Template talk:Distinguish/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Bypass your cache. — Omegatron 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. —Dfass 15:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

—Ruakh_TALK 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good catch. Took care of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I find the current wording far from an improvement.--Ezeu 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Oh, ignore this, it only applies to {{distinguish2}} which wasn't updated. Joe D (t) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I think that the original "Not to be confused with ..." worked fine. The current "Distinguish from ..." does not work because it is not even a complete sentence. –Crashintome4196 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• In light of all above, I've set both templates to use "Sometimes confused with" as something less stentorian and non-imperative. Hope most folks happy!  David Kernow (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Okay, let's try "Should not be confused with"!  David (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD notice

{{Tfd|Distinguish/Archive 1|Otheruses templates}}

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

Documentation

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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)

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)

 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)

*sigh*, subst takes 2 edits to make, but I guess there's no other choice. -- penubag  (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Appears to use {{documentation}} already. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done – Luna Santin (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'll see if I can find any others like this. — CharlotteWebb 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

#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)

Rationale for this template

• Some articles have deceptively similar names, eg. French Guinea/French Guiana, Plattsburg/Plattsburgh or Ultima Thule (band)/Ultima Thule (rock band). This template could be useful in those cases. Disambiguation pages do not always cover this particularity, and when they do, they are sometimes superfluous. Maybe "Not to be confused with" is better than "Distinguish from". --Ezeu 11:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say this is different enough from "otheruses' to be a useful addition to the range of templates, but I'd prefer "Not to be confused with". I can think of several more obvious places, like like the two Frank Lampards (father and son) who have played football for England, or cricketers Herbert Sutcliffe and Bert Sutcliffe, or Azerbaijan and Azarbaijan, or.... Grutness...wha? 12:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Not to be confused with". It was my first choice anyway. --Ezeu 13:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think "Not to be confused with" is ugly and often wrong for the articles in which this is used. Is this some kind of regional expression that means something different to some other people than it means to me? I'd limit this to cases such as "French Guinea" and "French Guiana", distinct things where neither term is legitimately used when the other is meant. I don't think it is the appropriate terminology when the term it is being distinguished from is also a legitimate term for the article in which this appears. Gene Nygaard 08:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This template dismbituates deceptively similar titles. It does not refer to synonyms. --Ezeu 10:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Then why is it on Vector Prime to distinguish it from Vector Prime (Transformers), to list just one example? This illustrates a couple of things:
            1. No matter what the creator has in mind, if it isn't explained in the template or its talk page, it isn't going to be followed.
            2. You, and anyone else who interprets it that way, isn't doing a very good job of policing the "What links here" list. Gene Nygaard 20:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • • I forgot to ask, what template should be used instead, for cases such as "Vector Prime"? That is additional information, which, if it were included on the "See also" line at the bottom of the template page, would help people in choosing the appropriate templage. And, do we really need different templates for those two cases—what purposes might be served by that? Gene Nygaard 13:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I do not see the problem. This template is for distinguishing from articles with similar titles (titles that are deceptively similar), but that refer to different subjects. All templates can be misused. This template is a merely a compliment to the templates at Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates, and when it is used inappropriately, one should swap to a more correct template. As for Vector Prime vs Vector Prime (Transformers), template {{for}} or perhaps a regular disambiguation page could be more appropriate as this is a case of two articles with the same (and not merely similar) titles. I'll go ahead and edit both articles appropriately. --Ezeu 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} seems to be the template suggested by Wikipedia:Hatnote#Two articles with similar titles for cases talked about above. It has the advantage of letting the searcher know up front what the choices are. There is no guidance in Wikipedia:Hatnote about when this template, {{Distinguish|PAGE}}, would be useful. For those reasons, it looks to be like this template should be depreciated. What do other editors think? --Bejnar (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It makes sense to me. The other day I went looking for Seton Hall University and accidentally found Seton Hill University. I think that it's helpful for the English Wikipedia to disambiguate similar-sounding topics, much as one might do so here. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Sums up my POV too. Perhaps the consensus is for the previous wording...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • I'm strongly opposed to having two templates with identical usage. I'd rather get my second choice than both my first and second. Vicarious 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

"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)

• Have restored the previous "Not to be confused with" as there doesn't seem to (have) be(en) consensus to replace it. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

——
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)

Not bad, but not (in my view) better than "not to be confused with". --Not Father Goose 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

