Jump to content

Template talk:Distinguish: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 527: Line 527:


My example is this:
My example is this:
{{Distinguish2|[[Phil Collins]]}}
{{Hatnote|To be distinguished from [[Phil Collins]].}}


or...
or...

Revision as of 05:56, 18 July 2014

Rationale for this template

Wording

The good and the bad... I can see how this could be useful, especially for articles with closely worded titles. But I have a problem with the template's wording. The wording is — with all due respect — a grammatical eyesore. It might also be construed as mildly derisive; that is, gently chiding the reader for typing the wrong name.

I believe that the wording should sound as neutral as possible (and should also be grammatically correct, like the wording used in other templates) — perhaps something like:

For a similar name, see [[{{{1}}}]]

-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 17:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "similar name", as not everything is a name. How about:

Distinct from [[{{{1}}}]]

or perhaps,

Sometimes confused with [[{{{1}}}]]

Or if we're willing to be more verbose, something like:

This topic is sometimes mistaken for [[{{{1}}}]]

Or even

For a similarly spelled topic, see [[{{{1}}}]]

It's an awkward thing to come up with a good name for. I agree that the current form is not optimal, though. It doesn't sound very neutral. -- Zawersh 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about:

    For a similar term, see [[{{{1}}}]]

    or:

    The title of this article is similar to [[{{{1}}}]]

    or:

    Another article has a similar title; see [[{{{1}}}]]

    In any event, I think the wording should be as concise as possible.
    ,-~R'lyehRising~-, 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets please all think hard about moving forward on this. When I first saw this template, I thought it was vandalized to seem much more informal than it should be. Even something as similar as, "This article is sometimes confused with..." although I think that I prefer any of the above options to the current text. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Articles with similar titles include", similar to the above; this seems to both avoid phrasing this in the negative, and allows a bit of ambiguity about number (one or many alternatives). +sj + 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. 'Articles' is a self-ref. I prefer the "more verbose" alternative above, or perhaps 'Topics with similar names...'. Hairy Dude 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I would rather avoid 'topic' or 'article' completely. I just came across the wording change on Malay language; there it now says "Similarly spelled terms include the Malayalam language, spoken in India." I find this wording rather awkward. Hairy Dude 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions of improved alternatives? I think the current text is vastly preferable to old text and slightly better than the alternatives. I'm sure there are great options that haven't been discussed. Personally, I don't think your example from the Malay language article is all that awkward. mako (talk•contribs) 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the current wording far from an improvement.--Ezeu 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a slight issue with this, in that not all confusions arise due to spelling. For example, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is distinguished from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" -- one could easily get those names mixed up, but not through a spelling issue. Joe D (t) 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ignore this, it only applies to {{distinguish2}} which wasn't updated. Joe D (t) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "distinguish from". It is consise and to the point. --Ezeu 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the new wording either. "Articles" is not the important thing, nor is it similarity, it's just confusability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I agree the current item is imperfect, namely because it's not ideal with a single variable, which is by far the most common usage. Based on the suggestions above and the complaints about them, I think these are the primary ones that fill the criteria of, not containing the word "article", being invariant with 1 or more variables, and not admonishing the reader. Vicarious 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Distinct from [[{{{1}}}]]
  2. Sometimes confused with [[{{{1}}}]]
  3. Distinguish from [[{{{1}}}]]

Incompatible wording for Distinguish2

The current wording of Distinguish2 – "Articles with similar titles include" ... – is not totally compatible with the original wording "Not to be confused with" ... (which was changed 26 April 2007).

The reason is that "Not to be confused with" ... could refer to (the name of) the article, or the topic of the article (the thing the article is about), or both, but "Articles with similar titles include" ... always refers to the article.

In the case of Malay language (talk), this changed:

{{distinguish2|the [[Malayalam language]], spoken in India}}
Not to be confused with the Malayalam language, spoken in India.

which is about the topic of the article (the language),

to:

Articles with similar titles include the Malayalam language, spoken in India.

which states that the Malayalam language is an article which is spoken in India.

