Talk:Hz

This should redirect to the disambiguation

The claim for redirecting "Hz" to Hertz is that "Hertz" is the "most common" meaning of "Hz". The "most common" claim requires proof, and besides, this claim ignores that in Wikipedia "Hz" and "hz" are technically the same. People searching for a different meaning of "hz" will have hard time getting from "Hertz" to the hz disambiguation page. Adding a yet-another hatnote to Hertz is not a good solution. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Proof is easy to come by, and if you had made the slightest attempt at WP:BEFORE you would have seen for yourself in a search that "Hertz" is by far and away the most common meaning. If we restrict the search to books to try and limit to "sensible" sources and avoid internet rubbish, the result is even clearer. 18 out of the first 20 results are for the Hertz meaning. Of the other two, one is a scanno and the other is merely a mathematical variable. In other words, none of them represent an alternative meaning of hz or Hz. The first actual different meaning is at result #49, and that is for Herpes zoster which has a different capitalisation (HZ). I trust you will now be self-reverting the numerous articles you changed as a result of this. SpinningSpark 14:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't be self-reverting correct links, and I ask you not to do that either.

I do ask you to come up with a solution that will allow Wikipedia readers who don't know about the different capitalization of HZ, hz and Hz to find which language "hz" ISO 639 code represent and which airline does the hz IATA code represent. Some people care about airlines or languages, and not about physics, and most people don't know the little technicalities of how Wikipedia works and how to get from the current version of Hertz to HZ.

A hatnote is the usual solution for such cases, but Hertz already has a few. Do you think that loading it with another hatnote is better than getting Hz to point to HZ? (In case my tone sounds sarcastic or bitter, this is not the intention; I am asking sincerely and seriously.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think a hatnote is the best solution, especially as the vast majority of incoming links to the page are for the frequency unit. I also think that the megahertz etc hatnote is not really needed as these are already bolded terms in the article. The redirects could, however, more usefully go to the "SI multiples" section. The hatnote for the car rental company is also not strictly needed as it is on the dab page, but I'm willling to believe that a lot more people search for that than ISO 639 code or the IATA airport code. SpinningSpark 20:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)