Template talk:Distinguish

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

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

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

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

-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 17:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

or perhaps,

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

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

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

Or even

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

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

• What about:

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

  or:

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

  or:

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

  In any event, I think the wording should be as concise as possible.
  ,-~^R'lyehRising~-, 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lets please all think hard about moving forward on this. When I first saw this template, I thought it was vandalized to seem much more informal than it should be. Even something as similar as, "This article is sometimes confused with..." although I think that I prefer any of the above options to the current text. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changed to "Articles with similar titles include", similar to the above; this seems to both avoid phrasing this in the negative, and allows a bit of ambiguity about number (one or many alternatives). +sj + 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. 'Articles' is a self-ref. I prefer the "more verbose" alternative above, or perhaps 'Topics with similar names...'. Hairy Dude 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On second thoughts, I would rather avoid 'topic' or 'article' completely. I just came across the wording change on Malay language; there it now says "Similarly spelled terms include the Malayalam language, spoken in India." I find this wording rather awkward. Hairy Dude 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any suggestions of improved alternatives? I think the current text is vastly preferable to old text and slightly better than the alternatives. I'm sure there are great options that haven't been discussed. Personally, I don't think your example from the Malay language article is all that awkward. mako (talk•contribs) 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

There's a slight issue with this, in that not all confusions arise due to spelling. For example, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is distinguished from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" -- one could easily get those names mixed up, but not through a spelling issue. Joe D (t) 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{distinguish2|the [[Malayalam language]], spoken in India}}

Not to be confused with the Malayalam language, spoken in India.

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

to:

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

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

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

• The original complaint was that "Not to be confused with" is grammatically incorrect. In my view that is unnecessary pedantism, as the phrase is widely used[1]. The current wording is not acceptable as it has made this template different from what it was intended to do. I am changing the wording to " Distinguish from ..", and hopefully the grammar pedants will be happy with it. --Ezeu 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• This wording seems slightly odd to me... anyone else...?
  Having scanned this thread, "Not to be confused with...", "Sometimes confused with..." and/or "This article is about X..." (i.e. {{This}} and the like) seem adequate, grammatical and in the general style of other inline disambiguation/redirection templates. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

• I think most would agree that distinguish from is an improvement, I also was okay with not to be confused with, but the current is fine as well. I don't think the disambiguation link needs to be a complete sentence. Vicarious 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No one who doesn't already know about this template will know what Distinguish from means; I was very momentarily perplexed despite being pretty familiar with Template:Distinguish. Can we please change it back to something more understandable.

I've read the above discussion and I don't see what was wrong with Not to be confused with exactly stated. The syntax seems fine to me, though it is a fragment (which is even more true of Distinguish from). Also, it is a matter of opinion, but I don't interpret it as non-neutral or commanding (instead realising that is a short way of saying For articles about things referred to by similar wording that may be confused with foo, see bar), but if it is then the same applies to distinguish from but more so. (Consider that distinguishing means not confusing so Distinguish from is equivalent to Don't confuse with which is a more commanding way of saying Not to be confused with.)

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the original "Not to be confused with" to "Distinguish from". "Distinguish from" is too austere; it makes little sense when appearing at the top of an article without further context. Readability shouldn't be sacrificed for grammatical correctness, and "Distinguish from" is still grammatically incorrect anyway, being a sentence fragment.

"Articles with similar titles include" was never appropriate for this particular template; that should be its own template, if it's retained at all.

Can we try "Sometimes confused with" as a compromise for now? Or "Should not be confused with?"--Father Goose 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also prefer the original wording for this template. With respect to the original complaint, I haven't found any of the recent changes to be an improvement, and the current Distinguish from seems a bit clumsy to me. I'd be happy with Should not be confused with as suggested by Father Goose above. PC78 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

"Sometimes confused with.." is an assertion, a claim. "Not to be confused with ..." or "Should not be confused with .." is preferable. --Ezeu 10:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. "Should not be confused with", pretty please. I don't know for sure that Gordon Park (the murderer) is sometimes confused with Gordon Parks (the photographer), but they certainly should not be confused with each other.--Father Goose 18:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Previously it offered:

{{Distinguish|foo|bar}}

Now it can do:

{{Distinguish|foo|bar|something}}

or

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

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

This line of the template code:

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

should be replaced with this:

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

for reasons that I hope are fairly obvious.

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

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

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

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

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Good summary. I'll second that; it may not be perfect, but it is the least worst and most concise (short but clear) option. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

• I agree. "Not to be confused with" is the least worst alternative. It is concise, gives the needed information without being patronising. The argument that it is grammatically wrong is unnecessary pedantism. The phrase is widely used [2], and its meaning is clear. "Not to be confused with" is also the version that has been most stable. --Ezeu 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Looks like this discussion is about to come full circle. I'm happy enough with the current version, but I certainly wouldn't oppose a move back to "Not to be". Perhaps it would be an idea to have more than one template for this purpose? PC78 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm strongly opposed to having two templates with identical usage. I'd rather get my second choice than both my first and second. Vicarious 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I'm also ok with the old version, I never thought it sounded condescending, and the current version is imperative which isn't terrible, but I think slightly worse than any faint lingerings of belittlement in the old version. Vicarious 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Not to be" or "should not be" are both fine by me. Or maybe "to be or not to be". The shorter alternatives ("distinguish from", "distinct from"), as I've stated before, lack enough context to make much sense at the top of an article.--Father Goose 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

I hate, hate, hate "not to be confused with", so I do prefer alternatives. Saying topic X is "not to be confused (in the mind of the reader) with" topic Y is still giving the reader advice. It's nearly as grating as "it should be noted that". However, "not the same as" as an alternative seems too mild to me. I'm sorry I don't have anything better to offer, offhand. —mjb 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm increasingly convinced that the best thing is not to mention confusion at all; just use {{for}}.--Father Goose 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Not to be confused with" sounds ugly. Please change it into "This term/subject/... should not be confused with ..." or something better, a whole sentence in any case. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Not to be confused with" is a grotesque eyesore. It is often wrong. That isn't ever the appropriate wording when very same term can legitimately be applied to whatever it is being distinguished from. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course it isn't, because that is not what this template was meant for. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{Tfd|Distinguish|Otheruses templates}}

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

{{editprotected}}

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

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

{{editprotected}}

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

Hm, tricky. The period is standard across most disambiguation templates, it looks like. Depending on the particular scenario you're running into, providing more parameters, using a second disambig template, or even continuing in a second sentence might also work. Is there a particular example of a situation you're having problems with? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Not done I can't think of any situation where it would be appropriate to immediately follow the template with more text anyway. The whole purpose of the template is to eliminate the need for hand-formatted text. Some examples would be helpful. Happy‑melon 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

At that point, just indent once, italicize, and write whatever hatnote you like longhand. The hatnote templates are useful shorthand, but only for standard cases.--Father Goose (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

— CharlotteWebb 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trev M  ~  20:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (et seq)Reply

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

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

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

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

Should say:

Should say:

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

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

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

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

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

Hi.

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

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Change

}}.
}}<noinclude>

to

}}.}}<noinclude>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSCrowned (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

Wouldn't it be better to write

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

--Fluffystar (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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