Please remember that (the name of) the article and the topic of the article are different things.
--83.253.36.136 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original complaint was that "Not to be confused with" is grammatically incorrect. In my view that is unnecessary pedantism, as the phrase is widely used[1]. The current wording is not acceptable as it has made this template different from what it was intended to do. I am changing the wording to " Distinguish from ..", and hopefully the grammar pedants will be happy with it. --Ezeu 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wording seems slightly odd to me... anyone else...?
    Having scanned this thread, "Not to be confused with...", "Sometimes confused with..." and/or "This article is about X..." (i.e. {{This}} and the like) seem adequate, grammatical and in the general style of other inline disambiguation/redirection templates. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most would agree that distinguish from is an improvement, I also was okay with not to be confused with, but the current is fine as well. I don't think the disambiguation link needs to be a complete sentence. Vicarious 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one who doesn't already know about this template will know what Distinguish from means; I was very momentarily perplexed despite being pretty familiar with Template:Distinguish. Can we please change it back to something more understandable.
I've read the above discussion and I don't see what was wrong with Not to be confused with exactly stated. The syntax seems fine to me, though it is a fragment (which is even more true of Distinguish from). Also, it is a matter of opinion, but I don't interpret it as non-neutral or commanding (instead realising that is a short way of saying For articles about things referred to by similar wording that may be confused with foo, see bar), but if it is then the same applies to distinguish from but more so. (Consider that distinguishing means not confusing so Distinguish from is equivalent to Don't confuse with which is a more commanding way of saying Not to be confused with.)
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the original "Not to be confused with" to "Distinguish from". "Distinguish from" is too austere; it makes little sense when appearing at the top of an article without further context. Readability shouldn't be sacrificed for grammatical correctness, and "Distinguish from" is still grammatically incorrect anyway, being a sentence fragment.
"Articles with similar titles include" was never appropriate for this particular template; that should be its own template, if it's retained at all.
Can we try "Sometimes confused with" as a compromise for now? Or "Should not be confused with?"--Father Goose 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer the original wording for this template. With respect to the original complaint, I haven't found any of the recent changes to be an improvement, and the current Distinguish from seems a bit clumsy to me. I'd be happy with Should not be confused with as suggested by Father Goose above. PC78 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes confused with.." is an assertion, a claim. "Not to be confused with ..." or "Should not be confused with .." is preferable. --Ezeu 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "Should not be confused with", pretty please. I don't know for sure that Gordon Park (the murderer) is sometimes confused with Gordon Parks (the photographer), but they certainly should not be confused with each other.--Father Goose 18:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's try "Should not be confused with"!  David (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed Up

Hi. Something got screwed up with this template. In the past day, it has lost the indent and italics. It looks bad now. Can someone please fix it? Thansk. —Dfass 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass your cache. — Omegatron 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Dfass 15:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More parameters

I have modidied the template so that it will take more than the current two parameters.

Previously it offered:

{{Distinguish|foo|bar}}

Not to be confused with foo or bar.

Now it can do:

{{Distinguish|foo|bar|something}}

Not to be confused with foo, bar, or something.

or

{{Distinguish|foo|bar|something|something else}}

Not to be confused with foo, bar, something, or something else.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated 'and' is a little awkward. {{main}} and some other templates manage to omit the first; you could copy that code to do it. Hairy Dude 02:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in documentation

This line of the template code: 

<nowiki>{{Distinguish|foo|bar|something}}</nowiki> {{Distinguish|foo|bar}}

should be replaced with this: 

<nowiki>{{Distinguish|foo|bar}}</nowiki> {{Distinguish|foo|bar}}

for reasons that I hope are fairly obvious.

—RuakhTALK 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good catch. Took care of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) —RuakhTALK 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency between 2 templates

Shouldn't Template:Distinguish2 also allow for multiple items seperated with a pipe to ease changing from the normal template and so one doesn't have to come here to check whether and or or is used to seperate the items?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed, although it's possible I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. Example of clunky usage (in a case which certainly should mention these other three terms): Sensor, using the template, currently says: "Not to be confused with censure and censer and censor." Gah! Lenoxus " * " 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on wording

"Not to be confused with" is a common phrase without (much) overtone. "Should not" implies reproof, "Do not" is a command. I would prefer wither to go back to the original or use something like "Distinct from" or "Different from". On balance I think that "Not to be confused with" is best. Counter-revolutionary I know. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42 1 June 2007 (GMT).

