Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6



Alabama counties

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alabama counties
 * Georgia counties

These two templates were created to replace the county sections of Template:Alabama and Template:Georgia (U.S. state). But they were never really implemented, and the main templates have been used without any problems. They are mostly unused and redundant to the other templates. The Alabama template is used on a few random city articles, but these fail WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. There's really no need to keep these. Kennethaw88 • talk 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The template Alabama counties was not used in "random city articles" but rather, the county seats of some counties, to link to the related county names. --Wikid77 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: A similar template, Template:Florida counties was deleted as WP:CSD in 2012, and these also may qualify. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The related template Florida counties was deleted (25 June 2012) without consensus, without a logical understanding of the wp:Overlink crisis. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP BOTH to reduce info-spam. Both templates Alabama counties and Georgia counties have been fully implemented for over 7 years, but removed from usage (see: Template_talk:Georgia counties). Meanwhile, the larger state templates Alabama and Georgia have been spamming the county names into many articles which do not need them. However, template Georgia counties has been removed in pages where it was relevant to the topic. If WP:BIDIRECTIONAL were a valid concern, then there is no valid logic which justifies info-spamming Template:Alabama into a massive 186 pages, as almost 3x times as many pages as the 67 linked counties of Alabama, as basically double wp:OVERLINKing the county names. Instead, template Alabama counties should be linked in the 67 county articles and in others directly related to those counties, and the county names should be removed from Template:Alabama, to unlink from 100 articles which do not need to link those 67 county names 6,700 times (100&times;67). This has been fully explained for over 7 years in the talk-pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:08/10:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't nearly as bad as you say it is. There are much larger nav boxes elsewhere, and Alabama has much fewer counties than say, Kansas or Illinois. It's not spamming to have the county list on any broad state-related topic, since counties are the next level of government for U.S. states. Any article that isn't broadly about the state should have the navbox removed. In fact, it's less useful to have Alabama counties placed on Heflin, Alabama, which is only located in a single county. Kennethaw88 • talk 14:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the counties navbox makes more sense on a county-seat town article, where links to other related counties would be expected. What part of "county seat" fails to relate to counties? As a variation of wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, saying wp:WORSESPAMEXISTS for Illinois or Kansas is no reason to not improve pages for Alabama, Georgia or Florida. In fact, Template:Kansas is linked in 570 pages, with 59,850 county links, as almost 6x the county-link spam level for the 105 Kansas counties, as 2x worse than spamming Template:Alabama. Spam is spam, and needs to be fixed everywhere, so the "List of amphibians of Alabama" should not link all Alabama counties, or why must 73 frogs link to 67 county names? Instead, keep template Alabama counties and remove extra county names from a page about frogs, or reptiles, or trees, etc. The solution is simple: just use template Georgia counties in articles about Georgia counties, not for Georgia frogs. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. For any US state, the counties are a primary topic that definitely warrant appearance on the state template, and we should definitely be placing the state template on each county article.  The only exception is Texas, because its 254 counties would make Texas way too large for usefulness; even with 159 entries, Georgia's counties section isn't so large that it needs to be split out (let alone Alabama's 67), and we shouldn't encourage the counties to be separated from everything else if they're not too numerous.  Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Convert/list of units/...

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jimp 12:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Convert/list of units


 * Convert/list of units/facdisp
 * Convert/list of units/item
 * Convert/list of units/item2
 * Convert/list of units/item3
 * Convert/list of units/itemnontable
 * Convert/list of units/itemnontable2
 * Convert/list of units/itemsubtemplates
 * Convert/list of units/row
 * Convert/list of units/rowaltab
 * Convert/list of units/rowaltabImp
 * Convert/list of units/rowaltdef
 * Convert/list of units/rowaltname
 * Convert/list of units/rowbr
 * Convert/list of units/rowbraltab
 * Convert/list of units/rowbrtop
 * Convert/list of units/rowImp
 * Convert/list of units/rowkelvinT
 * Convert/list of units/rownonote
 * Convert/list of units/rowprimedeftop
 * Convert/list of units/rowprimename

All of these are now unused, outdated, and replaced by a less complicated documentation system for the convert template. I am happy to explain how they worked if anyone is interested, but the entire set has been replaced by the six templates listed in the documentation for convert/list of units/unitrow. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. TFD isn't a good place to decide whether certain template components are useful.  A discussion at the template's talk page is a much better place to assess this, and if consensus concludes that we don't need these components, they should be tagged with db-g6.  If this discussion's already happened, point me to it and I'll happily delete these myself.  Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all Nyttend is right in general, but these templates relate to documentation so no complex discussion is needed—does WP:G6 apply? Frietjes cleaned up the list-of-unit documentation pages, and the templates listed above are obsolete. A notice has been placed at Template talk:Convert (diff) so anyone following convert will be able to comment here in the next couple of days. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question is there a reason not to just mark them all as historical and refer curious parties elsewhere? Furthermore, if there's creative content documented here that was ultimately integrated into later templates, it might be necessary to retain the edit histories for attribution purposes. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No need to keep outdated, unmaintained and so possibly wrong documentation.
 * re Nyttend: there is no procedural rule that says this should be at talkpage. Frietjes has a right to upscale the discussion to TfD. TfD is the tougher route (e.g., because editors from outside the topic can drop by), and so the outcome is stronger. And since this TfD is correctly noted on the template talkpage, no watching editor is uninformed (while the other way around could give prodedural flaws and so nullification of a discussion). I say: it is indeed possible to discuss this at the talkpage, but no obligation and therefor not a reason to close this one early. (Btw, I understand you meant to say procedural close, not speedy close). -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete these are all superseded. They can be speedily deleted under WP:G6 and WP:G7. Jimp 12:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Distinguish

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep template. The overwhelming consensus is that the template is a simple and useful navigation mechanism. Relevant points were raised on the template wording and on merging the template, but no consensus emerged on those matters. Further discussion on the proper use cases of the template is welcome, as is scrutinizing the current use cases and determining in individual instances that other templates are more suitable, but there is a lack of consensus for making a change that would affect all use cases. For now, the template remains as-is. Harej (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Distinguish

This honestly isn't necessary: for suffices to distinguish between similarly-titled pages, and it's misused all too commonly (recent example). This is the only hatnote which talks down to readers rather than simply pointing them at another page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think I agree. for is for resolving literal ambiguities, distinguish is for resolving near-literal ambiguities. For example, Senj and Sinj are not literally the same, but it's reasonable to believe that a non-trivial proportion of English readers could confuse the two because it's just one vowel of a difference for two places in the same foreign country. Or Liqueur vs. Liquor. It should be possible to find a technical setup by which we can count the number of clicked distinguish links, and see if we're just talking down to readers or actually helping them. We can pipe link them to something, like we do with WP:INTDAB. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing that should definitely be done is to produce a list of actual best practices to be added to Template:Distinguish/doc. Right now it looks like a free-for-all. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "{for} is for resolving literal ambiguities" you write - I don't think so. An example of personal perception, but not based on documentation. {for} can be used as a hatnote whenever the resulting text fits. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the personal perception of someone who does a lot of disambiguation - this has been my understanding for many years now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it's reinforced by Hatnote templates documentation - distinguish is two sections away from the "Other uses of the same title" introduction of for. I think the separation has been in place ever since the introduction of distinguish in there in October 2006. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Homophones and near-homophones should be marked with a proper hatnote distinguishing the two. Those make up a tiny minority of the current transclusions here, which are nearly exclusively swappable with other uses for no semantic loss. This is the only hatnote which assumes that it is the reader who is at fault rather than Wikipedia's naming conventions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard to whether they're a minority, I'd have to see a modicum of indicative examples first. That's not been my experience, and with so many transclusions, I'm not willing to just take your word for it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominatee has 28,000 transclusions; we can't just delete and redirect it to For because the latter needs one additional parameter that takes an explanatory reason as value. Thus, we can't have a bot do the replacement either. In addition, I really don't see anything wrong with this template. No prejudice against replacing transclusions and nominating again. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This technical reason can not be a reason to keep it. You have not proven an impossibility. Interestingly, you point to the "explanatory reason" required in for. It is suspicious that that is not required in {distinguish}. So this template is low on information&mdash;maybe too low. More on this below in my !vote. -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is plainly wrong. A substitution for works. It's depressing to see one of the few editors involved in this TfD with any actual technical ability making elementary errors like this which are then echoed by the unthinking mob. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, dear Chris, it doesn't. It renders:
 * For other uses, see Test
 * This rendering is worse than the current Not to be confused with Test, IMHO. I don't know about the unthinking mob (though it is a nasty thing to say about your fellow Wikipedians) but did assess the situation before I wrote. And while I sympathize sentiments about misuse, I don't believe anything that is misused should just be thrown away at all costs and I do believe that the status quo is more optimal than any proposal I've heard so far.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the vast majority of current transclusions, the latter is preferred because it treats the situation (being on the wrong page) as being a neutral event rather than the fault of the reader ("you have confused this with the subject you wanted to visit"). Nonetheless, you'd argued that it was technically impossible to substitute here, which isn't true. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "optimally" not "technically"; furthermore, I reserve myself the right to treat technical issue with due weight, especially, when it comes to template. So, let's just say I completely disagree for the last. If anything new came up, please let me know. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * keep. This diferentiates between different things with different names that can easily be confused.  If it is being misused then the misuse should be corrected. PaulJones (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already explained above.--AirWolf (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as covered by others above. Sympathy for misuse argument - for now how about increasing doc, or taking other action. Widefox ; talk 12:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. "For" is more of a see-also thing, for when we're saying "You might also find that thing useful", while "Distinguish" is for "Maybe you wanted that thing, not this thing".  Who knows but that we might some time want to reword one but not the other; merging them now or later would prevent (or at least complicate) that process.  Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's right. A hatnote isn't a see-also thing, i.e. for is also a "maybe you wanted that thing, not this thing". If it was see also, it wouldn't be on top but in the See also section at the bottom. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As Joy says. A hatnote is not a see also "thing" (a hatnote is non-content and is only used for the reader to help & check: Am I on the right page?). Being a hatnote, for does the same as distinguish.
