Template talk:Clarifyref2

Problem with resulting text
I tried using Clarifyref2 and it resulted in the following text immediately after the reference -- and before the "[clarification needed]" superscript:

I wound up having to fix it manually. Can this problem be fixed in the template?

Thanks. Infoman99 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't say where you tried it - but I'm guessing that you used it inside  tags. The subst: modifier does not work in such positions. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response but I used clarifyref2 after the tag and received that in response. Here's the URL:  Infoman99 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, you used and not the form as documented - . It does matter, and the documentation does state "This template must be substituted.". -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately after the ref?
The documentation reads in relevant part, "Unfortunately it either must be used just after a or must be substituted first then at the end of the tags' marked up content".

Two questions: Why "unfortunately", and perhaps more importantly, why not just specify that the tag should be after the references? Compare Verify credibility, which I was recently advised should be outside the reference, as well as Failed verification, which has long had such advice. Why not just standardize the placement?

In addition to obviating the technical work-around, placing this tag outside the references would make it more visible to editors, who then would be more likely to try to fix the unclear content. I suggest the following be added to the documentation. The template should be placed outside the reference, within the article's text:
 * Potentially controversial statement. Next sentence.

Cnilep (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this template is intended to be substituted (so that the datestamp is set correctly), but that substitution doesn't work inside tags such as . Regarding your suggestion: we prefer that templates that indicate a problem should be shown as close to the problem as possible; so this template, which indicates a problem with a reference, should be shown as close to the reference information as possible. Compare the following two examples:

Some text

Some text


 * These differ only in the positioning of the . In the first example, it's not clear what needs clarifying, but in the second, it is. But the second cannot be produced by using in a single edit (unless you fiddle around with "Show changes" and do some cut&paste), whilst the first can. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really "not clear what needs clarifying"? Maybe, but I note that in my browser, and I think in most browsers, hovering over the [clarification needed] produces the tooltip, "This is not a proper reference citation" etc. Even if a browser doesn't show tooltips, anyone who edits the section should see

As I say, maybe that is not clear enough, but it seems to me that for anyone with the inclination to fix an improperly formatted reference is going to be fairly well versed in Wiki markup. Maybe the positioning problem you identify in the first example is a bug, but maybe its a feature. Cnilep (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirected

 * Full now serves the function these templates were created to fulfill, and is widely adopted, so I've redirected Clarifyref and Clarifyref2 to it. Going this route appears to have been the only progressive solution proposed at the first TfD, and I would have !voted in support of it had I been around. I've been the principal defender of these templates since I created them, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)