Good summary. I'll second that; it may not be perfect, but it is the least worst and most concise (short but clear) option. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. "Not to be confused with" is the least worst alternative. It is concise, gives the needed information without being patronising. The argument that it is grammatically wrong is unnecessary pedantism. The phrase is widely used [2], and its meaning is clear. "Not to be confused with" is also the version that has been most stable. --Ezeu 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this discussion is about to come full circle. I'm happy enough with the current version, but I certainly wouldn't oppose a move back to "Not to be". Perhaps it would be an idea to have more than one template for this purpose? PC78 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also ok with the old version, I never thought it sounded condescending, and the current version is imperative which isn't terrible, but I think slightly worse than any faint lingerings of belittlement in the old version. Vicarious 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to be" or "should not be" are both fine by me. Or maybe "to be or not to be". The shorter alternatives ("distinguish from", "distinct from"), as I've stated before, lack enough context to make much sense at the top of an article.--Father Goose 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

——
A previously unmentioned wording: "Not the same as" ... – not saying it's better, just throwing it out here. --Fyrlander 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but not (in my view) better than "not to be confused with". --Not Father Goose 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate, hate, hate "not to be confused with", so I do prefer alternatives. Saying topic X is "not to be confused (in the mind of the reader) with" topic Y is still giving the reader advice. It's nearly as grating as "it should be noted that". However, "not the same as" as an alternative seems too mild to me. I'm sorry I don't have anything better to offer, offhand. —mjb 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm increasingly convinced that the best thing is not to mention confusion at all; just use {{for}}.--Father Goose 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to be confused with" sounds ugly. Please change it into "This term/subject/... should not be confused with ..." or something better, a whole sentence in any case. Str1977 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to be confused with" is a grotesque eyesore. It is often wrong. That isn't ever the appropriate wording when very same term can legitimately be applied to whatever it is being distinguished from. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't, because that is not what this template was meant for. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD notice

{{Tfd|Distinguish|Otheruses templates}}

I've nominated the Otheruses templates for discussion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. --JB Adder | Talk 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

{{editprotected}}

{{documentation}} please 16@r (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Gimmetrow 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit protected

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the period (.) at the end of the sentence for allowing additional text to be put at the end of the template. For example, 'Not to be confused with [[Mail]], a 1976 movie.' Thanks, this should save me some time so I don't always have to subst and manually remove the period each time. -- penubag  (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, tricky. The period is standard across most disambiguation templates, it looks like. Depending on the particular scenario you're running into, providing more parameters, using a second disambig template, or even continuing in a second sentence might also work. Is there a particular example of a situation you're having problems with? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I can't think of any situation where it would be appropriate to immediately follow the template with more text anyway. The whole purpose of the template is to eliminate the need for hand-formatted text. Some examples would be helpful. Happy‑melon 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*, subst takes 2 edits to make, but I guess there's no other choice. -- penubag  (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, just indent once, italicize, and write whatever hatnote you like longhand. The hatnote templates are useful shorthand, but only for standard cases.--Father Goose (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection request

{{editprotected}} Please update {{/doc}} with {{documentation}}. Per Wikipedia:Template documentation/List Thankyou -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Appears to use {{documentation}} already. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links do not work with {{distinguish2}}. I need to DAB between two journals, one of which does not have an article, so I want to provide a link to its Web site. There are probably other situation in which one might want to provide external links. Is this an oversight or a deliberate omission? --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect?