That category does not exist. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Per Trevor MacInnis. Plastikspork (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Template:Distinguish/sandbox vs Template:Distinguish, [3]
• Template:Distinguish/sandbox/doc vs. Template:Distinguish/doc, [4]

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)

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)

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)

OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Perhaps "Not the same as…" or "Different from…" ?—GoldRingChip 18:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

• I cross posted this to template:redirect-distinguish. It seems relevant to both pages plus this one seems like it gets more attention.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

TfD

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

 Already done by Redrose64. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I was wrong calling it "edit warring". - FakirNL (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose - current wording ("o be distinguished from") is appropriate. --Netoholic @ 06:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Done Template editors are only allowed to perform non-controversial edits and this edit is evidently not non-controversial. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for comment – 14 July 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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:

• a recently closed Tfd
• a recent edit request (the "R" in BRD)
• other discussions above on this talk page

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose the new wording is not clear and there is nothing wrong with the old wording. JDDJS (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Definitely an improvement, and will likely avoid future TFDs for the wording issue. --Netoholic @ 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks like the template was originally created with the wording "Not to be confused with..." [5] The template is certainly not negative and it is clearer than the proposed change. I see no reason to modify it. Piguy101 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• I totally support using "To be distinguished from..." for the fact it is one word less than "Not to be confused with" or "Should not be confused with" I thus support the Distinguish2 template. WikiPro1981X (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Distinguish2}} is a separate issue. We should focus ourselves on {{Distinguish}}.Forbidden User (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • I suppose it is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Forbidden User (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• 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 ..." VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

Not a bad idea, though the new template'd be more vulnerable to speedy deletion.Forbidden User (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The present wording conveys, clearly, compactly and in natural English, the message that this template has traditionally been used to convey. There's nothing to stop anyone from using the {{hatnote}} template, or creating other templates if they really want, to express slightly varying messages. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's nothing wrong with the current wording. "To be distinguished from" sounds awkward and makes the purpose of the template more difficult to determine. ~jenrzzz (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose To be frank, nobody uses phrases like 'To be distinguished from' in everyday speech. 'Not to be confused' is a phrase that many people use in speeches, talks, discussions, and writing. I feel that the existing one is more appropriate for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The new wording is more clunky, less understandable and less natural. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Got your idea on the TfD/RfC issue. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

Yes, it's not really a major mod, is it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

I'm very supportive of 'Different from'. It is short, clear, positive and unobtrusive. --Fluffystar (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • That's too similar to {{for}}, and so it would probably get this template deleted.Forbidden User (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

Another area where this template appears to be more concise than {{For}} is when there are 2 to 4 comparisons:

from Alkane –

Not to be confused with Alkene, Alkyne, or Alkaline.

– Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"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)

The reason is probably misspelling, so {{distinguish}} is enough.Forbidden User (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Under what circumstances should this template be used without linking to an article?

An anon has been adding this template to 116 Clique to distinguish the article from a band without an article. Is that how it should be used? The template documentation doesn't elaborate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: See WP:NOARTICLE. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Rose64:. Not redlinked, simply text as in this edit: {{Distinguish2|196 Clique}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that this template just serves to help people, so its proper use is dependent on judgment, not rules. If there's some other topic that may be notable, even if it doesn't have a Wikipedia article at the moment, and which is reasonably likely sometimes to be confused with the article topic, then the template may be helpful. It doesn't necessarily matter that the reader doesn't have another WP page to go to to find out about the other topic; the important thing is that they realize that the present article is not about that topic. Mind you, I would expect such cases to be rare, and I have no idea whether the case you're referring to might be such a case.W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

While there might be some hypothetical possibility where a non-article link might be warranted as IAR, in general, the purpose of hatnotes is to help readers locate other articles. A non-article hatnote would be subject to verifiability and I don't think anyone would want to see a footnote in a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:HAT says "Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page." I would say that if there is no link, it's not a valid hatnote. This template is just one of dozens, so if not resolved here, the matter perhaps deserves discussion at WT:Hatnotes. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This one is somewhat different though, since it also has the purpose (presumably) of stopping people from thinking that the information in the article concerns their sought topic. That purpose is served even if we can't provide any information on their sought topic - they can Google it instead, once they realize that WP isn't helping them. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see any basis for this one being different. It's always been used to direct readers to other articles. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you not read what I just wrote? I know you don't like changing your opinion on anything, but you could at least respond to what another person writes, instead of just claiming "not to see". The fact that something has "always been done" doesn't mean that doing differently must be wrong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean, a case where this might be important (and may be similar to the case that provoked this discussion, I don't know) is if there are two hockey players, say, with the same name, and we have an article about only one of them (because the other one is just the other side of our arbitrary boundaries of notability, or else is potentially notable but hasn't had an article created yet). It's important not just for preventing reader confusion, but also for avoiding potential damage to reputation (and perhaps also for stopping editors from adding information to the wrong article), that it be made clear in a prominent way that this person is not that person. Maybe there's a better way, but this template seems a good enough method on the face of it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we bring this back to the original question?

