Talk:Dancing in the Dark (Howard Dietz and Arthur Schwartz song)

message: - A recent hatnote was reverted with the edit summary citing WP:NAMB (from WP:HATNOTE) as the reason. Maybe "it is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." but I would like to mention that the WP:HATNOTE page is an editing guideline which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
My question is this...
Are this hatnote and the similar version that was at Dancing in the Dark (Bruce Springsteen song) explaining the possible confusion between - arguably - the two most popular/well-known/notable Dancing in the Dark songs, are these two hatnotes worthy of being the occasional exception? I think so (as the editor who added the two hatnotes) and I'll explain why...
Because I got confused by the identical known titles (before the Wikipedia parentheses). I went looking for the 1931 song but first ended up at the 1984 song then had to go looking for a possible disambiguation page which ended up being Dancing in the Dark and after that I finally got to the 1931/Dietz & Schwartz composition. So I went through multiple article landings before I ended up where I wanted to be. I think other readers will make the same or similar mistakes. Now I know Wikipedia:Hatnotes are cheap is only an essay and doesn't have the weight of an editing guideline or a Wikipedia policy but I think it is applicable for this article and for the other article I mentioned above. So, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't see how someone interested in the 1931 song would end up hitting Dancing in the Dark (Bruce Springsteen song) or vice versa. When you put "Dancing in the Dark" into the search box, the first option is Dancing in the Dark, the second is Dancing in the Dark (Bruce Springsteen song), and the third is Dancing in the Dark (Howard Dietz and Arthur Schwartz song). If you are interested in the 1931 standard (or any other version), you would either select the first option and go to the dab page, or, if you know the Howard Dietz and Arthur Schwartz connection, select that option directly. I don't see why you would intentionally select the Bruce Springsteen song just to get confused. If you are interested in the Bruce Springsteen song, you will select the second option. Again, I don't see why you would intentionally select the Howard Dietz and Arthur Schwartz option. Having said that, and still thinking these hatnotes are a net negative to both articles, I'm not going to stop you if you reinstate them – I just don't care enough. Muhandes (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thanks for your response. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnotes - recent edits 

message: As requested, cited Fordin's assignment of orchestration credits on p. 409. Salinger also did the cut arrangement of Alone Together as reused on Garland's album That's Entertainment liner notes. (Annex p. 532). GBS2 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplied requested cite for Salinger’s ork