I doubt anyone would vandalize this template. Could we make this so only established users could edit it? That would give us a reason to contribute... 98.226.32.129 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. This template is used on about 4400 pages, and is used at the very top of most of those pages. That's what I would call a fairly typical high-risk template. So I say it should remain fully protected.
And why are you as an IP user requesting this? You wouldn't be able to edit it anyway.
If you have suggestions for improvements for this template then you can test your code in its /sandbox, and then you can show the code on this talk page and explain what improvements you made and then add an {{editprotected}} request at the top of that. (You can read all about how editprotected requests work at its documentation at {{editprotected}}.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I saw this template being used on a category, so it was necessary to put a colon at the beginning of the parameter (in order to link to the category rather than populating it). This is less than ideal, but can be easily fixed like this:

code
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{editprotected}} 

{{dablink|Not to be confused with [[:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]<!--
-->{{#if:{{{2|}}} |<!--then:
     -->{{#if:{{{3|}}} |<!--then:-->, [[:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]]<!--
                    -->|<!--else:--> or [[{{{2}}}]].}}<!--
               -->|<!--else:-->.<!--
-->}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{3|}}} |<!--then:
     -->{{#if:{{{4|}}} |<!--then:-->, [[:{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]<!--
                    -->|<!--else:-->, or [[{{{3}}}]].}}<!--
-->}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{4|}}} |<!--then:-->, or [[:{{{4}}}|{{{4}}}]].}}<!--
-->}}<noinclude>

— CharlotteWebb 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Luna Santin (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. I'll see if I can find any others like this. — CharlotteWebb 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#if: ???

How come that this strange #if: (which isn't a part of MediaWiki) works??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.162.223 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished article category

{{editprotected}} Administrator, please add the category [[Category:All distinguished article]] in the template {{distinguish}}. Triwikanto (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That category does not exist. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Per Trevor MacInnis. Plastikspork (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{distinguish2}}

Nomination for deletion of Template:Distinguish2

Template:Distinguish2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish has10089 transclusion(s) found
Distinguish2 has 2643 transclusion(s) found
using http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/
not exactly insignificant (quarter as many); and created after Distinguish (1) so must have originally offered something (1) didn't..... (does it still?)

Furthermore, the #link above lands one at the top of page in question, and a text seach doesn't find "distinguish" or anything like it.

 Not done– Discussion long over and forgotten at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_21#Template:Distinguish2!

Trev M  ~  20:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (et seq)[reply]

Positive wording - Distinguish

Not to be confused with shouldn't it be Distinguished from? It's shorter and better shows what to do, instead of showing what not to do. Tiraios-of-Characene (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best idea I've read on WP all day! Trev M  ~  20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate a line break per topic?

This template is the nearest I can find to what would be appropriate for some uses – any suggestions for making it generate a short list eg:

  • This article is about "Something": several word description of something
  • See Something else: for several word description (of something else)
  • See Something else 1: for several word description (of something else 1)
  • See Something else 2: for several word description (of something else 2)

(Probably without the bullets, and tighter lines, but left here for emphasis). I don't mind having a go, but don't want to reinvent the wheel. Trev M  ~  20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The period at the end of the sentence

I would propose changing the template to discover and properly format a sentence such that whenever a document is referred to which has a terminal period, that the template rids itself of the redundant period that ends the sentence.

  • Example 1: {{confused|etc.}}

Not to be confused with etc..

Should say:

Not to be confused with etc. (Note the missing period.)


  • Example 2: {{confused|...}}

Not to be confused with ....

Should say:

Not to be confused with ... (Note the missing period.)

I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not to be confused with appropriate wording

The Distinguish template inserts text "not to be confused with...". This is not only unnecessary, but violates Wikipedia guidelines on giving advice. The wording can perfectly well be changed to "distinct from" or "unrelated to" (both of these are appropriate in different contexts).

It is up to the reader whether (s)he wants to confuse the different topics, unencumbered by patronising advice. Pol098 (unrelated to Pol Roger) (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see I'm not the first to comment in this vein (see above). I'd comment that "Distinguish from" is also advice, to be eschewed; "distinct from" is a bald statement of fact. pol098 again, a couple of minutes later

Not to be confused with: similar appearance

Is it appropriate to use this template in a hatnote to distinguish two people who look like each other, but have nothing else in common? It has been added to the Carrot Top article, and this is a new usage that I have not seen. I couldn't find anything in the documentation about when this is appropriate to use, at all. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 31 October 2012: Remove the dot

Hi.

