration isn't whether someone looking for quantum mechanics would likely type in "quantum systems" but whether someone who does type in "quantum systems" is more likely looking for information on such systems, information that would be found at Quantum mechanics, or whether they're more likely looking for the book with that title. That's a separate discussion that can be raised at WP:RFD, one into which concerns about being promotional still don't come into it. Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

But I must say I'm confused by your statements that Quantum-Systems is likely what some, or even most, readers are looking for, and yet you find the hatnote problematic. It's doing exactly what it should! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The hatnote is problematic because it is in quantum mechanics, where it is shown to the vastly larger set of users that did not search for quantum systems. Tercer (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's like complaining about street signs pointing to streets you're not interested in. Paradoctor (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't WP:BADGER. Here I'm simply answering Myceteae's question. And yet you barge in to repeat yet again your opinion. I read it the first time. Tercer (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Reminder: you cannot exclude others from the conversation.

As for the rest of your comment: Not engaging with it. Just so there is no misunderstanding. No silent assent here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, then the solution is obvious - disambiguate quantum systems and have it link to quantum system and Quantum-Systems. --Joy (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's only the proper solution if there is indeed no primary topic for quantum systems, which is disputed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. My gut feeling is that the current primary redirect is correct, but I've no evidence and a wider discussion may be useful. Certes (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As usual, it's very hard for us to gauge the usage of primary redirects, because search engines evade them, so our statistics for them are largely dubious.

We can try to read the leaves from the external statistics. For example, Google Books Ngrams which indicate some steady usage of the phrase has existed since the 1960s or so. Google Trends seems to indicate a recent surge in interest for the search term, one that significantly eclipses the general interest over the last twenty years. Is it about quantum mechanics or about the company? --Joy (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's strong evidence that the primary topic for "quantum systems" is indeed the company Quantum-Systems. Also, if I search for "quantum systems" (without quotation marks) in both DuckDuckGo and Google the entire first page of results is about the company. Tercer (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The latter is not determinative, because search engines aren't the same context as this, they tailor results based on their own business logic. Still, it's reasonable to bring this up at RfD, so the obvious WP:Recentism concern can be weighed against the idea that we might be surprising readers who are searching for this term nowadays. --Joy (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

My quick search suggest to me that the article should be titled Quantum Systems (no hyphen), but I haven't done a thorough check and that's yet another separate question… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think our approach at RFD is better than reading tea leaves, though without a doubt we sometimes base our determinations on limited information. When a term is used in external sources, we can assess where and how it's used and make a reasonable inference that usage "in the wild" matches likely search behavior on-wiki. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the Quantum-Systems link is appropriate on the whole. Our goal is to help readers find the article they want using a combination of hatnotes, redirects, dab pages, and other strategies. We should not actively suppress hatnotes to certain articles just because there may be some commercial interest. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Classical mechanics is slightly different because there are multiple other meanings (two books). We don't normally create a disambiguation page just for one other meaning, because it costs readers one more click without achieving anything. Occasionally, we even add a direct link even when there is a dab. Apple links to Apple Inc. not because we love the company and wish to promote it but because it is the second most likely article for a reader to be seeking. Certes (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It does achieve something: prevents Wikipedia being used for advertisement, which I think is very valuable.

I'm ok with putting the hatnote on Apple because it's actually more likely that the reader is interested in the company than the fruit: Apple had 63,493 views in the last 30 days, whereas Apple Inc. had 163,941. This doesn't apply to Quantum supremacy, where the reader is very unlikely to be searching for the book. Tercer (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS. You have no policy-based argument here. Dab hatnotes are not promotion, they are a navigational tool. If it's good for some commercial purposes, that's not our concern. We're not doing it for them. Paradoctor (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I do, WP:PROMOTION is a core Wikipedia policy. Tercer (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no promotion here. None of WP:PROMOTION applies to dab hatnotes. The "content" is factually correct, and it serves an encyclopedic purpose. WP:PROMOTION does not contain any criteria applicable here. Paradoctor (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION is a general policy. It hasn't been discussed with respect to hatnotes specifically, but it has been discussed in several other contexts, resulting in the guidelines WP:LINKSPAM, WP:CITESPAM, WP:BOOKSPAM, WP:ELNO, etc.