 * Overstepping this, the description by Nyttend does not clarify the difference at all. Just as easy one can write for {distinguish} "... there is also the page ...", which simply mirrors the point by a bit of wordplay. I think the difference is too subtle, small or absent to be notable. -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I add. Reducing {for} to a "see also" (=more within this topic), excludes using it as in "but for the completely different meaning, see ..." (=to another topic). The limitation incorrectly excludes {for} as an alternative for {distinguish}. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, distinguish does not require a description unlike for. ï¿½ (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral. All a bot would need to do is change "distinguish" with "for|[something] commonly confused with this" or even replace the contents of this template with that and substitute all uses. Executed properly, "[something]" can encourage IPs to make one-off edits and even become regular editors. Or one could just reword it, for example to "Often confused with [1]".-- Laun  chba  ller  15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Commonly/often confused with" is weasel wording and introducing it into 25,000 articles is an atrocity. So, no way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The present wording already implies this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It is in imperative form and says "don't" regardless of whether many do this mistake or only a few. Any implication comes with the assumption of the reader. "Usually" however, explicitly states that it is frequently confused without attributing it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as covered by others above. I am not in favour of deletion. Fai  zan  17:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see it as talking down to readers. for is when a reader goes to a page and either sees from the article text that it's not what they want, or otherwise acts as a "see also" even if it was what they wanted. Inother words, it's for additional info for a reader that is clear about what they are looking at. distinguish is different. This is where a reader would not necessarily realise they've found the "wrong" article eg slight spelling difference from the article they really want and the article text could plausibly apply to the "other" article too. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It doesn't talk down to readers. Annotation helps readers. --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is often used for homonyms that are prone to confusion but not the same word (e.g. Hellen Jemaiyo/Hellen Kimaiyo, both Kenyan long-distance runners). "For" is not used in that function. I do find the current template lacking, however, in that it does not easily allow addition of text to say what the other subject is (not very reader friendly as will need a click through to see that). SFB 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep For me the template is important to determine between two similarities. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the several arguments proposed by Codename Lisa. An admin should also consider closing this quickly as a snow keep. -  t u coxn \talk 21:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not reader friendly to delete this template A8v (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, widely-used and not directly compatible with for. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep; it doesn't feel particularly insulting IMO. Rosuav (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep - Keep per Nyttend. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Quite important template, helpful to users who search similar subjects but close names. ///E C  GT  Mobile | On the Go 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nyttend; if there is misuse of this template, the individual cases should be fixed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted at Nyttend's !vote, the difference is so unclear, that "misuse" cannot be established. Even worse, the description that {for} is a "see also thing" is introducing a wrong criteria to check misuse against. All in all, it shows that this template is confusingly unspecific. -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Joy, Nyttend and Mendaliv. The Distinguish template warns readers unfamiliar with the subject of potential confusion, something the For template doesn't do. The Distinguish template is often misused, but that's not a reason to throw it out completely.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, snow keep. distinguish is used so widely because it's widely useful.  Even the example in the nomination for deletion is puzzling; rather than a mis-use, that seems like exactly the kind of well-considered, proactive, and helpful link that Wikipedia should offer.  distinguish is not broken.  Unician &nabla; 08:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The template does not allow to explain or hint the source of confusion. (More in my !vote below). -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Really, all hatnotes in the "for" class (for, see also, about, ...; for simplicity just exclude the main class) are about distinguishing words & spellings & meanings & ambiguities. They all describe in some way or another a possible confusion for the reader. Being hatnotes, their job is to help the reader answering: Am I on the right page? All these are distinguishing. The wording of this one does not add any information to the reader (check two dozen of these hatnotes, and see how many are saying the same: "there is also a page named ...").
 * Even worse. As Codename Lisa pointed out above, {distiunguish} has no parameter to clarify the source of confusion (spelling? meaning? ambiguous?). That leaves the reader to find out for themselves wat that confusion stems from. That is a mental load. So this is a bad template.
 * And I notice that its documentation is missing. There is no description on when to use it and when not. Understandably so, because the difference with similar hatnotes is subtle, absent or even a personal perception. (Try proposing a documentation at the talkpage, you'll meet the same language maze as is in this thread). Quite simple: compared to other hatnotes like {for}, {see also}, {about} this one does not add information. It withholds it.
 * As for process, the template could be declared deprecated for now (out of sight!), and instances should use another template to add information. If that is a manual thing, it be so. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The distinction is fairly intuitive. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That intuition is misleading us, ending up in different outcomes. From above: Joy, 08:39: "{for} is for resolving literal ambiguities". Nope. Nyttend, 13:13: "'For' is more of a see-also thing, ..." Nope. Mendaliv, 04:57: "if there is misuse of this template, the individual cases should be fixed." - impossible. Misuse cannot be established because editors have "intuitively" a different prescription. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't bludgeon the process. --Scolaire (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying. Please be more clear. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered below. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't really believe that you are trying to delete it. It is useful indeed. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The hatnote will not be deleted. It will be replaced by another hatnote, for example for. -DePiep (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Excellent explanations mentioned above, more say I not. SzMithrandir (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joy and others. Confusion can arise between two similarly-spelled things or people. This template tells readers that the things or people can be confused, and guides them to the right one if they've typed in the wrong one. {Distinguish} is better than {for} for doing this. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Confusion can arise between two similarly-spelled things or people". Why or where is it limited to spelling? {Distinguish} can also pertain to confusing meanings. Or ambiguity.
 * Another example of documentation by personal perception. That shows that documentation itself is unclear. Note that in the history of hatnotes, many new ones were not created from a need to fill an empty space. There was no scrutiny on overlapping meaning.
