Wikipedia talk:Primary topics in WP:ONEOTHER situations

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Regarding the three dab example, we have this statement:

If animal page was/were moved to the base name, the 60% of readers seeking the animal article would reach their destination faster with the animal now occupying the base name. However, the 40% of readers seeking the book or the village would peruse the animal page more carefully and then have to click twice to get to their destination, once from the animal base page to the disambiguation page and then again to reach their final destination.

I'd like to point out that the primary topic article can have hatnote links to more than just one other page, within reason. Certainly if there are only two other uses, the article at the base name can have links to each of the other two. So I think the reasoning on this page applies to three and maybe even four dab situations (you can use Template:For2 to list three other uses in the 3-dab and 4-dab situations). But with five I think we definitely need a dab page. --В²C ☎

@Born2cycle: Yes I think it can still apply up to a point with three (and 4) articles, see Talk:Carlisle#Requested move 20 August 2018 and Talk:St Kilda, Scotland#Requested move 19 October 2018, along with the common examples of Turkey, Perth and Worcester. However the problem is that more hatnotes clutter the intro of the article, see the comments at Talk:Plymouth for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, Plymouth is not an appropriate example since there are dozens of uses of "Plymouth". Mustang is also technically not a good example since it too has many more than four uses, however the hatnote link there is a good example of how one might look on the article at a basename that has three other uses:

This article is about the horse. For the automobile, see Ford Mustang and Shelby Mustang. For the military aircraft, see North American P-51 Mustang.

I think this essay should be updated accordingly. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that point was raised in the 2017 RM discussion for Plymouth about having Massachusetts, Automotive, Montserrat and other uses. As far as WP:1HAT goes I'd say 1 works well, 2 is OK, 3 can be too much but 4 surely is. В²C do you agree that in cases like Birmingham and Perth it still works OK though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are fine:

This article is about the city in England. For the city in the US state of Alabama, see Birmingham, Alabama. For other uses, see Birmingham (disambiguation).
This article is about the capital of Western Australia. For the city in Scotland, see Perth, Scotland. For other uses, see Perth (disambiguation).

But these two have so many uses there needs to be a dab page. What I'm referring to are true 2-dab, 3-dab or 4-dab situations that can be handled with hatnotes alone; without a dab page. Since there would be no dab page, there would be no For other uses, see Basename (disambiguation) clause in the hatnote, making it less cluttered, as demonstrated in the modified Mustang example I provided above. I'll try to find an actual example with 3 or 4 total uses to illustrate more concretely. --В²C ☎ 19:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]