Should they only link to articles or can we, as in this case, offer distinguishing from a similarly named band? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we obviously can, if we think that the upsides (prevention of potential confusion to some readers) outweigh the downsides (unnecessary distraction to most readers). I think we've established that it would be very unusual, but that doesn't mean it must necessarily be wrong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the subject should be specific to this template, so I've left notes at WT:Hatnote and WT:WPDAB. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If the hatnote is making factual claims, then it is subject to verifiability requirements. I don't think a hatnote is an appropriate vehicle for distinguishing unencyclopedic topics. older ≠ wiser 14:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"No article" does not necessarily imply "unencyclopedic". Verifiability requirements would of course have to be satisfied, as with anything else. What alternative vehicle do you suggest? W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not take your hypothetical hockey player example a step further? There are hundreds if not thousands of persons named John Brown who are not mentioned anywhere in Wikiepdia. Surely someone might be confused by their John Brown not being listed. But Wikipedia is not a directory and is not a catalog of otherwise unnotable entities. WP:Verifiability is a core policy and WP:Notability an important and widely supported guideline. If an entity is so unnotable that a stub cannot be written or that a verifiable entry cannot be added to some other article or list, the risk of confusion is vanishingly small. On the other hand, the potential for disruptions caused by editors feeling justified in adding otherwise trivial cross-references is significant. older ≠ wiser 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can assume readers will be aware that different people can have the same name, particularly one as common as John Brown. But if there are two relatively equally obscure hockey players called Bruff Nargs, and one of them has an article here titled Bruff Nargs (hockey player) (or just called Bruff Nargs, about a hockey player) you can surely see that confusion is likely to arise, and that it would be a good idea (i.e. would help people) to try to prevent that confusion with a hatnote? Anyway, I don't know of such a situation in reality, so I'm not going to continue discussing it until some such actually arises. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, if they are in fact equally obscure, then both should either have or not have a mention in Wikipedia. If one does not satisfy even the minimalist criteria for a verifiable mention within some other article or list, then no I do not see any significant potential for confusion. older ≠ wiser 22:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not. It opens up a can of worms of editors being able to add the name of their favourite band/book/teacher/pet to the top of a similarly named WP article without any need for it to be notable. Bands are a particular problem as, at least in the UK, every major act of a certain vintage has dozens of tribute bands all with deliberately very similar names. But given that notability would not apply there's nothing to stop any individual an editor has heard of being mentioned at the top of e.g. a BLP. And once one is added then what's to stop dozens more being added?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds

Some kind of "at least close to notability" requirement would obviously have to apply. By which I don't mean we should make rules for this or even bother discussing it much further except in relation to some specific case; I'm just making the general point (unfortunately often ignored by the people who deal with disambiguation-related tasks on WP) that rules on WP never have to be enforced just for the sake of it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If the other entity is somewhere close to notability, and is verifiable, then it should be possible to add a mention of it to an existing article and link there in a hatnote: thus "196 Clique" could be mentioned, with a reliable source, in the article on their home town, or record label, or genre of music. If no verifiable information can be found to support such a mention, they don't belong in a hatnote - just as disambiguation pages do not include information other than links to existing Wikipedia articles. So I would oppose the use of unlinked hatnotes. Hatnotes are to link to other WP articles: no article, and no mention in any article, means no hatnote. PamD 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but there may still be cases where no mention in any other article would be justified (or hasn't been made yet), and yet the possibility of confusion might reasonably be expected to exist (see my hypothetical hockey player example somewhere up the page - we might know only that he was born in London and played for some team, and neither of those things is enough to justify a mention in any other article). You don't give any reasons for your opposition, you just state it (like other disambiguation people doubtless will) as if it's a predetermined rule. Anyway, I don't think this Clique 196 deserves a hatnote - not because of its not having an article (which in itself is somewhat irrelevant to the potential likelihood of readers' being confused) but because the name isn't similar enough to the name of the band in the article. If the name was identical or virtually so, and the other band had something approaching notability, then it would clearly be to everyone's advantage (readers, editors, both bands) to have a hatnote, regardless of whether the other band could be shoe-horned into some other article. But it would still probably be opposed vigorously by the disambiguation rulemongers. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unlinked hatnotes, which give undue weight to topics whose notability has not been established. If the editors of the 116 Clique article feel that this other group 196 Clique might be confused with their group because of the similar name, then make the distinction in the 116 Clique article's lead section, providing a reference demonstrating the other group's existence, such as their official website. The fact they exist would be a lower bar than demonstrating notability through mentions by third-party reliable sources. This would be particularly appropriate if "116" feel that "196" is infringing on their name. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me, as long as you don't then get another group of rulemongers saying "...no reliable source has made the connection between this and the article topic..." (When I say "sounds cool", I mean in the more hypothetical case where the names are practically identical - I still don't think it's necessary in this xxx Clique case.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• None per WP:NOARTICLE (to answer original question), and per PamD. A mention elsewhere yes. Widefox; talk 13:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Template not working

