Wikipedia talk:Please clarify Information & Wikipedia talk:Please clarify Links at HealthHaven.com

[edit] clarification|clarify|clarity

Someone, please, explain why a redirect from clarify to here is offensive.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Can anybody say which are the companies involved in KPO thank u ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.133.181 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page does not load on this machine; it shuts off the browser:

This page does not load on this machine; it shuts off the browser:

wikipedia : deletion_review#Proposed_deletions ;

wikipedia : deletion_review#proposed_deletions ;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Proposed_deletions >;

wikipedia : why_was_my_page_deleted? .

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 01:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is this version, as well:

wikipedia : deletion_review .

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] talk : clarify

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording essay phrases

15-Oct-2007: I revised, focused the essay-style wording to be more results-oriented, rather than musing so much about the various issues, but I left the Mark Twain quotes to retain variety. Tagging of articles has produced marginal improvements, and several editors have concluded that more specific steps should be detailed which could yield improvements: just saying an article is "too technical" or "confusing" does not seem to generate improvements, even with 2 years of waiting. After editing 6,000+ articles, I have seen many methods to improve readability, which I have described on the page, such as: adding a diagram; adding a wikitable or list; etc. -Wikid77 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The same box

15-Oct-2007: At the top of that page, I have purposely repeated the same box (for both {{clarify}} and {{confusing}}), to catch attention and indicate those boxes are not tagging the "Please-clarify" article as confusing. Also, the "[clarify]" superscripts are repeated, to support potential future changes, so the exact live results are being shown for each template, in case they are modified, someday, to differ slightly. -Wikid77 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

[ Discuss other, unnamed issues here. -Wikid77 12:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Suggestions

I've suggested this elsewhere, but I suppose once more won't hurt. I think the "clarify" link should take you to somewhere where the editor who inserted it actually explains what clarification is needed. And that should be a link to a specific talk page section, not just to the top of the page. Linking to this page is pretty useless IMO. I also believe that the text should read "clarification needed" and not "clarify". It's unfortunately quite a bit longer, but "clarify" either reads as a curt order or gives the impression that you can click on the link and the text will be somehow clarified. Matt 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known Faults (Obsolete)

Obsolete: Use of the clarifyme template, i.e. ^{[clarification needed]}, within an italicized paragraph causes that paragraph to run horizontally off the right of the page without wrapping onto subsequent lines in some browsers, as shown here.

[edit] Response

Wraps correctly on Firefox 1.5.0. [Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20080419 CentOS/1.5.0.12-0.15.el4.centos Firefox/1.5.0.12 pango-text] --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also wraps correctly in IE7.0. --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been fixed --Farry (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More examples

I propose template:moreexamples to add to confusing articles (the confusion is mainly because of lack of specific examples). --Nopetro (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Contents