Template talk:Clarifyme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{inline}}

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.

Contents

[edit] More information?

Is there a reason this template doesn't allow more detail on what is needed to be clarified? E.g.

{{clarifyme|This is confusing because it appears to suggest that lorem ipsum dolor blah blah blah....}}

I'd envision using this where the clarificatory detail can be expressed in a way that makes sense to most readers of the page and in a way that is useful to them (even if it's not encyclopedic prose), rather than relegating it to the talk page where most readers will never see it. Thanks. jhawkinson 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an inline template: Too much detail inline and it vandalises the article, unless you do summat clever with popups. Adam Cuerden talk 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what "do summat clever" means, but agree with what I believe to be the gist of that. If such functionality was added it would need to put the text into the hover-over popup feature, not into the rendered text of the template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Inline templates proposed

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat. fix

Need to add: [[Category:Inline templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] template deleting whitespace

This edit [1] deleted whitespace from the article. Needs fixin! -- Kendrick7talk 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is redundant

Resolved. Merge completed.

This template is redundant to the earlier {{unclear}}. It should be merged/redirected to that template. heqs ·:. 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I merged here due to better documentation. Adam Cuerden talk 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

{{editprotected}} Request changing Clarify into Clarification needed - to me, the former is a request of the reader, while the latter is a note about the preceding statement. Althepal 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change yet. Please see discussion on inline template wording style at WT:WPILT#Consensus discussion on "direct address" style. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree. "Clarification needed" is much better. Matt 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.110.109 (talk)

[edit] Request for change to link behaviour

Clicking on "clarify" currently takes you to a whole load of waffle about what "clarify" might mean. Much more useful would be the facility to link to a talk page explanation where you can explain why the text is unclear and what needs to be done to fix it. Propose updating the template to accept the syntax {{clarifyme|target_page}}, so that clicking the link then takes you to target_page. If this parameter is not specified then the template can work as now, so nothing in place will be broken.

Does anyone fancy doing this?

Matt 11:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

  • And ideally you should be forced, or at least heavily encouraged, to link to a specific section of the talk page. It's always annoying when you are directed to a discussion and find yourself thrown into the top of a talk page which contains fifty pages of miscellaneous discussions spanning several years... Matt 13:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.55.137 (talk)
I agree with Matt's proposal but lack the knowledge to do it. It seems both link and text parameters are ignored, and the best kludge I could work out is in the following Updated documentation section. -Wikianon (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated documentation

I updated the doc file for the clarifyme template, in order to better understand what works and what doesn't. Please check if I've got it right. Could anyone explain how the link and title parameters are supposed to be used? I cannot override them with my own, unlike pre- and post_text. For example, the tag at the end of this sentence uses pre and post text the way I would like to use link.[possible usage:clarify:here] -Wikianon (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Wikianon, thanks very much for that info. I think the way I'd use this is probably [clarify—discuss] I'm afraid I am completely clueless about how templates work internally. Matt 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Minor change

{{editprotected}} please place a ", " comma space before the post-text.

N Not done please be more specific. What, exactly, needs to be changed? Also, please sign your talk-page comments. Happy‑melon 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small addition

Under useful redirects, please add "in what sense". Thanks, Queerudite (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge vague here

I propose Template:Vague be merged into this article such that vague redirects to clarifyme. Sentences marked 'vague' could just as easily be marked 'clarify', and I prefer the latter because it explains what to do and is a call to action. Could an admin please add the merge tag to the clarify me template? Queerudite (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please update {{/doc}} with {{documentation}}. Per Wikipedia:Template documentation/List Thankyou. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Happy‑melon 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)