Template talk:Distinguish/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Distinguish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Capitalize article name?
The example on the template's page is
but on the article Coma, the article name is capitalized
Which on should I use? On the one hand not capitalizing when the template generates a complete sentence makes sense to me "bats: not to be confused with cats" or "not to be confused with the comma". On the other hand if it's just a link to the the article then it should be capitalized. Whatever the consensus, the example and the page should use the same style. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Error checking
Nihiltres, I just noticed a case of this where the article was the same as the article specified as the template parameter. Obviously, the editor that added the template didn't understand what it is used for. I have no idea how many more of these there could be. It's fairly obvious that something is wrong because the hatnote reads "Not to be confused with Foo" - bold text instead of blue link, so they may be readily fixed. Not sure if you want to add error checking for this one. MB 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
"Not to be mistaken for" or similar instead of "Not to be confused with"?
"Not to be confused with" may not be the best introductory phrase.
Possibly "Not to be mistaken for" or "Sometimes mistaken for" might be better in that allows auditory misperception as well as mistaken term association, as well as avoiding a term implying confusion. Thoughts? Facts707 (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with" is not the best wording
- "is distinct from" is distinctly better.
The template displays a hatnote saying that an article is "not to be confused with" another article. This is not always the best wording - perhaps never the best? - and can be said to violate the guideline against giving advice. A widely used template should obviously not be changed, but I would propose an optional parameter [added 14 Jul 21: or indeed an additional template] selecting a different wording; in particular "is distinct from" simply states a fact, with no advice or instruction to the reader. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pol098's suggestion also has the advantage of being positive – or, for the naysayers among us: ... of avoiding the negation. ◅ Sebastian 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
In the absence of anything better, I have been adding hatnotes laid out and indented like this (example is for The Right Honourable article):
[struck out later; {{hatnote}} should be used, see below]
Code:
:''The Right Honourable'' is distinct from ''[[The Honourable]]'' and ''[[The Most Honourable]]''.
Renders as:
The Right Honourable is distinct from The Honourable and The Most Honourable.
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- At least wrap that with {{hatnote}}: that way the hatnote won't get treated as article text when printing or exporting, and you'd also avoid the accessibility issues of using a leading colon (MOS:INDENTGAP). – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks, this was incorrect and should be something like
{{Hatnote|The Honourable is distinct from [[The Right Honourable]] and [[The Most Honourable]].}}
rendering as
Pol098 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, thanks, this was incorrect and should be something like
- At least wrap that with {{hatnote}}: that way the hatnote won't get treated as article text when printing or exporting, and you'd also avoid the accessibility issues of using a leading colon (MOS:INDENTGAP). – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason to have such a parameter: there's no scope for deciding between the two wordings on an article-by-article basis. If the current wording is problematic, then it should be changed across the board. – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- "it should be changed across the board." I totally agree with that, but I should think it's problematical to change a template that significantly changes the wording used in thousands of articles, which is why I suggested an option. From the interest shown in this discussion I don't think anything is going to happen anyway. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- This template talk page doesn't have many watchers. Maybe this will generate more interest if brought up on the village pump or on one of the MOS talk pages. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- "it should be changed across the board." I totally agree with that, but I should think it's problematical to change a template that significantly changes the wording used in thousands of articles, which is why I suggested an option. From the interest shown in this discussion I don't think anything is going to happen anyway. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep current wording, and no need for an optional parameter. "Not to be confused with" is perfectly fine; everyone understands what it means. It is a common and helpful phrase in the English language. It acknowledges in a healthy manner that there is a potential for confusion with other entities that have the same or similar name. To acknowledge potential confusion is to help avoid potential confusion. 2601:281:D880:7880:470:6516:462B:A17A (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Distinguishing between articles in different languages
Is there a way to use this template to distinguish between articles in different languages?
I want to use this template to say that Isla de Providencia should not be confused with https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_de_Providencia_(Venezuela) (Spanish Wikipedia; there is no English article for the Venezuelan island).
But I haven't found a way to do that. 2601:281:D880:7880:470:6516:462B:A17A (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)