 * And, as Codename Lisa mentioned before (though with a different conclusion than I get), {Distinguish} does not have an option for explanation or clarification. So it does not "guide" the reader to the right place, it just gives a "maybe". -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To repeat, please read the essay Don't bludgeon the process. "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view...Typically, the person replies to every single !vote or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their !vote. They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have had your say. Please do not continue to reply to every !vote. It is disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why quote "arguing against that particular person's point of view"? That's called discussion. It is not my issue that others don't enter. I don't see anything wrong with that. - so what? And, of course, writing "every" is a bit too tendentious and useless. Why don't you argue about my points of view? -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! After three days I thought you'd actually heeded me. Never mind. I have nothing more to say. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's disingenuous in light of the TfD thus far having been utterly dominated by clueless editors opining to keep on the grounds that it showed up on an article and they got scared. The alternative is to allow for "snow because stupid", i.e. that no discussion on Wikipedia ever ends with anything other than a head count if there's more than a 3/1 majority regardless of merit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So,, you're saying that the template is wrong because you think it makes ordinary readers look stupid, and that ordinary readers who say it should be kept are stupid? Nice logic! Also, I note that you have taken up the very activity that DePiep, thankfully, has stopped. I recommend the essay to you, as well. Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's disconcerting that you're so uncomfortable with dissent against a mob ruling. That essay, for what it's worth, doesn't say what you think it says. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with being classed as "clueless" and part of a "mob" by somebody who is no better than me. Perhaps there's an essay on civility you could read? Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't be disingenuous. That comment was clearly intended at the multitude of editors providing zero supporting rationale, not the entirety of the opposition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I'm not clueless, just "disingenuous"? That's all right, then. Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. You deliberately misrepresented my opinion because it suited your knee-jerk reaction. And then had the nerve to take the high horse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't waste your time or mine any longer, then. :-) Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Snow keep: There is absolutely nothing I can add that hasn't already been said in other "keep" !votes.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Changing my vote to merge per discussion below. Having distinguish and distinguish2 in the same parameter with the "reasoning" portion optional would be the ideal solution, in my opinion.  Corvoe   (speak to me)  13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Lugia2453 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - Everyone's said what I've wanted to say. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat embarrassing how many low-information voters are involved here. I'd very much hope that the closing admin has a very full closing statement. Be aware that anyone clueless enough to try a NAC in response to the above will be heading quickly for a motion to restrict from doing so again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for that, changing my vote to keep. Comment on comments, not contributors.-- Laun  chba  ller  23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless we start getting a substantial number of non-keep votes or substantial evidence of vote fraud (e.g. sockpuppetry or votestacking), anything but "keep" will go immediately to deletion review. Unless vote fraud is shown, a discussion with current totals cannot be said to have anything other than local consensus for "keep", and the only reason we would overturn local consensus at a deletion discussion is if it clearly goes against general community consensus.  General community consensus says that templates get kept if they're useful, and that's what pretty much everyone here is thinking.  Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the grounds of what, that lots of people said "keep just because", and WP:NOTVOTE is just a scrap of paper? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , after looking through the many votes (mine included), a majority of people are not saying "keep just because", many are saying "keep because of above comments". That basically translates to "I don't want to be redundant" or "I'm in agreement with other editors in this case." No one voting is low-information, and saying so is just rude and in very bad faith. Editors disagree with you and the earliest editors covered 99% of the points to be made; that doesn't make them low-information, just considerate for not rehashing.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the template please. Thumperward's high-handed attempt to dismiss "low-information voters" is bloody offensive.— S Marshall  T/C 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't understand why Wikipedia would even think of getting rid of distinguish. Unless they were trying to get people to spend more time on Wikipedia confused out of their minds, but I doubt any such ridiculous conspiracy theory exists. Ever hear of "If it works don't, fix it" or "Don't make things confusing for people"? Keep It Simple, Stupid. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note This TfD was NAC closed here, but at the "request" of one of the participants, I've reopened to allow for continued fuller discussion. I'll note in passing that fewer "Keep, obviously" votes, and more "Keep, because..." comments (or, of course, "Delete because..." comments), which address some of the things Chris and De Piep are saying, would undoubtedly be useful to the closing admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What things? Thumperward's basic case is that 90%+ of debate participants are too stupid to be allowed an opinion.  If you give that its proper weight then no intelligible case for deletion whatsoever has been presented.  I think you were unwise to reopen it.— S Marshall  T/C 08:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That assertion is widely accepted, but doesn't actually feature in the nomination at all. That 90% of the comments here have no rationale at all, and that those of the opposite view are being told to shut up instead of "bludgeoning" the process by replying to the odd substantial argument, makes for a terrible example of the XfD process. That folk would then pile on to defend the mob by abusing the process simply to spite the nominator is remarkable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are bludgeoning it. Look, the reason I'm here is because of the hatnote on History of Hertfordshire which says "Not to be confused with History of Herefordshire."  That's not talking down to anyone and there's no pressing case whatsoever to complexify the template; you've provided no intelligible chain of reasoning to change it.  I've long felt that TfD is like CfD: a weird little backwater of Wikipedia that's normally dominated by the small number of users who've got any interest in it and has therefore developed its own little guidelines and practices.  We the community at large suffer this to happen while it doesn't impinge on writing an encyclopaedia, but we suffer it only so long as it doesn't have a large impact on the material we've already written.  If you delete this template then you'll break literally hundreds of thousands of old revisions, so getting rid of it is a stupid idea that I'm unalterably opposed to.— S Marshall  T/C 11:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no outright deletion going on here: it'll be redirected or merged appropriately. Old revisions will be transparently updated. In the case of your example article, a far superior solution would be a hatnote along the lines of . The current hat is lazy and places the blame on the reader. I've yet to see a single case where a fuller neutral hatnote wouldn't be outright better than an unsubstantiated, and it is very much a stylistic quibble whether the introduction of the assumption of reader confusion makes it better in any case than an unsubstantiated . Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your alternative is far too wordy, and I would revert it if introduced into the article. I see no basis for your claim that the current wording places any "blame" on the reader, and I certainly don't think it's appropriate for TfD to be the hatnote police.  Major changes to the encyclopaedia's hatnote rules probably belong at RFC.  I'd still oppose there, of course.— S Marshall  T/C 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that one of us has actually read the guideline, which conveniently uses as its example an equally wordy and very similar case. But feel free to oppose things that are, y'know, specifically prescribed by the MoS you're purporting to defend against angry interlopers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That poor straw man, shot right through the heart! Missed me, though.  Personally, I haven't claimed to be defending the MoS, and I wouldn't.  The way the MoS people come up with unilateral one-size-fits-all decisions that everything we've ever written is expected to comply with is arrogant and high-handed and it's always annoyed me.  What I'm in favour of is localised decisions made on the basis of whatever's most practical for the individual article.  What I oppose is a reduction in the range of choices editors have to work with.— S Marshall  T/C 14:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the canonical location for "Wikipedia's hatnote rules" is Hatnote (apologies, not part of the MoS). If the example there is precisely what I said it was, and yet you're arguing that to follow it would be a "major change" requiring RFC, then there's a contradiction between your assertion of the status quo and the actual status quo. It's not about reducing choice, but not promoting poor choices above better ones. Distinguish is a poor choice compared to the alternatives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And that's the nub of it. You think Distinguish is a poor choice and should be deprecated. That's fundamentally an opinion statement; if there's any pressing need to delete or amend this template, then it's yet to be shown. What the debate boils down to is your view that editors shouldn't be allowed to use this template, versus almost everyone else's view that they should. Very few editors agree with you, very few editors are changing their minds and a number of them have taken umbrage at your approach. I think there's an opportunity for you to reflect and learn here. It's up to you if you take it, but whether you do or not, the overwhelming consensus is against you. