Template talk:Confusing

"for some readers" ?
Who wrote this template? It's horribly worded. Get rid of the "for some readers" bit. Every article will be confusing to somebody, somewhere. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

this tag is useless unless. ..
. . .it is accompanied by explanation of what is confusing and why. All it says is that someone, somewhere, didn't understand some part of the article, which could have any number of causes:
 * maybe the writing is abstruse and/or jargon-filled
 * maybe the organization is incoherent
 * maybe the topic requires a certain amount of background knowledge to understand (e.g. many mathematics articles)
 * maybe the author didn't really understand the topic in the first place and is thus incapable of enlightening anyone else
 * or maybe the tagger lacks basic literacy.

Who knows? &#8212;Charles P._ (Mirv) 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should get a mandatory argument that points to a talkpage section detailing the problems. Shinobu (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing redirects
What I find confusing are the redirects to these templates. I mean, clarify redirects here although the template does not include this word (however, includes unclear instead), while unclear redirects to the template named clarifyme and the text of which is simply "clarify". This is counterintuitive and the redirects should be swapped. --Eleassar my talk 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * this is historical. clarifyme and confusing have different uses, and it just so happens that the original meaning of the 'clarify' template was closer to the meaning of 'confusing' while the original meaning of 'unclear' was closer to the meaning of 'clarifyme'.  there's no way (short of a bot) to go back and change the actual wording in the text, and changing the redirects would change the meaning of the tags in numerous articles.  in other words, life sucks, but what are you gonna do...  the only real solution would be to propose merging 'confusing' and 'clarifyme' - don't know if that would fly though.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the AWB, I've replaced the text in the articles and swapped the redirects. --Eleassar my talk 12:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK that broke some stuff, but nevermind. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Unclear section?
Where's the template that says this SECTION may be unclear? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rich Farmbrough, 17:33 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Relinked to how-to clarify
The prior intent of this tag-box (for years) was to link to the page that describes how to clarify text: "Please clarify" (in 2007). Since then, that page about clarification had become un-clarified by people who added unclear wording that needed clarification about clarification steps. Naturally, that complication of the page was bound to happen, as perhaps a cosmic joke that the clarification steps would become unclear. However, I reworded that page to clarify the steps, and relinked that page as the advice for how-to clarify text. It is now very useful. All done. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

simplify redirect
I'm getting here when using { {simplify} }.

I was expecting to see a template about making text simpler, as in using less difficult words and concepts. Perhaps not to the point of using Simple English, but in that direction!

This one is about making text more clear, and that's arguably the opposite! (because when you simplify, you might replace technical terms with less precise but more commonly known terms)

I would like the simplify tag to point to a more appropriate template. Now, I'm off to find such a template! CapnZapp (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
Please add on a new line just below
 * small =
 * "| class = ambox-confusing"

to allow section styling and small selection.

-- 70.24.249.80 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing. mabdul 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Add new part of template
Please add in this: to add code of as "This article may be confusing because of the way it is written. Please re-word this article so that the general public can understand this article."

Talk parameter please!
As well as or even instead of calling for the REASON for the confusion please could someone add the parameter: TALK to this template so that users can refer editors directly to the relevant section of the Talk page?

IMO this parameter should be available for all templates. I am frustrated both as a reader by the merely unhelpful note in the tag that there MAY BE a discussion on the Talk page, and as an editor unable to refer editors to the discussion I have added to the Talk page.

LookingGlass (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two ways of doing this:  which produce  and  respectively. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Redrose64, thanks, great, and good for me to know, but would you then pls add this information to the Template's description so that editors generally can be aware of it? Thanks LookingGlass (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the corresponding documentation to the doc page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * a VERY belated thank-you, but your work is nonetheless truly appreciated. Thanks. LookingGlass (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Transwiki link to Simple: when article with same name there exists?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we include a conditional transwiki link from this template to the same article on the Simple English Wikipedia when it has an article with the same name?

