Template talk:Redirect-distinguish

Phrasing

"It is not to be confused with" would be simpler stated as, "It should not be confused with". This would not make Wikipedia any less accurate, but would make it more accessible to non-native English speakers, for whom "not to be confused" is a construct they might not have seen before. Jra (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is phrased as such to parallel the phrasing used by {{distinguish}}. I would recommend bringing this issue up on Template talk:Distinguish. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "It is" part of the template:redirect-distinguish is awkward and superfluous. For instance, 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."? I feel like that would be better and more consistent with the rest of the "not to be confused with" sentences this template creates. AgnosticAphid talk 00:46, 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 01:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. I am afraid I do not share the same concern with Jra or Agnosticaphid. First, non-native English speakers will have lots of troubles involving second language acquisition; trying to help them this way is so futile that reminds me of comedy film: a man who cared a lot about his suit removed a strand of hair from his sleeve just as he had done a couple of time before... only this time, he was covered in mud and some white sticky substance.

As for the "it is" part, removing that phrase turns the sentence into a fragment with a period at the end! So, this proposal basically turns a grammatically correct sentence into a grammatically incorrect one. I am afraid, Agnosticaphid, you just have to get over your feeling of awkwardness. Emotions are not good masters.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main template just says "not to be confused with X." So I don't see how changing the second sentence of the redirect-distinguish template to match that is so terrible, even if it is technically a fragment. It's apparently understandable enough not to have caused any problems! AgnosticAphid talk 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Other stuff exists is one of my least favorite fallacious discussions; are you using it to justify introducing a grammatical error into a temple? I'm afraid my answer is still "No". Templates are not supposed to rhyme or look consistent without a significant benefit-to-cost ratio. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well, first of all, it's not like I pointed to some other random unrelated template that is a fragment and said "LOOKIE HERE IT MUST BE FINE," I pointed to the exact same text that is used in a nearly identical template. Also, who said anything about rhyming; it's a bit ironic that you called my statement fallacious. At any rate, consistency is not the be-all-end-all of wikipedia, but surely it has some value with two templates that serve nearly identical purposes and are used in nearly identical situations. What I was trying to say is that if the "Not to be confused with..." phrasing was as much of a grammatical affront as you claim, surely someone else would have commented about it given how much more widely the distinguish template is used than the redirect-distinguish template.

Second, I think that you're just wrong on the grammar: the implied "the title of this article should" in "not to be confused with" is just as fine as many other grammatically proper and complete sentences with implied subjects like "[I am] just kidding!" or "[You] take out the trash!" It also seems to me that implied subjects are actually particularly common in imperative sentences like those two examples and the template text we're discussing. If you read the subject (grammar) article, you will see that "implied" or "zero subjects" are actual things and they don't convert sentences into fragments. Because "not to be confused with..." has a subject (the title of the article in question, which is implied), an object (the title you shouldn't mix that up with), and a verb (confuse), I think it's fine. Removing the "it is" is also substantially less awkward, and "it is" doesn't add anything to the sentence, at all. So if your only objection is that the grammar is wrong, I'd respectfully ask you to reconsider.

Third, the "it is" is also problematic because that phrasing raises confused about what "it" refers to. When I read in the "Dominos" article """Domino's" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Dominoes", does the "it" refer to "Dominos" or "Domino's"? Who can say? At least if we just say "not to be confused with dominoes" it seems slightly more clear to me that the "not to be confused with..." text refers to the article title and not the redirected term. AgnosticAphid talk 00:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've slightly reconsidered my position. While I still think the "it is" is a stylistic abomination, I've come to the conclusion that there's really no reason to use a template that includes the words "not to be confused with..." at all. It's vague and there are a bevy of more appropriate templates, such as This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2. or For OTHER TOPIC, see PAGE1 or For other people titled NAME, see PAGE. or "REDIRECT" redirects here. For other uses, see REDIRECT (disambiguation). More complete thoughts here: [1] AgnosticAphid talk 00:32, 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 to grin and bear, unless a community-wide consensus against them is formed. Or, maybe you should study MOS:STABILITY. I myself am okay with all of these templates and I don't feel anything to be abominable in them.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(←) I was going to ask just this! I think that “It is not to be confused with” is incredibly awkward.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Should not be confused with" is instructive.

"Is not to be confused with" is declarative.

In my view, the tone of the declarative option is freer of implied value judgement (no matter how subtle), and could fit better on an encyclopaedia.

Intralexical (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion Template_talk:About-distinguish#Not_prefixing_"Not"_with_"It_is". fgnievinski (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I know this thread is ancient, but I wanted to voice my strong opposition to the current wording in case of any future discussions. The argument is correct that imperative sentences typically omit the subject; however, this is not an imperative sentence. If we want it to be imperative and thus properly subjectless, we could change it to "Do not confuse it with…", but that sounds rather condescending to my ears.

Not only do we require a subject when not in the imperative mood, but we also often use dummy subjects, which lack explicit meanings. So, while it is not technically known whether "it" refers to the article title or redirect title (although I would contend that readers are smart enough to discern that it's referring to the most similar term—and, often, the article and redirect titles are so similar [eg Dominos/Domino's] that it doesn't matter whether it refers to either or even both), it doesn't even matter if the "it" refers to nothing! Readers are perfectly comfortable with constructions like "It is unknown whether the event happened or not."

As it stands, this template features a complete sentence with a full stop, then a fragment with a full stop. Alone, a fragment with a full stop à la {{Distinguish}} reads fine; here, following a complete sentence, it is deeply jarring. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternative pronouns

Is there a way to get this template, or {{redirect-distinguish2}} or {{redirect-distinguish6}}, to use a pronoun other than "it," for use when referring to a person or group of people? I.e. to get a result similar to that which I've written out without the template here, where "it" would seem odd. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)