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.— S Marshall T/C 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After three replies, you're yet to address the matter of your claiming that my nomination statement was entirely in line with WP:HAT. That's dishonest in itself, but that you're further claiming that your proclaimed opposition to said guideline (and subsequent position in a TfD that experienced editors should have identified as a train wreck) is a simple matter of a difference in opinion is remarkable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never denied that your nomination statement was in line with WP:HAT. I don't see any basis for your claim that I've been dishonest, so I'll just add that to my list of bloody offensive things you've said during the course of this debate.  I agree that this TfD is a trainwreck and I invite you to accept your share of responsibility for that.— S Marshall  T/C 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, if it is talking down to the readers to say, "Not to be confused with..." then perhaps that text can be altered to improve the template? Any ideas? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Deprecate in favor of distinguish2, a better and flexible alternative. The text could also be worked on. But I still prefer a hatnote that specifically indicates commonly misused words and phrases, like Capital vs. Capitol, which also helps clear up readers' possible confusion. As stated in the last TFD discussion, "The template's name explicitly says why this hatnote is there: possible confusion. Its hattext says it too, explaining the essence for the reader. Exactly this preciseness or clarity is the helpful thing for the reader ... using a more general text obscures this point or reason (for the hatnote editor too)." (emphasis added) Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, after quoting that comment DePiep made last December, I just noticed a change in his/her stance from Keep from that last discussion to now Delete above. Nevertheless, I'm still going to repeat the gist of this argument: Hatnotes like distinguish and distinguish2 can clearly inform readers that it is a commonly misused word or phrase. The more general text found on for, other uses, and about obscure that fact. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The generic text found on for, other uses, and about is sufficient for WP:DABLINK purposes, when the reader is searching for an ambiguous term, and the reader definitely knows, for example, that he want to look up the Apple, the company instead of Apple, the fruit. But it does not clearly indicate, for example, that the reader is mistakenly entering "Calender" into the search box when he is actually looking for "Calendar", and that there is that spelling difference between the two. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I can find many reasons why you would want to potentially alert a viewer that the article they reached may not have been the article they were looking for due to a "confusion" of words. One perfect example (that I sent someone to earlier today) is The Verve and The Verve Pipe which are consistently confused with one another. In this instance the use of for may not clear up the confusion (without the reader fully reading both articles) that exists; whereas, distinguish handles the job clearly and concisely. I also do not believe it is "down-talk" to the reader, there was much debate when this template was created as to how it was to be worded and the wording choice used is excellent for it's purpose. Diomenas (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Deprecate per Zzyzx11, DePiep, and my comments in the old TfD. —PC-XT+ 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Got here from angular frequency which transcludes distinguish. What I see is "Not to be confused with angular velocity". Now I happen to know what angular velocity is, but if I didn't (like the target audience of the hatnote), I'd have to ask myself "what's angular velocity, and why would I confuse angular frequency with it" only to proceed to read the article anyway which then does a far better job of explaining what the distinction is and why I might confuse the two. As such, the hatnote is unhelpful and distracting, and I struggle to think of another specific scenario where that is not so. In any case I'll try to remember to remove it from angular frequency once this TfD is closed. If I was logged in and had any significant edits in the past 5 years, I'd be saying "Deprecate". 80.98.46.197 (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: nothing is wrong with this template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a reader, primarily, and sometime editor who stays well away from templates and complicated stuff, i don't venture to have an opinion for fear of having it (or myself) shot down by the proposer.  I cannot help but note, however, the inappropriate behaviour and language of the proposer and at least one other commentor here; especially foolish is calling editors "low-information" or some such while claiming a template "talks down" to its readers.  Maybe because i'm a "clueless editor", but i can't for the life of me really see how the original rationale isn't just IDONTLIKEIT writ large:  Thumperwad's perception of the tone of the hatnote is radically different from mine, and fairly clearly differs from that of the majority of editors giving an opinion here; that it is frequently misused is not a reason to get rid of it, but a reason to improve the documentation or usage. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any particular contradiction between not wanting to talk down to readers, and expressing dissatisfaction at the sort of completely inappropriate "keep, I like it" comments that have so disrupted this TfD. Contributors should not be expected to actually make our processes harder to deal with, which is what the above have done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's pretty clear you don't, because i have seen enough of your work to assume that if you did see what you're doing as talking down to people you'd stop. Nonetheless, i find your characterisations as least as disruptive as the behaviours you label that way.  I guess, maybe, some of the inappropriate !votes were felt to be sufficient in light of your similar rationale. Cheers, LindsayHello 10:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just glanced over the first handful of links that came up in the whatlinkshere. Having "not to be confused with arteritis" at the head of arthritis, or "not to be confused with Ahlen" at the head of Aalen is exactly what's needed there – not more and not less. Don't see the practical advantage of merging it into the Distinguish2 one (if anything, if the two were to be merged, it ought to be into the one with the simpler name), and would certainly want to keep it separate from "for". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, people obviously find the template useful, and no-one is being forced to use it, or prevented from using any other template or form of words they find preferable. (I usually just use to make hatnotes - saves me remembering the obscure ins and outs of various opaquely named templates.) And however huffy it may make the nominator, please close this obviously decided decision quickly, so we don't have this "see tfd" link on (presumably) 28,000 articles, adding to readers' confusion still further, and making editors like me come here to see what all the fuss is about. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I'm not the only one thinking of using Hatnote. I was afraid it was considered a meta template or something, as far as DAB is concerned... That may be better than either of these template, considering all the varied complaints distinguish seems to generate. It would give better local control when these don't seem to fit a particular article right. —PC-XT+ 01:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in many cases, Distinguish2 is more appropriate, because it allows an explanation of the ambiguity ... but there are some cases where the explanation may not be needed. I would support a review of the uses of this template to see whether it should be converted instead to Distinguish2, but I am not persuaded so far that all uses of Distinguish fall into that category. The nominator's proposal to simply delete this template may be intended as an exercise to provoke discussion, but that can be done by an RFC. Outright deletion, which is the action sought here, would degrade navigation in thousands of cases. As others have noted, for is often an inappropriate alternative. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful and long-standing part of Wikipedia. Exactly where has pressure for this change come from? S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to have its place. Chillum 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this template is very useful for both readers and editors.--Kingroyos (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems like dictionaries have already solved this problem with "can be confused" sections. Perhaps a float:right list of article links would be better, or even a navbox? Certainly, is more efficient in the common case that a reason isn't needed. Also, I don't think "not to be confused with" is blaming the reader for the confusion, but "can be confused" makes it clearer: the problem is not that people do confuse them, the problem is that they can be confused. &mdash; Darekun (talk)  00:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I find this template useful and its retention practical. The arguments for its removal are unconvincing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely needed for very similar titles and soundalikes, and I don't feel like this template 'talks down' at all.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but review usage. There are many cases where topics with very similar titles may be confused by either readers or editors, and Wikipedia would be improved by much more usage of hatnotes to direct editors towards similar titles. Far too many of those topics have no hatnote at all, leaving the reader with no indication that they may be on the wrong page, or forcing those who do know that the page doesn't meet their needs into using search — which can be a very inefficient navigation tool, but may be the only one readily available.