MOS:FULLSTOP says fragments should not end with a period; so I propose the period at the end should be removed.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Hi Codename Lisa! You definitely have a point about the MOS, but I can see this change being controversial, so I would rather not make it without there being a wider discussion first. There is a good argument for the period on pages like Amine where there are two or more hatnotes - if we took away the period from {{distinguish}} it might make the pages look inconsistent. I'm not personally opposed to the change, however. Perhaps you could advertise this discussion at a few relevant places so that more people can chime in? Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Protected: Merge "noinclude" line with previous line to prevent breaking Documentation template

Change 

}}.
}}<noinclude>

to 

}}.}}<noinclude>

to prevent the "green background" from disappearing in the documentation section of this template and other templates that reference Template:Hatnote templates documentation and its redirects (Template:Distinguish indirectly references Template:Otheruses templates, which redirects to Template:Hatnote templates documentation).

See the following pages to see how this change fixes the problem:

By the way, this is probably a bug in the underlying software. Making this change is just a work-around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The two examples given both have the main green box terminating early - but in {{distinguish/sandbox}}, it terminates significantly earlier than in {{distinguish}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider: What you see is the sandboxed documentation file I used to illustrate the problem. The line *{{Distinguis|foo|bar}} in {{distinguish/sandbox/doc}} references the sandboxed version of the template so the green box in {{distinguish/sandbox}} is not interrupted. The next line, *{{Distinguish|foo|bar|something}}, references the live template, which is why the green box ends. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

space

I think the recent changes have created a space after the first field when filled out. Cf. MelatoninCurb Chain (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal space is unaffected; but I assume that you mean vertical space: if anything, this should be reduced by one line. I see the {{Distinguish|Melanin|Melanotan}} directly above the {{primary sources|date=March 2012}} with no gap between. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was an extra space between "Melanin" and "or" because I wasn't paying close enough attention when I rewrote the template; I've already fixed that. —Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.244.82 (talk) (what's this?) 21:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:redirect-distinguish; "it is" not to be confused is awkward & unnecessary

I went to Domino's. It says, ""Domino's" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Dominoes." But why can't it just say, ""Domino's" redirects here. Not to be confused with Dominoes." (without the bold)? I think that the "It is" part of the template is awkward and superfluous. Wouldn't it be better and more consistent with the rest of template:distinguish to just ditch those two words? I don't see how they are helpful. AgnosticAphid talk 00:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit:Plus, it seems like if we were really going to keep the current phrasing that it would be better to specify that "it" refers to the article title, not the redirected term. I guess I'm trying to say that the phrasing is also a bit confusing now because "it" refers to a subject that isn't even clearly stated. AgnosticAphid talk 00:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering points raised in above sections, maybe a full sentence is in order? "PAGENAME is not the same as x." or similar? -PC-XT+ 04:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I thought about it a bit more and talked with someone, and I think that there is actually no reason to use a template containing "not to be confused with...", either individually or as part of a longer header. There are a lot of similar templates editors can use instead, if you take a look at at template:redirect-distinguish, such as:
  • This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. (for apple, it'd read "This page is about the fruit. For the computing company, see Apple (company)").
  • For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE1.
  • For other uses, see Redirect-distinguish (disambiguation).
  • "REDIRECT" redirects here. For other uses, see REDIRECT (disambiguation).
  • "REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE1, see PAGE1.
  • For other people titled NAME, see PAGE.
...And so on. So really, I can't imagine a situation in which one of the many other substantially more helpful and specific templates would be inappropriate. These types of headers could also replace the terse "not to be confused with..." header (instead of just "Not to be confused with apple(fruit)" it could say "For the fruit, see apple(fruit)"). So, overall, I think it'd be worth ditching the "not to be confused with..." templates altogether. AgnosticAphid talk 00:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have about the same view. I think we should use another one instead, if possible, but there are times when this one is more favorable. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_2#Template:Distinguish —PC-XT+ 02:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
At this time, there is no policy that supports abolishing anything on the grounds that one or two editors feel awkward about them. If you don't like them, you just have grin and bear, unless a community-wide consensus against them is formed. I am okay with all of these templates.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Could someone please remove the TfD notification? Thanks! Red Slash 22:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Redrose64. SiBr4 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Please tag this page for speedy deletion under CSD:T3 as it is technically identical to Template:For. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's clear from the recently-closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Template:Distinguish that it is not the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
compare Template:Distinguish to Template:For shows that they are technically identical except for line spacing and synonymous terms. Your still open TfD does not outweigh the technical comparison showing them to be the same. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Codename Lisa has undone the TfD closure. You should express your concerns there, since doing so here fragments the discussion and may be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 10 July 2014 - Put the deletion tag in doc