Resolved

The template is suddenly giving issues. Example is on Windows Mobile and Windows Phone. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change to the template. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I re-reverted you and changed the {{{4}}} to a {{{3}}} for the third parameter link if there was no fourth parameter and fixed this issue correctly. Rsrikanth05, my one bit change seems to have resolved your issue, please report back if you find any new errors with the template and I'll happily correct them. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, Technical 13. As always, you're a hero!

It was unlucky that the fault didn't show up on my sandbox test. Anyway, I added new tests there.

A little background: I made the change after a request for it was filed in Module talk:Hatnote § Just a note

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

“Or”→“nor”?

Shouldn’t the “or” in Not to be confused with X or Y and Not to be confused with X, Y, or Z be changed to “nor”?
―PapíDimmi (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so: there's no "neither" in there, and it wouldn't make sense to add one. The sentence would have to be recast as To be confused with neither X or Y., at which point it would need a "nor", but as it is, I think it's okay. --McGeddon (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Grammatically, the sentence does not require the word “neither.” “Nor” would fit better in the sentence “Not to be confused with X or Y,” because you’re not saying “Don’t confuse it with X, or don’t confuse it with Y”; you’re saying “Don’t confuse it with X, and don’t confuse it with Y,” a.k.a. “It shouldn’t be confused with neither X nor Y.”
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"shouldn't be confused with neither" is a double negative - the sentence would have to be "it shouldn't be confused with either" or "it should be confused with neither". --McGeddon (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

To reply to the original question: No. "Or" is correct in these phrases. ("Nor" is usually only used after "Neither", or in phrases like "Nor yet ...", but not in the sort of phrases this template produces.) PamD 11:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Imperative mood

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says (search for imperative mood) that Wikipedia should not tell the reader what to do. This templates text Not to be confused with is a very thinly disguised imperative mood. It tells the reader: Distinguish between X and Y. It should be replaced with an informational statement. Something like There is another article about .... --Ettrig (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the text of this template is perfectly sensible (concise, good English, etc.). You are citing language from a section about Wikipedia not being an instruction manual. There is no way this template contributes to Wikipedia being an instruction manual. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional parameter

In Oh-My-God particle, there is the hatnote:

This page is about the cosmic ray. For the particle also known as the God particle, see Higgs boson.

Wouldn't it be better to set a distinguish hatnote, which then however would require an additional parameter:

Not to be confused with the God Particle, the Higgs Boson.

Opinions? --KnightMove (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for the same option, which I think is needed at Ray Charles (musician, born 1918).

I was going to suggest {{Distinguish2}}, but that's already taken, and {{Distinguish3}} is probably getting out of hand.

The alternative of course, is {{About}}, but that forces you to come up with a pithy description of the page you're on, which might not be necessary. (In the case of Ray Charles, I don't want to say "This article is about Ray Charles, the musician born in 1918...", or anything like that.)