 * Outright deletion, which is the action sought here,  is incorrect and naive. The nom explicitly mentions the alternative, and every TfD closer knows that a Redirect must be considered. There is no reason to expect that the nom or the closer would create 28k redlinks. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, and immediately remove the link to this TfD from main space. Main space is for readers, not editors. This template serves a vital disambiguation function for topics which are similarly named or have identical names. It has a specific, niche application which isn't properly served by any other existing template. If it's used improperly in an article, then fix the article. The ID4 example given is not a case of intentional misuse - someone clearly thought that was a valid disambiguation. The editor who disagreed should have reverted and discussed, per WP:BRD. Nuking the template because you don't like the way it was used one time is asinine. Ivanvector (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be kept, and the notice in the mainspace should be kept until this discussion is closed. Readers of Wikipedia are the editors. Piguy101 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because Distinguish serves a different role than For or About. I arrived here from Homomorphism, which begins with the hatbox "Not to be confused with holomorphism or homeomorphism." How would this be done with About? "This article is about the mathematical notion. For the mathematical notion, see holomorphism; for the mathematical notion, see homeomorphism"? Or more likely, but not much better: "This article is about structure-preserving functions; for complex-differentiable functions, see holomorphism; for continuously-invertible continuous functions, see homeomorphism"? Many readers may not know enough mathematics to know which of these pages they are looking for. I'm also disappointed by the insulting, bullying behavior of the nominator towards those who have commented on this proposal. Such uncivil behavior shouldn't be tolerated, far less encouraged by reopening a discussion which was correctly closed with near-universal consensus. Tesseran (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This template has always seemed an unhelpfully mysterious way to open an article, warning the reader with a shrug that they might actually be reading the wrong page, but forcing them to click through and compare the articles in order to check this. As far as I can tell, this template can always be replaced with a clearer for; in the cases of homophones and common confusions it'd still be clearer to for-template the most obvious distinction so that most readers can immediately tell whether they're in the right place. The worst case I've been able to find from skimming is that Barium would change from the brief "Not to be confused with Bohrium, Borium, or Boron" to "This article is about the metal element. For the synthetic radioactive element, see Bohrium. For the tungsten carbide alloy, see Borium. For the water-soluble mineral, see Boron." - more words, but it gives the reader more guidance on what to check against before reading on. --McGeddon (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep - this is damn useful in its simplicity when you only have one other article to go to. It saves time and any complexity. I don't see the need for more complex templates when you just want a job done quickly but efficiently. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 10:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete under CSD:T3 as when you it is easy to see that they are technically identical except for line spacing and synonymous terms.  As such I've requested the template tagged for speedy deletion. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that two templates may be called "technically identical" if the optional/required statuses of arguments don't match.


 * Not to mention that their user-visible output differs in everything but supplied arguments. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the speedy request misplaced. Anyone who thinks a deletion may be contested can go to TfD. Nom has done so correctly. As one can read in this thread, afterwards the judgement is to the point. IOW: once a TfD, one can not go back (unless the situation is more clear). -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with more versatile Distinguish2. This can be achieved by bot task, simply subst'ing the output of Distinguish and incorporating it as the text in Distinguish2. This will then allow users to add short descriptions where necessary. I'm a little sad that this wasn't the original proposition as addressing the problem within the template would have been a far less controversial choice. SFB 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and emphatically Do not merge with Distinguish2. I do not get any feeling that I am being "talked down to" with this template; however, that's just me.  I would suggest rewording the template (I almost did awhile back and have no memory why I didn't) to something like, "This title is to be distinguished from  ."  It  is  "Template:Distinguish" after all.  A merge with "Distinguish2" is undesirable because that template takes only one parameter.  There are many instances where a title is "not to be confused with" more than one other title.  Very strong "keep", rethink and "reword". –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  08:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. In comparison with for, this template contextualises the mistake of the reader and is no way 'talking down' to the reader – especially when it is still worded in an impersonal and passive way. If giving directions to places with similar names you would say, for example, "Don't confuse Hampden with Hampton", not "For Hampden, don't go to Hampton". My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were giving directions, then it would be obtuse if the first thing you responded with was "are you sure you're not getting confused with Hampton?" without actually explaining the difference. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were giving directions, then it would be disrespectful if you explained the difference after asking "Are you sure you want to Londin, not London?" You made a wonderful job of proving that distinguish isn't fit for use cases of for, but nobody argue that it is. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that it wasn't an analogy that supported the editor's assertions, not that it was a great one for my own. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep and not merge with distinguish2: Deleting it would mean that we are going to say "For other uses, see (eg. Lindon)" - shouldn't it be some disambiguation instead? I believe that this template has reasons to exist by itself:
 * When spelling confusion between two different subjects occurs, this template is particularly useful, like yttrium and ytterbium. Obviously the subjects are not similar, and it is not suitable to use a for template to clarify that.
 * The "short discribtion" is often not needed, as the reason of using the template is most probably spelling confusion. As mentioned above, it would be inconvenient if the template now only takes one parameter. The example below is extreme and made-up, but requiring the addition of commas, wikilinks (and "or") for every target instead of conveniently adding parameters would contravine the purpose of templates, which is to make editing more convenient. I'd prefer having the freedom to choose between the two templates.

Additional comment:I guess the appropriacy of a person's comment is not the topic here. By the way, this discussion fits WP:Snow quite well, with really few Wikipedians supporting the deletion compared to those who support.Forbidden User (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the reason for using for or about is that distinguish is lazy and put the blame on readers (I saw it somewhere in the debate), then why don't we abolish Welcome IP and type the whole message ourselves as that would be more sincere? This is an explicit example supporting distinguish to be kept.Forbidden User (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that this is completely wrong: in the case of similar spellings, it is imperative that the hatnote explains the difference between the two, because the reader isn't going to know which page is which by spelling alone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool down, guy. I know it's frustrating when almost no one is with you. First of all, you have almost completely ignored the convenience factor, as far as I know. Secondly, there are quite a lot of instances where it is impossible to explain the difference clearly (like yttrium and ytterbium - why not try to distinguish the two in ten words?) or it is not needed (like Ronaldo and Ronaldinho - the two are widely distinguished in public media, etc, though they actually have the same name). In another sense, those who cannot distinguish the two very probably don't know their nationality or the teams they serve(d), making other templates undesirable.Forbidden User (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume a chemist could provide a good ten-word yttrium/ytterbium distinction, and that putting it at the top of both articles would save time for other chemists, who are presently being asked to skim both lede sections if they're not sure which article they wanted. And non-chemists would at least know that the other article was about another chemical element, rather than being a "did you mean...?" typo link to a washing powder or a chocolate bar or something. Even a worst-case distinction of "For the silver metal with atomic number 70..." would help both levels of reader. --McGeddon (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I expected, there will be people saying so. I myself knows that they are different, and yet I don't do so by memorising their atomic numbers. By the way, Wikipedia does not serve a particular group of professionals (seriously, will chemists need that distinguishing?), but the non-professionals, who supposedly look for the word when seeing it. Yes, skimming the lead section is the best solution for them, as a ten-word distinguisher which can be understood by non-chemists is way too difficult for most of the editors to write. This justifies the value of distinguish.Forbidden User (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're failing to see the point. The entire point of the hatnote is to obviate the need for the reader to have to actually read the article in order to figure out whether it actuially applies to what they were looking for. This failure to understand the context of why we have hatnotes is key to why you're wrong here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have stated that reading the lead sections/infoboxes of the articles is the best solution, as they are supposed to give a clear and concise overview to the articles. In the MoS it is said that they are to be kept short enough so that they don't waste too much time of the readers. If they are not, then the articles need to be improved individually. That is what we have done all the years. It only bothers both editors and readers if we are going to attempt to explain all those differences clearly enough in hatnotes. There are instances where explaining in hatnotes is more desirable, and when the time comes we use other templates. If you cannot deny the worth of distinguish, then you should let this TfD close.Forbidden User (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other arguments raised by other editors (with you failing to deny) as well, by the way. Think if you can rebut them all before continuing.Forbidden User (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If all the non-chemist can get from an expert-level disambiguation is "ytterbium is also some kind of element", this is still more useful to them than an unexplained "not to be confused with Ytterbium" which could be a brandname pharmaceutical or a Pokemon or anything. I can't see how it does any harm to tell the reader what the other article is about before they click through, even in an absolute worst case of "for the identical but differently spelled element".
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your "convenience factor". Do you mean that because it can sometimes be difficult to draw a clear distinction between two very similar subjects, a quick "not to be confused with" hatnote is better than nothing? --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "convenience factor" is that when two well-known subjects only need distinguishing because of reasons like spelling, the template has its worth. Your "ytterbium can be mistaken as a brandname pharmaceutical or a Pokemon or anything" does no good to advocating the deletion of this template, for it being merely an unsupported opinion. Meanwhile, distinguish is often used for similar subjects, to an extent that this template often implies similarity, and in cases otherwise the difference is usually shown right at the page title. If there is established confusion (in the case of yttrium, an FA, there is no such a thing), then using other templates or page moves are considered. Remember we still keep other templates if this one is kept. I don't think polarising is a good idea to make arguments.