Putting the deletion tag in the template itself just broke many articles. Please put it in the documentation please!? Instead of the template itself. Or otherwise risk confusing articles.

DSCrowned (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: There is a reason for placing the deletion notice directly on the template. It is to inform editors of the deletion discussion who might not otherwise know that the discussion is underway. Sorry, but this is standard practice. Hopefully the discussion will end very soon and things will get back to normal. Thank you for you concern! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Per consensus in the latest TfD, the template should be left with the original wording, Not to be confused with.... Therefore the cuurent wording is against consensus, and should be reverted.Forbidden User (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but there is no consensus on adopting the new wording in the TfD, and I don't think discussion here (if there is one) can acquire a higher level of consensus in the foreseeable future. As this template is highly visible, we should not change it without strong consensus.Forbidden User (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would also oppose this change for the same reason that Forbidden User noted above. If I moved too quickly with this modification, then perhaps we should see this as an exception to the usual "change it back to status quo pending outcome of discussion". And this for the very reason that it is highly visible and drains the server for each and every modification. May I suggest that if there is strong objection to its present wording, then further discussion is warranted. And yet it wouldn't hurt to let the present wording stand pending the outcome of that talk. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an outcome. See the TfD close. If it didn't say that it is to be kept as-is, I'd be less inclined to this request.Forbidden User (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that "we should not change it wthout strong consensus" is talking about changing from Not to be confused with to To be distinguished from.Forbidden User (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Please help improve this template at the request for comment below. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and/or

Wouldn't it be better to write

To be distinguished from subject1 and subject2 instead of To be distinguished from subject1 or subject2?

--Fluffystar (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, grammartically and is better, as or is used in negative statements. In Not to be confused with..., it makes use of or.Forbidden User (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion! I should have changed or to and when the wording was modified, so it is now  Done. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Actually, it got reverted when I was reverting another edit by PE, but I didn't reinstate it because both forms are correct enough in this context and per MOS:STABILITY and the associated ArbCom ruling, editors must not switch between two correct forms. If you want to change one of the forms, you must first show that it is wrong, not "sub-optimal".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'or' makes no sense. it means you can choose between two or more options whereas you should distinguish all terms. --Fluffystar (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused with... is a negative statement, which requires the use of or. Should a positive statement be used in future, and will be a better choice.Forbidden User (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the number of brackets!

Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Example.

Due to some edit-warring a couple brackets have disappeared. Can an administrator please fix this? - FakirNL (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not edit-warring. I guess the last editor made a mistake. Contacting the editor concerned.Forbidden User (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix ASAP. It was obviously protected at the wrong revision. Unfortunately I'm unsure which is the correct revision. But the current revision is broken. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Hmm. Didn't know multi-diff revert can do that. I thought I was reverting to a clean version. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I liked "To be distinguished from' more. It is less intrusive to the reader than 'Not to be confused with'. --Fluffystar (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was a bit fast called it "edit-warring", but it is a much used template and it's important to be cautious with it. Anyway, thanks for fixing! - FakirNL (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous TfD was against that. Perhaps another can be raised, but usually at least two weeks later.Forbidden User (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FakirNL. For a series of change to be called edit warring, the element of non-collegiality must be present. In case of templates, the instructions of template editors like me are clear: Template editors are forbidden from abusing their privileges to enforce a certain change and block ordinary Wikipedians' opposition. Hence, at the slightest sight of opposition, one must revert to a clean version and start a discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wrong calling it "edit warring". - FakirNL (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment – 14 July 2014

I would like to see the wording of this template modified...