(edit conflict) Might I gently suggest that, rather than deciding all on your own that WP:PROMOTION applies to hatnotes when the pages themselves are not promotional and then edit warring over it, you instead seek consensus for changing our existing policy? I haven't seen a single editor support or agree with your actions. See WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I refuse to engage with you, and I wish you would return me the courtesy and refrain from replying to my comments. Tercer (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what Guy Macon has done to you, but speaking for myself, this is a project talk page, and you cannot exclude others from the conversation. If you do not wish to reply, that's your right of course. Paradoctor (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't, that's why I didn't demand anything, but merely expressed a wish that he would return me the courtesy. Tercer (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Request denied. Stop the behavior that literally every other editor in this discussion disagrees with and I will cease asking you to stop the behavior that literally every other editor in this discussion disagrees with. Continue with your pattern of personal attacks and we will end up discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. I will not respond to any further discussion of user behavior at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. It is off-topic here. I ask other editors to also not respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time that we should actually discuss how it applies to hatnotes. Clearly you disagree that we should avoid promotion in hatnotes, but let's not pretend there is a consensus about it. Tercer (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There is clear consensus that the hatnote is beneficial and that this fact outweighs any accidental publicity it may generate. The author's name has now been removed from the hatnote, making it more concise and less intrusive, and I hope everyone will see this as a suitable compromise on which we can agree. Certes (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That was a unilateral decision by Srleffler, not a compromise. It's an improvement but does not address my objection. Tercer (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Your objection is unreasonable and contrary to many years of established practice regarding hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, despite you (Tercer) repeating your argument multiple times, you have so far failed to find a single editor who agrees with you. See WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Started a discussion at the village pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 89#How do WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM apply to hatnotes? Tercer (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No longer being discussed there. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

you disagree that we should avoid promotion in hatnotes

Do not misrepresent me.

I explicitly said There is no promotion here, that's an entirely different beast. Paradoctor (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Are you happy with "clearly you disagree that hatnotes can be promotional"? Tercer (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's also not what I said. Don't try to guess. If relevant, quote me, that's usually safe enough. Paradoctor (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Some people might interpret having an article on some topics at all as being promotional. Our function as an encyclopedia is to serve readers. If that inadvertently has the effect of doing something "positive" for some subject, that is a "necessary evil". Katzrockso (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your position. Do you think that hatnotes can be promotional? Tercer (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I stated my position here: WP:PROMOTION does not contain any criteria applicable here. If you disagree, the onus is on you to quote the applicable criterion from that policy. Paradoctor (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A hatnote that merely serves the required navigational purpose of directing a user who has ended up at the wrong article is not promotional. Of course the specific wording of a hatnote could be promotional. If you had objected that the wording of the hatnote in question was promotional we could have reworded it in a more neutral way. That doesn't seem to be your objection, though. --Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Your new wording does improve the situation, but indeed I wasn't objecting to the wording, but rather to the existence of the hatnote. Tercer (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If someone's looking for "Quantum Supremacy" but types "quantum supremacy" and ends up at Quantum supremacy, unless there's a relevant dab page that includes it, there should be a hatnote so that the poor user can get to the Quantum Supremacy article they were already looking for. That is not promotion, it's what we always do. If someone stops you in front of an office building and asks "Is this XYZ Publishing?" and you respond "No, XYZ Publishing is that building across the street", your response wasn't promotional. As far as the person inquiring knows, you have no opinions at all about XYZ, let alone whether you have favorable opinions about it. Largoplazo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That's the crucial problem. We're not telling only users looking for XYZ Publishing where it is. We are telling every single user where XYZ Publishing is, even though the vast majority of them do not know nor care about XYZ Publishing. Tercer (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That is how disambiguation hatnotes work. That is how they always work. --Srleffler (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