 * In case you still hold on tight to your opinion, you have never responded to the Ronaldo-Ronaldinho example, in which there is no easier way to distinguish the two similar subjects than reading the infoboxes and lead sections.
 * "Requiring the addition of commas, wikilinks (and "or") for every target instead of conveniently adding parameters would contravine the purpose of templates, which is to make editing more convenient" is my descirbtion for the "convenience factor". I've made an example above.
 * A final point to add: It looks like others disagree with "even an equally confusing describtion is better".Forbidden User (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's simply not the case that readers are expected to read beyond the hatnote for disambiguation. You're the only one making that point, and it is simply wrong. Arguing from a point of demonstrable falsehood somewhat diminishes the strength of your case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read others' comments. I said so partly to agree with another user. I don't want to cite the ton of statements showing so. "Simply wrong"&"simply not the case" - cite a policy or guideline please. In WP:SIMILAR, the suggestion of template is put as a suggestion - it did not say that distinguish is undesirable. Also, there are chances of exceptions for guidelines, per WP:5P. Do we recreate the template again when that appears? That's what I wish to say, and the content gains its weight. This is how discussion plays out.Forbidden User (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DABLINK makes clear that hatnotes are not to be considered part of the article content. It is supposed to be the case that by the time the reader has gotten onto the article content, the reader is on the right article. You're challenging that, without evidence, and are the only one to do so. You're perfectly permitted to hold an opinion on hatnotes which isn't reflected in the guidelines (which you do, no matter how much gainsaying you put into it), but it isn't correct to frame the two positions as simply different points of view. Lastly, appeals to WP:5P (much like appeals to WP:IAR) have to actually explain what benefit we get from ignoring existing consensus. If the rules are getting in the way, so be it. If there's nothing wrong with the rules, then they shouldn't be arbitrarily abandoned based on personal sentiment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good misuse of WP:IAR. Consensus is the foundation of Wikipedia, and if you ignore a consensus (which is not a rule, but a general opinion), you are violating the very basic principle of Wikipedia, and of course WP:Consensus. WP:Consensus is a policy, quoted in the guideline statement: any exceptions should reflect consensus. If consensus says this template is to be kept, then keep. I have never said that hatnotes are part of the article content. What I said is that in the rare cases which necessitate reading the lead sections/infoboxes after reading the hatnotes, it's fine. As mentioned below, usually the first sentences in the leads have distinguished the subjects (with examples). For the filibuster thing, my "wall of comments" is something put out quickly, so quickly that I did not think of trimming it down. It looks like you have been spending much more time defending your proposal. Why don't we focus on the content instead?Forbidden User (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, which of my statement is "completely wrong"? If you mean the WP:Snow, that is only a comment. No need to focus on that issue. If you insist, I'd say you really does not have much chance, with the focus switching to distinguish and distinguish2. I suggest opening another TfD for that issue, though it seems others prefer finishing off both at once.Forbidden User (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good misuse of WP:IAR. Consensus is the foundation of Wikipedia, and if you ignore a consensus (which is not a rule, but a general opinion), you are violating the very basic principle of Wikipedia, and of course WP:Consensus. WP:Consensus is a policy, quoted in the guideline statement: any exceptions should reflect consensus. If consensus says this template is to be kept, then keep. I have never said that hatnotes are part of the article content. What I said is that in the rare cases which necessitate reading the lead sections/infoboxes after reading the hatnotes, it's fine. As mentioned below, usually the first sentences in the leads have distinguished the subjects (with examples). For the filibuster thing, my "wall of comments" is something put out quickly, so quickly that I did not think of trimming it down. It looks like you have been spending much more time defending your proposal. Why don't we focus on the content instead?Forbidden User (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, which of my statement is "completely wrong"? If you mean the WP:Snow, that is only a comment. No need to focus on that issue. If you insist, I'd say you really does not have much chance, with the focus switching to distinguish and distinguish2. I suggest opening another TfD for that issue, though it seems others prefer finishing off both at once.Forbidden User (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm a reader of Wikipedia and only very rarely an editor. As a regular reader, distinguish is very useful, as Wikipedia's search engine isn't very good compared to the internet search engines I'm used to (Google, which also uses a type of distinguish over the for others seem to like). I often get an article that's just slightly wrong and this template has been really useful for quickly getting to the one I wanted, in a way that the for template doesn't quite manage. As a part-time editor of Wikipedia, I'm in favor of anything that makes editing easier (it's really bewildering for us slow-pokes) and distinguish is just as useful as for and worth having when I want to distinguish between stuff. This is just my 2c, obviously, so please don't attack with all guns blazing! Trey Maturin (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a good reason for me. After all, we write for others to read!Forbidden User (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Random thoughts or if there are 28,000 pages inviting me to comment this must be important:
 * I don't think there is any real evidence for "this talks down to readers". This is only a problem if there is a significant annoyance to a significant number of readers and I don't think anyone here is in a position to say anything more than whether it annoys them personally.  The self-selecting straw poll here doesn't prove much either (but I can't resist the urge to say that  has never bothered me).
 * I don't buy that this can be quickly and automatically changed to something else. I think the suggestions for how to do this have been successfully shot down.  In fact I suspect that if it could be changed automatically then there probably wouldn't be a problem with the template as-is that couldn't be fixed by just changing how it displays.
 * If it can't be changed automatically then whether people are willing to do the work becomes important. In this situation, then unless you personally are willing to spend a substantial part of your wikipedia time (eg 50% or more) working on changing to the replacement (whatever it is) and are willing to stick at it until the job is done then it can't be that important to you and probably is not worth doing right now.  By "you" I mean anyone reading this thread who favours making a change, and this is meant only as a reminder to give this aspect serious thought before declaring support.  I'm not aiming at anyone in particular or suggesting that specific declarations of "I'll do x amount of work on this" are useful.
 * I do buy the argument that the absence of a reason or other explanation in suggests there may be something wrong with this template.  Trying to analyse what value the various, ,  and related templates are providing:
 * Sometimes the reader thinks they have found the right article but actually they havn't.
 * Sometimes they need additional help to decide whether they've found the right article or not.
 * Sometimes the reader knows they have found the wrong article but needs help to find the right one.
 * Sometimes this help extends to choosing between multiple unrelated "other articles".
 * seems to match the case where a reader thinks they've found the right article, but they havn't and they need no further help to decide they should be looking at the target instead.  I don't quite see how that could be the case.  In practice the reader will need to look at both articles.  On the other hand, sticking a massive explanation in the hatnotes would be rather distracting and having to look at multiple articles may not be a big deal.
 * When I see "not to be confused with " I suppose I read it as something like "if you don't know the difference between and then you could be in the wrong place" and if I don't know the difference I read (parts of) both pages until I do.