From:
Not to be confused with... or...
To:
To be distinguished from... and...

Discussion regarding this proposal may be found at:

I made this change earlier with the thought that the wording itself, which I've been planning to change for awhile, would not be controversial. As can be seen, I was apparently wrong and have been reverted. Rather than begin a whole new Tfd at a later date, I would prefer first to open this RfC. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support as nom. Some editors appear to feel that the present wording is too negative for Wikipedia. I myself feel that the content should be consistent with the template's name. There was a time when the content was consistent with the name, but then it was changed to "Not to be confused with...". This would be a good time to return the content of template "Distinguish" to a wording consistent with its name. (I'll be going out of town on Wednesday, the 16th, for about a week, so please enjoy the discussion!)
  • Oppose. The old wording is definitely better. As for the TfD, it was a hostile environment full of eye-poking and ear-pulling; I know it for a fact from good authority that several people refrained from participating in the side discussions to maintain their own dignity. (As I said early in my identity discussion when I signed up with Wikipedia, I come from a family of Wikipedians; this TfD attracted our attention good and proper.) Therefore, any seemingly side-consensus obtained there is automatically null and void. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is another good reason to have an RfC and perhaps draw fresh (and more civil) discussion from non- or less-involved editors. Joys! – Paine  18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{Distinguish2}} is a separate issue. We should focus ourselves on {{Distinguish}}.Forbidden User (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The new wording is not as clear, and there is nothing negative or biting or patronising in pointing out two or more similar names may be confused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be a matter of opinion, and if other people perceive the current wording as negative or patronizing, why not avoid that perception? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because none of the other proposed wordings are as clear and concise. The fact that some editors choose to take personal offence at wording which describes topics rather than readers is not a good enough reason to degrade the utility of the hatnote.
        If somebody comes up with an alternative wording which is at least as clear as the current one, then I will reconsider. So far as I am concerned, the important issue is that hatnotes are a vital navigational tool which is speed-read. They need to be as clear and concise as a roadsign, which doesn't say "please make sure to reduce your speed and come to halt". It says "stop" ... and any driver who finds that "bitey" can either get over themselves or get fined. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "To be distinguished from" is horrible usage, and sounds like nothing any native English speaker would utter except in parody. "Not to be confused with" is the common, colloquial English usage for exactly this scenario, and carries absolutely no inherent judgement. But if you feel the need to get rid the grammatical negative, use "Often confused with ... or ..." or "Commonly confused with ... or ..." VanIsaacWScont 01:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "To be distinguished from' sounds less intrusive to the reader than 'Not to be confused with'. It is also a common rhetoric concept to avoid negative statements and prefer positive ones. 'Different from' is also a very good alternative as long as we avoid the old wording. If there is no majority to support that change than perhaps we should create a Distinguish3 template and let editors decide for themselves. --Fluffystar (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, though the new template'd be more vulnerable to speedy deletion.Forbidden User (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I would like to make a comment toward JDDJS' rationale above. If one believes the proposed wording is "not clear", then maybe someone might please indicate another similar wording that is clear? I ask this because I believe there is clearly something wrong with the present wording when some editors feel that it "talks down" to readers (comments from the Tfd), and at least two editors (myself, and please see the discussion at the edit request above, where is found Netoholic's opinion that the proposed wording is "appropriate") who feel that the proposed wording is better than the present content. "Right" and "wrong" in this context are of course "opinions", so I am not saying that JDDJS' opinion is necessarily wrong, yet there was clear and definite disagreement with that opinion at the Tfd and in above discussions on this page. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is of course weaker arguments. Everyone joining should be noted. By the way, why isn't it a TfD?Forbidden User (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got your idea on the TfD/RfC issue. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! – Paine  09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As you noted earlier, it is a bit too soon for another Tfd, and some might think it's like kadh. Let's see how this RfC turns out; it's still early and I remain optimistic. PS left by – Paine 