We can change how they work, it's not a law of nature. Tercer (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Just because you can change something, that doesn't mean that you should change it. We could decide that from now on Wikipedia will use non-standard fleemishes on the grounds that the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't a law of nature that just because the name of something appears somewhere, it's being promoted. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Making visible a link to an article about a topic that the vast majority of people seeing it don't know or care about anyway isn't advertising. No one who had no prior knowledge of the book is seeing a link to an article about it, with no indication that the book is worth reading, with no commentary on it at all, and thinking "Oh, wow, there's a book by this name, I really must have it." If you're going to argue that there may be one person in the entirety of Wikipedia readership who may end up owning a copy because of this link that they wouldn't have known about otherwise, (a) so what? and (b) that by no means outweighs the need to get readers to the information they're actively looking for. It would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is likely to convince the reader that this is a relevant book about quantum supremacy. And yes, this does lead people to buying and reading the book. So what? Well, if that weren't a problem WP:BOOKSPAM wouldn't exist. Tercer (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The hatnote's purpose is navigation rather than persuasion. The only things it will convince the reader of are that the book exists and has been deemed notable enough to deserve an article. If you wish to challenge the latter, AfD is the right forum and NBOOK has useful advice. Certes (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

As I already told you, I do not challenge its notability. That's anyway irrelevant, as you can advertise notable books. Indeed WP:BOOKSPAM has no notability exemption. Tercer (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been told by more than one editor that WP:BOOKSPAM does not apply here. You need to either accept that and stop mentioning it, or engage with it by providing a refutation. Everything else is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Paradoctor (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not a complicated argument, and is not based on WP:BOOKSPAM applying to hatnotes: if WP:NOTABLE books couldn't possible be subject of promotion, WP:BOOKSPAM would have an exception for them. It doesn't, because notability is irrelevant for this matter. Tercer (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not mention notability. WP:BOOKSPAM is irrelevant because the hatnote is not spam. Spam is content that harms the project. The hatnote helps the project. Therefore, no spam. That something may be beneficial to 3rd parties is immaterial. We do not harm the project just to avoid potential "windfalls" for others. Paradoctor (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Certes mentioned notability, I was replying to them. Tercer (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

+1. The guidance for spam, promo, etc. does not mean that we actively avoid mentioning or linking to books, products, companies, etc. when doing so otherwise aligns with our usual practices. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BOOKSPAM states

bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article

I think it's a very clear consensus from this discussion that the hatnote contributes to the article, via its standard disambiguation function. Please don't cite WP:BOOKSPAM as an argument against the hatnote. — hike395 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstand my argument. I'm not claiming that WP:BOOKSPAM applies to hatnotes, I'm claiming that if advertising books on Wikipedia were not a problem then WP:BOOKSPAM wouldn't exist. Tercer (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Then why mention it at all? Please stick to the topic at hand. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Read again my argument and you will understand. Tercer (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not an argument, that's you digging in your heels. Make a case with facts and arguments, or find something productive to do with your time. WP:DEADHORSE contains pertinent advice. Paradoctor (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And that's you being disingenuous. The argument wasn't even directed at you, but at Largoplazo, who seems to have understood it without any problems. Tercer (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOOKSPAM does not apply: call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article [...] do not add any useful and relevant information

The hatnote does serve a useful and relevant purpose: disambiguation. You do not seem to get that. Paradoctor (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is likely to convince the reader that this is a relevant book about quantum supremacy. Well, it is relevant in the sense that Wikipedia has an article on it; if it isn't relevant (i.e., not notable), then it should be deleted. As for whether it recommends the book to the reader, if having an article on the book isn't considered a problem on the grounds that it's promotional for the product, then neither is having a link to that article. It is at most a promotion of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not promo. A hatnote to a capitalization or style variant is a straightforward outcome of WP:DIFFCAPS, anticipated ambiguity, and the purpose of hatnotes. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• The hatnote is valid and completely standard. The only question is - I could see an argument that "Quantum Supremacy" with both capital letters should be a primary redirect to "Quantum supremacy", and the book moved to Quantum Supremacy (book). But even if it was, it'd still merit the hatnote. SnowFire (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  That would indeed be a more useful redirect, it just wouldn't solve the hatnote problem. Tercer (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no hatnote problem to solve. The hatnote is itself a solution to the problem that a reader seeking the book, having arrived at the wrong page, might have difficulty finding the right one. Certes (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Some facts: The article about the book was created 12 July 2023. For the first year and a half there was no hatnote on the article about the concept. A hatnote was added 3 Jan 2025. During the period without a hatnote, the book averaged 24 views per day and the concept 183 views per day (13.1%). During the following year and a half, with a hatnote, the book averaged 15 views per day and the concept 132 views per day (11.4%). The hatnote seems to have had no promotional effect whatsoever. Station1 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)