 * My personal opinion is that this may not be broken at all and certainly isn't broken enough to be worth worrying about right now. Maybe later, when wikipedia accurately covers all of human knowledge in clear prose with plenty of precise citations and all facts recently checked... TuxLibNit (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are those of us who actually are prepared to put in the required work. By and large it isn't done manually. I'd estimate that my previous TfD nominations have resulted in probably twice as many automated edits to affected articles as I've made manually (so ~200k). This is how these things are accomplished. They are stymied by well-meaning editors who oppose them without putting in the required research. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, you cannot comment on other editors unless they clearly breach Wiki policies or guidelines. You cannot go on repeating that you know what is right while the whole community doesn't. Here, the "required work" is not the main point. The necessity and influence of the action are more important. As far as I know, you have not rep"lied a word to anything TuxLibNit said except the "required work" issue. The instances that prove distinguish its worth are clear, and you seem to have nothing to argue against so. Could you please respect the majority's opinion more?Forbidden User (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When an editor's comment is predicated on a quite incorrect assumption, and one which (inadvertently or not) belittles the work others have put into a part of the project that said editor has never previously been involved in, I don't see what's wrong about pointing that out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusation of others making mistakes like "wrong concept" or "belittles the work of others (inadvertently or not)" is merely your opinion (an unsupported one), and yet you put it as if it is a fact. There are editors pissed off (and leave) because of your comments on them. If you'd like to see if it is true, raise a neutral RfC on your conduct. However, this is off-topic, so if you refuse to listen to my advice, go ahead :)Forbidden User (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no. When you're mistaken, you're mistaken. That's not an opinion. There's a guideline, and it supports the opposite of what you're repeatedly asserting to be consensus (and ironically enough, considering that I'm the one being accused of bludgeoning this debate, you've easily overtaken me in word count by now). If you've any further complaints about me, take your own advice and use a different forum. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bludgeoning is not determined by wordcount. In this case, you're bludgeoning because you are almost the only one supporting yourself, but I'm not because I joined the discussion rather lately, and I don't do excessive filibustering. The discussion should not go on in two places, so let's move back to my comment above. Forbidden User (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's determined by the amount of time one has to spend on opposing arguments. Your walls of text plainly apply. It's apt that you've brought up filibustering in this context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On the amount of work required to effectively delete or replace . I did try to avoid causing offence but I obviously failed.  Oh well, I'll try to do better next time.  I really am concerned about the work required because, as I said above I think all the suggestions for simple conversions have been convincingly challenged.  I'm particularly worried that the Tfd link on 28,000 pages could end up replaced with a "deprecated - click here for help" link on 20,000 pages.  If there turns out to be a fully automated or automation-assisted change that will work in most cases then obviously the problem goes away but no-one has clearly articulated how that would work.  Also, if someone wants to argue from experience along the lines of "people always oppose manual changes like this as being too much work but in practice it is never anywhere near as bad as they expect" then I'll have to respect that, but so far no-one has clearly stated that precise position.
 * On whether this discussion as a whole or my contribution to it has been constructive. There seem to have been a number of inter-related problems.
 * When a proposal runs into substantial opposition there may be a need to take a step back and make the case for the proposal again, in a much more thorough way, that coherently addresses the major objections in one go. It seems impractical (and I'm sure it is extremely disheartening) to try to do this piecemeal in the face of a continual stream of "oppose" comments.
 * For a widely used template, starting off by inviting comments from the community at large (as the process seems to require) is counterproductive. The debate can quickly drown in a flood of input, including that from relatively inexperienced editors (such as myself) who are well-meaning and working hard trying to participate properly but may not actually go about things in the right way.  In this situation I think it is critical that the initial proposal is extremely thorough, addressing the majority of arguments both for and against as this reduces the amount of actual discussion required.  I think the only way to do that is for multiple experienced editors to collaborate on the initial proposal.
 * Inviting comments via a link from the template uses probably leads to a strong bias against template deletion.
 * Reopening the discussion (02:26, 8 July 2014) hasn't helped anyone. It might have helped if there had been some additional actions at this point, eg adding a summary of the story so far, starting again in a fresh thread with a more detailed proposal, adding some guidance (or links to guidance) to the start of the thread to help shape the discussion (the ones in the re-opening note are very easy to miss), or keeping the discussion going but removing the tfd link to halt the flow of new arrivals.
 * None of the above changes my opinion that the case for deleting or replacing this template has not been convincingly made.
 * TuxLibNit (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are simply mistaken about the amount of effort that would be required to programmatically address this. Regardless, you're entirely correct that this was not the most foolproof method of driving change; nonetheless, it is one of the more expedient, and for more popular templates one has little choice but to face the wrath of TfD's non-regulars to get the required degree of input. To that effect, I'm not regretful of bringing it here: there's a conversation happening below which will hopefully lead to this being phased out. A speedy close as the mob demanded would have short-circuited that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep at least until proper elaboration of some other templates can fully, economically, and naturally replace this one while maintaining fully equivalent function in dealing with similar terms and typos (argyria, agyria), identical terms (Kali), and other sources of confusion or wandering that are among the greates weaknesses in WP. If anyone manages to come up with such an alternative, then fine, but till then... Meanwhile, arguments against its fancied effects of "talking down", which itself have tended employ offensive tactics of talking down, while failing to address factual needs, practicalities and alternatives, do not deal with the harmful effects either of deletion, or alternatively, of unthinking substitution of the template. About the only obvious and harmless change might be a change in wording from "Not to be confused with" to maybe something like "Similar search terms include:" or "Did you mean:" or something like that. Oh, and yes, certain persons might as well spare themselves their keystrokes and other strokes; I am familiar with disambiguations articles. (Really! :) ) JonRichfield (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or develop proper elaboration to reduce number of available templates while maintaining fully equivalent function I do not argue that this template could not be improved, and for all I know, there might be enough other templates that could do all the jobs that distinguish does in various contexts. Consider: I am here because, editing Argyria, I encountered "Not to be confused with agyria. ‹See Tfd›". I then did some looking up and landed here. I deny that there is a problem with talking down, though there may be a problem with listening up by some sensitive souls with chips on their shoulders. If there is a problem with sensitivity, the wording could be changed to something like "sometimes confused with" or "sometimes mistyped" or something. The operative function however, is real, takes several different forms and must be retained. 'If it does get deleted there must be an automated replacement with something equally useful and at least as powerful that fill the same needs (or more). Not everyone who knows a word knows every possible alternative meaning, or realises that there are alternative meanings at all (try Kali for example) or knows all the meanings of all the misspellings or typos or foreignisms. Helping users with such problems is much more important than boggling at every possible subjunctive concerning talking down. JonRichfield (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording has been discussed for years, I believe. The best policy-based suggestion I have heard, including the current version, is something like, "This title is to be distinguished from ..." (I believe this was mentioned above, by Paine Ellsworth.) —PC-XT+ 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. It is a very useful template that is used in thousands of articles. Sure, sometimes it's misused, but so is everything else. Whenever it is, just remove it. However, for articles with very similar, but still different names (ex: Ellen Page and Elaine Paige) it is very useful to have. JDDJS (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Status quo is god. Biglulu (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: in the ever-expanding discussion above, I see two often-repeated assertions that I believe to be incorrect. (1) That a reader seeing the "distinguish" template has to click the link to learn whether he/she is on the right article or not. Most of the time, reading the first sentence of the article he/she is on will establish that. For instance, if I go to Tommy Lee to learn about the actor, and discover I am at an article about a drummer, I will know that I'm in the wrong place. If I then see "Not to be confused with Tommy Lee Jones", I will think "That's who I wanted". On the other hand, if I did want the drummer, I'll know as soon as I begin reading that I'm on the right page, and I might not even notice the "distinguish" template. The same is true of Elaine/Ellen Page, Capitol/Capital, Calender/Calendar etc. (2) That the message is a slur on the intelligence of the reader. "Not to be confused with" is not the same as "you are confusing this with". An intelligent reader seeing this (where it is used appropriately) will see the possibility of confusion, and will have no reason to feel that he/she is being singled out for criticism. If anything, the reader who has confused the two things will be comforted by the fact that many other (intelligent) people make the same mistake. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Perhaps everyone can look at WP:STICK - this TfD proposal is currently met with an almost universal opposition. For now I'd suggest splitting any suggestions on how to amend/merge this template to another TfD, and close this one.Forbidden User (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep - It is a very useful template: Distinguish is useful for articles with similar sounding titles (e.g Hamza Yusuf and Humza Yousaf, or Richard Francis Lyon and Richard F. Lyon). Where as For is more appropriate for titles that are the same for the page that occupies primary topic (e.g Frank Lampard and Frank Lampard, Sr.) or could be the same (e.g Ashley Thomas and Bashy). Also Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW, this is not going to be deleted, so what is the point delaying the inevitable? Tanbircdq (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late for a Speedy Keep. The seven days will be up in a few hours time, and then we can have a "slow" close. ;-) Scolaire (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Much preferable to "see also" in cases where it is relevant, for example, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Where it is not relevant just use see also. This template is causing no harm and doing much good. HGilbert (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the nom wanted to use "See also." We are discussing ways to make this template and its uses less controversial, not hatnotes in general. —PC-XT+ 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't want to confuse myself.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone close this as a snow keep? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Hello, Rich. I am afraid only an admin can do this at this stage. NAC is already attempted and contested. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: When the two subjects that are very close in spelling such as the two words only differ in one letter, it is not a strong hat note just to say "For ...". In that case, readers may look quickly and may not realize that they are two different words. They may think that they are already on that page, so they just ignore that hat note. When there is a more directive wording in the hat note like "Not to be confused with ...", the readers will pay more attention on what they might be confusing about and that will make them realize that there is one letter difference between the two words and perhaps the linked article is the one that they actually want. So we should still keep this as another option to use in this particular situation than just having the standard "For". Z22 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Require a "reason" parameter?