It's not a TfD because the proposal on the table is neither to delete nor merge, but to change the wording. TfD does not concern itself with the effects of a template (such as its wording) and the internal workings by which those effects are produced. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not really a major mod, is it. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TfD is not for any kind of modification, major or otherwise. The lead section of WP:TFD says "On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed." (my emphasis). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if it's ok, but I have some more ideas:
  1. Different from (1) or (2)
  2. Note that it is different from (1) or (2)
  3. (From another user)Should not be confused with
Meanwhile, as it is a highly-visible template, only consensus with as much participants as the recent TfD can replace the decision at that time. Good day.Forbidden User (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas! Since 1 and 2 are more positive, maybe "and" would fit better than "or"? Just a thought. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what others think. I should insist that I'm just giving more choices besides the original and proposed wordings, not that I'm not neutral.Forbidden User (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very supportive of 'Different from'. It is short, clear, positive and unobtrusive. --Fluffystar (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment I should clarify that "concise" means using the simplest expression to deliver a clear meaning. "Simpler"≠"fewer words" ; "clear" means that the expression is explicit and direct.Forbidden User (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how about "For (a) similar title(s) with different meanings, see ...". The items in parentheses would be conditional on the number of parameters. I agree that "concise" does not necessarily mean "shortest". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm agnostic on the change. The new version is good because to me it's not quite as imperative, and it's also consistent with the name of the template. So those are pluses, I guess. But overall, as I said above (in section 26), I don't think there is ever a reason to use either the old or the new wording. There are a host of different choices that people could use that are a lot more helpful. Instead of saying something like "Apple redirects here. Not to be confused with Apple (company)," it would be so much more helpful for readers to say "This article is about the fruit. For the company, see Apple (company)." More relevantly to this exact discussion, even just "For the computing company, see Apple (company)" is a substantial improvement over "Not to be confused with Apple (company)" at the top of the fruit article. There are a lot of other informative template alternatives too. Yes, it is a lot of work to change these templates because they've been used a lot and you can't automate adding new fields. But just saying "not to be confused with" or "to be distinguished from" is not very informative to readers. So I feel like this proposed change is more of a step sideways than anything else. AgnosticAphid talk 02:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: Someone in an earlier deletion discussion suggested that "Not to be confused with" (or "to be distinguished from", as the case may be) would be especially appropriate for commonly misspelled article titles like capital and capitol. It's not a bad point. While I am partial to "for the building, see capitol" over "to be distinguished from capitol" atop capitAl, I am not exactly sure what you would put at the top of the article "capitOl." Certainly it would be awkward and verbose to say "for the word relating to either financing or the locale hosting the seat of government or a valuable resource, see capital". I'm sure there are other similar circumstances where having to specify the meaning of the not-to-be-confused-with article(s) would be difficult. But this is a narrow circumstance and I still think that this template should be discouraged when its use is at all avoidable. AgnosticAphid talk 02:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To Be Distinguished from"

I, too, seem to be an advocate of the "To be distinguished from" and "Should not be confused with" wording, although I would prefer the former since it's one word less than the latter or the original "Not to be confused with...". But, what I want to know is would it be OK to use the Distinguish2 template for the Phil Collen article?

My example is this:

To be distinguished from Phil Collins.

or...

To be distinguished from Genesis drummer/singer Phil Collins.

or maybe even...

Should not be confused with Phil Collins.

What do you think? WikiPro1981X (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is probably misspelling, so {{distinguish}} is enough.Forbidden User (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ありがと (thank you) for your advocacy, WikiPro1981X! All your hatnotes above would be acceptable and pretty much up to you which to use. Just remember that hatnotes should be as concise as possible, and that if something is already mentioned in the linked article, then readers who click will read it there.
And if you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could lend your welcome support in the above RfC? under the heading Survey? Thank you again! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about
For the Genesis drummer and singer, see Phil Collins.
 ? I think it is much more helpful. In most instances the "for" title would be both more helpful and also shorter, which is like the holy grail of hatnotes, right? I would suggest avoiding the "to be distinguished from" or "not to be confused with" if possible. AgnosticAphid talk 02:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Distinguish&oldid=617416542"