Would such a feature require javascript? 136.148.221.147 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever for? The template - for which this is the discussion page - is a cleanup template for article text. It has nothing to do with interlanguage links. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Simple English Wikipedia is not a different language, just a different reading level. Wouldn't it be best to not discriminate against beginners? 83.137.1.217 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How does that "discriminate against" beginners? The idea is to make it available for beginners. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, Simple English is a different language. It's listed among the other Wikipedia languages in this list, position 51 as of today. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support concept, but I think this is the wrong place for the discussion, per Redrose64. We would need a different template name.  Not sure which forum would be best to bring this up.  This came from Jimbo's page:  here --David Tornheim (talk)
 * Oppose since if a page exists in Simple Wikipedia, there should be a link to it in the left sidebar, among the other languages. For example, this template has one - it's in the sidebar just above Slovenščina. If a page exists but is not linked, such a link may be set up easily at Wikidata. For example, the Wikidata entry for this template is found by following the Edit links link at the bottom of the language list. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose since it would need to be so hedged around with qualifiers as to be meaningless. Firstly, the pages almost certainly won't exist on simple-wiki; of the first ten entries on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Confusing only three have corresponding simple-wiki pages, and these articles are listed in date order so those are the articles that have had the longest time for someone to create a corresponding simple article. Secondly, many (perhaps most) articles on simple-wiki are appalling and not remotely fit for purpose (one of those three articles is this drivel which has existed for over a decade, and one is this unsourced nonsense). Thus, even if an interwiki link could be included in the template, it would need to say something like This article may be too confusing. An equivalent article possibly exists on Simple English Wikipedia which will potentially be less confusing but is likely to be poorly written and uninformative, which would obviously be pointless. (And if you think I'm cherry-picking examples of bad articles, here's their Random Article button.) It may not be as things be but we need to deal with the world as it is not as it should be; English Wikipedia is by far the most developed of the WMF projects, and if something is bad on en-wiki then it's almost certainly considerably worse elsewhere. &#8209; Iridescent 14:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried the Random Article button and it didn't work. Can you give me a better link?
 * I agree some of the Simple articles are bad, but simple:complex number does address the problem I was concerned about on Jimbo's page. If we are going to have simple wikipedia at all, it should be maintained.  I think the real problem is no one knows about it or uses it.  It certainly could solve the issue of complaints--including from me--about our math and physics articles.  --David Tornheim (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, there was a stray slash in there &#8209; Iridescent 15:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that (at least in theory) Simple Wikipedia isn't "simplified versions of en-wiki's articles"; they're supposed to be written to the same level as regular en-wiki articles, but restricted to the Basic English word set. This is a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance—too many people approach it as "Wikipedia for kids", and too many more don't understand that writing in Basic English is actually harder than writing in standard English—but it's worth bearing in mind whenever an "if you find the concept tricky try Simple" proposal comes along. (It does have the Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want basic information explanation right there on their main page, but nobody ever seems to pay any attention to it.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Is there policy or guideline that lays that out? This all the more suggests that Simple English wikipedia is that way to solve the problem with jargon filled math and science problems. I will admit that the simple:complex number article was a little simpler than I think is necessary, and indeed seems like it is written for kids.  Are there clear guidelines about what the education level of our audience if for both en.wikipedia and simple.wikipedia?  The most I found was WP:MOS.  It would help our discussion on Jimbo's page. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "is there a policy or guideline"—it's like asking for a policy that specifies that French Wikipedia is written in French. Their explanation of what they do is at simple:WP:SEW, while simple:WP:HOW is their explanation for how they (theoretically) approach writing—anyone who does approach it as "Wikipedia for kids" is likely to have a nasty shock as soon as they run into simple:Donkey punch or simple:Handjob. There is am attempt to create Wikipedia-for-kids at Vikidia, but it's independent of the WMF and largely moribund.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I was looking for (at least for Simple Wikipedia).  I find this very strange:  "But even very basic concepts (zero, one, two) [(simple:zero, simple:one, simple:two)] are too difficult to explain with a small number of words."  Really??? I used to teach math, so this comes as real surprise to me!  I guess I need Ph.D. in math to know that I really don't understand 0, 1, 2?  --David Tornheim (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This confuses the purpose of maintenance tags (suggesting that editors clean up a mess) with navigation links (helping readers find what they need) and by doing so makes both work badly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The "Simple English" version of an article is hardly a proper fixative for the problems where this template is usually used, nor is restricting any passage with a difficult or complex concepts or relationships to the vocabulary of Basic English likely to do any good. As to dumbing down content to reading comprehension skills of the average reader – which is reportedly at the eighth grade level in the U.S., but at the tenth grade in Scotland – I believe that has been addressed elsewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the template to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 05:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Confusing → Template:Unclear – More appropriate name. Mast303 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 18:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose move. - Not broken. Confusing is a positive description of what happens upon reading the articles this clean-up template gets added to. Unclear is a negative term that describes an absence of clarity and is less obvious than the term confusing is. Using positive terms is a better practice than using negative terms when giving instructions because positive terms are more likely to be interpreted correctly. Also, Template:Unclear redirects to Template:Confusing, so I am confused why a name change is needed in the first place, or why unclear is more appropriate to use as a title than confusing is. If you do not like using the word Confusing when posting this template, use the alias name Unclear to achieve the same result. There is no need to move the page. There is also Template:Confusing section, that is a companion template for sections, instead of articles. Both templates should have consistent names, otherwise it becomes confusing which one to use. See If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)