As I've previously indicated, I want to keep the template. However: DePiep suggests (in various posts above) (hope I've got this right!) that the Distinguish template doesn't clarify for the intended audience what the distinction between subjects might be. There is the Distinguish2 template which allows this, but it lacks the automated formatting of Distinguish. So how about all new usages of Distinguish require a "Reason=" parameter so editors are required to clarify?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a reason all the time, but why not just merge Distinguish2 with this one? -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Several of the various less-bad other uses templates allow for this. The lack of options here is one of the key reasons this template is such a poor idea, and I'd hope the closing admin sees fit to ignore the 90% of commenters who don't know what they're talking about in order to see that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the last TFD discussion, distinguish2 is probably a better alternative, and thus I would also agree about merging the two. And we could think about re-wording it. But again, it is useful to have a separate hatnote other than other uses that specifically indicates a commonly misused word and phrase, like Capital vs. Capitol, and thus help clear up readers' possible confusion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge (or deprecate and redirect to Distinguish2) per above commentators <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">—PC-XT+ 05:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I !voted deprecate, in the above discussion, and don't expect a merge to actually happen in this discussion, but maybe a redirect to Distinguish2. (A merge would require another discussion, tagging the other template.) I believe this template is directed towards the uses that other hatnote templates don't fulfill, possibly even anti-guideline uses, and so should be made as generic as possible. (It would be fine with me to simply use Hatnote or raw wikicode, for full local control, but I doubt this would really be practical.) I don't understand what the disadvantages would be to a redirect/wrapper or merge.
 * Also, for what it's worth, I don't believe all of the people who say keep are doing so without thought. Those of us who simply use templates can't be expected to bring as much to the discussion as those of us who actually work with these templates, and know their intricacies. (I know these templates are far from intricate to many of us, but any template is intricate to some.) We can't expect as much information from voters in wide-reaching discussions as AfD can. Having said that, information is needed. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">—PC-XT+ 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Begin retirement aka merge - distinguish2 is the way hatnotes like this should be formatted. Its more flexible and intuitive. Remove Distinguish from all documentation pages to begin its retirement, follow up in some time with a "replace me" message, then later follow with a bot pass. --Netoholic @ 07:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would really not want a "replace me" message popping up on many thousands of pages, causing unnecessary confusion to the casual user.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: this is wrong template for the cases when "reason" is required. For perfect use case see Warlords (game series), where this template is used to distinguish game series from unrelated game with same title. Really, just don't use this template on pages where explanation is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that neither article is ambiguously titled, there is no need for a hatnote on either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Need for hatnote comes from incoming links: when I follow Warlords link, without hatnote I may think that the Amiga title is another game in this series. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Fair enough. As with the previous example (which S Marshall opposed for being "too wordy", because it is far better to call readers "confused" than to baffle them with words), the correct approach would be a fuller hatnote: . Nobody is going to "confuse" one game with a series of games. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your proposed hatnote does not help much – it basically says that Warlords (1980 video game) does not belong to Warlords (game series), which is a task that article title and Warlords (1980 video game) already accomplish. This case does not need any explanation; all it needs is a simple statement that this subjects are not the same. The problem here is not with "confusing" or "baffling" readers, but merely with lack of necessity of being verbose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm constantly baffled by the impression that people have that Wikipedia is some sort of competition of brevity. The longer hatnote explains not only that the two articles are different, but why they are different. distinguish alone leaves the reader to skim both articles for content, or alternatively hope that both titles are sufficiently explanatory that they can be told apart (and in most cases, they can't). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In most cases, the reader isn't confused at all, and the hatnote is just an annoyance or a distraction - the briefer it is, the less it will annoy or distract. And even if in many, or even most, cases a longer hatnote is more desirable, that still isn't a good reason to take away the template that everybody knows, for use in a minority (but still large number) of cases when it works perfectly well. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You imply that people are interested in difference between the articles, but normally they are not. Normally they come via specific link and these hatnotes only waste their time and focus. FWIW Wikipedia is indeed competition of brevity: in contrast to social media, blogs, etc. people use Wikipedia to look up some topic quickly – otherwise they would spend time researching it more thoroughly without being exposed to the risks typically associated with crowdsourcing, – so every distraction counts against general usability of Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's plainly contradicted by the guideline that almost none of the participants have actually read. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SIMILAR is an example of proper use of hatnotes for the articles that "share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not", which has nothing to do with this template, and with my example in particular. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, this template has many more uses than what is written there. The word "may" (not "should") shows flexibility in the choice of templates.Forbidden User (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, this template has many more uses than what is written there. The word "may" (not "should") shows flexibility in the choice of templates.Forbidden User (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason that I said keep. This freedom is exactly my point. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Sometimes,the reason is obvious,so filling a reason parameter is a waste of time.It should be an optional parameter.Ssaz 12 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When you need to add short reasons then you can just use distinguish2, which is why I'm opposing the merger as well.Forbidden User (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I oppose the merger, and reasons are raised in the comment above this section (which I don't know why). I'm copying the part about the merger here: Forbidden User (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think adding optional reason field is a good idea. It is technically possible to add this with no negative effect on current uses, but instead give users the freedom to have something like:

Output as something like:
 * Not to be confused with Calender, a series of hard pressure rollers, or Colander, a bowl-shaped kitchen utensil

Some situations do not require more than the link as some page names are self-explanatory. I think it is a positive step to allow editors the right to choose what is appropriate. Sillyfolkboy (talk 08:07, 12 July 2014
 * It is not merging, in my definition. Again, why don't we split these constructive ideas to another TfD?Forbidden User (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the template remain, I will make these functionality suggestions at the template page. If worked right, this could actually be a superior choice to continued use of the free format Distinguish2. SFB 21:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose or Merge as the reason is often self-evident when looking at the two titles. HGilbert (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about the merger or so at the discussion page of this template.124.244.8.194 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, let's not: this is a highly visible template, and its talk page is much less visible. Furthermore, this discussion demonstrates obvious strong consensus in favor of leaving this template along, so no further discussion is required in short term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot to log in. You do have a point. I've requested for closing this TfD, by the way.Forbidden User (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MusicCriticism
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MusicCriticism

Nominated for same reasons as WP:PROD of the related List of critics' choices for best albums of 2013. This template similarly has ambitious title and scope, but is unrepresentative of all genres of music criticism or music journalism, and even within rock/pop, it's very far from being usefully comprehensive (and unlikely to be improved). To be useful, much less encyclopedic, it would have to have at least dozens of entries (for each of numerous musical genres), representing past and current publications and websites that feature music criticism. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting admin to close and delete. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no possibility of that template's scope issues getting sorted out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Incomprehensibly large scope. Adabow (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's a chance more articles can be put here, but for now, Delete until that happens. 和DITOR  E tails 15:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the "Incomprehensibly large scope" mentioned by Adabow or rename to appropriately define the narrow scope of the current template. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.