Talk:Stage fright (disambiguation)

Fixing the various links

Just so no one thinks I deleted anything, all I did was move the contents of "Stage Fright" to "Stage fright (disambiguation)", redirect "Stage Fright (disambiguation)" to "Stage fright (disambiguation)", and redirect "Stage Fright" to "Stage fright". Sorry for the confusion. --Bark 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stagefright (bug)

Currently, most visitors coming to this disambig page are looking for this:

Stagefright (bug), a remotely exploitable software bug in the Android operating system

So, for the next month at least it would be good if some version of that link were at the top of the page rather than hidden at the bottom.-96.233.20.34 (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but alphabetizing the sections on disambiguation pages and putting "Other uses" at the bottom is the standard layout. Moreover, there aren't multiple computing-related entries that would warrant creation of a separate "Computing" section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited experience with the structure of disambig pages, but it seems like WP has a general article tradition of top-of-page somewhat-special-case inserts. That is what I propose here, leaving what is down below as-is for the long term. Especially warranted as long as google is not yet properly linking to the bug article. But I hesitate to be bold about this myself, since we are dealing here with a high-traffic user-interface matter. (The same comments actually apply to the Stage fright article, which now routes the whole world to the disambig page, which hides what the world seeks down at the bottom...)-96.233.20.34 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood. Unfortunately, hatnotes aren't supposed to be used on disambiguation pages, making them of no help for the disambiguation page itself. I'm rereading the guidelines to see whether including an additonal hatnote on the Stage fright article would be allowed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voila! :) This hatnote should get us covered very well. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hatnote!-96.233.20.34 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for pointing it out! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]