Another example is Todros ben Joseph Abulafia. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Scs: You can use {{about}} with empty first parameter. I use it a lot when there is an existing {{for}} and I want to add a 2nd alternative which "for" doesn't allow but "about" does. PamD 12:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the tip. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, {{Distinguish2}} is flexible enough for what is needed in my case - thx! --KnightMove (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Useful examples with markup/code

Can someone more familiar with this template please write some actual, useful examples that include the markup/code and examples of the parameters? The two example currently in the documentation only show output which is not at all helpful for editors who need to know how to generate that output. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

Please add {{subst:Tfm}} tags to this template and to {{distinguish}}, per a nomination by feminist. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please wrap the Tfm template with <noinclude></noinclude>. It's currently being transcluded everywhere, which messes up articles.Tvx1 00:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems to have already been done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing

There is nothing in the instructions to copy and paste into the article where you want to use it. I am sorry to say so, but this article is time-wasting and useless. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to make sure that Theophile Papin is not confused with Théophile Pépin (mathematician), so will somebody else do it, please. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not the most helpful documentation. But it also suggests that {{about}} is often more useful, where it's not obvious what the two terms stand for. I've moved Théophile Pépin (mathematician) back to Théophile Pépin because he doesn't need disambiguation - the two surnames are spelled differently, even without taking note of the accents. I've also added an {{about}} hatnote to each article, which I think solves the problem. PamD 18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Error with no parameters

This should show an error message when transcluded with no parameters. Currently, this simply produces no output. The most likely scenario when no parameter are given is that the wrong name has been used for |text=, eg.

{{distinguish|txt=Something}}

Daask (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to have become relevant after a series of merges after this TfD discussion. Pinging those participants in that discussion who supported the move and who are also technically able to edit the tempalte: Galobtter, JFG, Amorymeltzer, Primefac, is anyone able and willing to solve that? Also, it would be nice if the suggestion for allowing |t= as an alias for |text= were implemented. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Both done in the sandbox; but I'm not too sure if we need to introduce a potentially unclear (when used in article wikitext) abbreviation of |t=. Will wait to see if there's comment on that Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Oxford comma

I don't believe I've ever used this template with three or more parameters, but would object to it automatically including an Oxford/Harvard/serial comma before the word 'or'. Given that the subjects of articles are far more likely to be singular than plural, the second term would be at risk of being construed as a non-restrictive clause to the first. Maybe not the best example:

Not to be confused with William Wellesley-Pole, Marquess Wellesley, or William Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley, 5th Earl of Mornington.

Not to be confused with William Wellesley-Pole, Marquess Wellesley or William Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley, 5th Earl of Mornington.

The first case (unless you notice the lack of linking of the first comma) implies the second term is merely a title of the first term, rather than a separate individual or article subject. Lack of discretion over the punctuation undermines the intention of this template's use in hatnotes, viz. to reduce ambiguity. --22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO clueless example

I'm not yet call this remark done, but I think if I should get clobbered by a careering Savoyard lorry this afternoon, it will serve better than letting the matter drop until another mind looks at the matter from the same direction.
   I find given as an example,

Not to be confused with custom text, and foo, a common example term.

That's mostly harmless... but why risk seeming to be satisfied with recklessly casual distinction-drawing? Is your brain so addled by blather that it doesn't notice defective syntax, and waste at least a moment asking "Am I slipping again, or is it just the noise level?
   Which is to say, is mine the only brain around here that takes less time to process

Not to be confused with whatever text you prefer to mention first, nor with the commonly used example term foo

than does

Not to be confused with text, and foo, a common example term

or am I just the only one who thinks that one does more toward improving the universe than does the other?
--JerzyA (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Fragments

Is there a style or technical reason why sentence fragments produced by the template include ending periods/full stops? Ponydepression (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the full stop at the end of the statement, as in here:

Not to be confused with Foo or Bar.

I guess it's not seen as a fragment, but a sentence. All hatnotes end in a full stop. – Uanfala (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I'm referring to. They aren't sentences and I can't find an exception for hatnotes. I'd have thought they follow similar rules as captions—no full stops for fragments unless there are multiple fragments.Ponydepression (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, all other hatnote templates produce full sentences. As far as I can see, this template also produces a full sentence. There's some discussion at Template talk:Redirect-distinguish about that template having "It is not to be confused with..". Anyway, you will probably get more meaningful feedback if you ask at the MOS talk pages. – Uanfala (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright. That's fine. I've been annoyed at being slapped with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS enough to not deploy that here. Ponydepression (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description

How about if this template offered a way to easily include the short description? For example, in this article, we could use {{Distinguish|Jerry Lewis|desc=1}} to produce something like “Not to be confused with Jerry Lewis (American comedian, actor, writer & director)”. ◅ Sebastian 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)