Template talk:Clarify

message: Is there a reason this template doesn't allow more detail on what is needed to be clarified? E.g. 
 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't understand what "do summat clever" means (I now recognize that as Geordie and Mackem for "something"), 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)
replies: text: I actually rescind my agreement with putting such a feature into a pop-up. Just use the talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information? 

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Wikiproject Inline templates'' proposed

message: Need to add:  (without the nowiki of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Harryboyles 09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat. fix

message: This edit  deleted whitespace from the article. Needs fixin! -- Kendrick7talk 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template deleting whitespace 

message: This template is redundant to the earlier . It should be merged/redirected to that template. heqs ·:. 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I merged here due to better documentation. Adam Cuerden talk 12:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is redundant 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Completely agree. "Clarification needed" is much better. Matt 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 
as explained in the (modern) documentation. This issue is more or less resolved so I will mark it as such. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for change to link behaviour 

message: 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. -Wikianon (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated documentation

message: please place a ", " comma space before the post-text.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2008
: 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)
replies: text: I think this needs to be fixed in the meta template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor change

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

message: Please update  with . Per Wikipedia:Template documentation/List Thankyou. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy‑melon 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The pre-text parameter should simply be removed, as a) it isn't grammatical to do things like "?clarify", and b) people will do stupid or mistaken things with it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pre-text parameter 

message: See Template talk:Confusing#Confusing redirects. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing redirects

message: Suggest that [Clarification needed] is changed to [clarification needed]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.247.190 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, per related templates such as . Gary King (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted capitals 

message: I propose moving this template to Template:Clarify (currently a redirect here), which is a shorter title. I don't see how the "me" adds anything valuable or is in any way necessary. Any thoughts? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Is this template supposed to be a box that appears at the top/bottom of articles/sections, or is it supposed to be used inline?
69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: When logged in I am now seeing the text "1. REDIRECT Template:Clarify" inside articles that included , whereas before the move (or when not logged in), I saw the small superscripted "[clarification needed]". For example see The Golem and the Dancing Girl. What has gone wrong? Does the template namespace have a limitation with redirects? 84user (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be nice to be told about these moves, so I can rebuild SmackBot's rules base.  Rich Farmbrough, 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move broke template?

message: IMO we should allow the optional messages to wrap. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrapping 

message: I'd like to present this paragraph as an example why I feel we require an update for the Clarify template. The problem is, you as a Japanese speaker cannot see what needs to be clarified, unless you go to edit and read the source. With basic (and W3C compatible) Wiki->HTML rendering we could view reason= instead of a link on MouseOver.
I believe rare people bother to press the edit key just to see a clarification - which may or may not have a reason, the link as it is doesn't tell that, either. A random editor is unable to readily know if he/she actually has the required information, and would propably rather edit the article than seep through source "code". Thus clarify-edits are mainly accidental stumble upons, even if you did leave a reason. In a similar sense, bypassing reason= and adding reason to the article would create unnecessary clutter and make the article harder to read for a common user.
Unfortunately I'm not a programmer so I can't readily create this without further study, nor did I check who can or has the rights to do it (or which concensus is needed). I just feel the template as it is is getting obsolete, as clarify|reason= at the moment doesn't really do anything, while most parameters on most other templates actually do. Perhaps some bold people could put this under their thinking cap :) - aeris talk 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: remade the initiative at Inline Templates Project Talk, it possibly gets more attention there. Please continue discussion at the project pages, thank you - aeris talk 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clarify|reason=" to be shown on link 

message: This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: Could this template be upgraded to switch to the use of  ? Two additional parms :
*|content=
*|span-class=citation-needed-content
Thanks ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of t:Fix-span 

message: Hi, is there any way that the "reason" text can be made more accessible to the person reading the article? It would almost be better if clicking on the link popped up the reason text rather than going to a generic page that 99.9% of the time will shed no light whatsoever on what the alleged problem is. The "pre" and "post" text parameters are fine for very short reasons, but often the reason may be too long to comfortably be accommodated. 109.153.233.36 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For anything other than a very short reason, you should raise a thread at the article's discussion page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And the pre and post stuff are abominations that should never be used in actual articles.  Those are features of the meta-template this inline tag is based on, but they should actually be disable for this tag, because they were not intended for adding blathery, longwinded verbiage to inline cleanup/dispute templates, but for very slight adjustments in template appearance. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I don't disagree that complicated matters should be discussed on the talk page. However, given that the "reason" parameter exists, and has a useful purpose, to me it seems a no-brainer to offer some better way of viewing it than editing the page and searching amongst wikicode. And, given that the current link to a generic page is essentially useless in my opinion, why not put that link to some good use? By the way, note also that talk page discussions may scroll off into archive oblivion without ever being actioned. I've seen this even with long-standing article banners, to the point where no one knows any more why the banner was added in the first place. 109.153.233.36 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: This, and the alternative of clicking on the link to bring up a popup (rather than going to some pointless generic page), have been suggested quite a few times over a number of years. For whatever reason, nothing has ever been done. 86.171.43.54 (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This seemed to work for me for a while, but now it's stopped (Win 7 / IE 9). Not sure why... 86.177.107.165 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make reason more accessible 

message: Would it not be feasible and appropriate to make the text entered after the reason= parameter visible by hovering the mouse over the clarification needed template? __meco (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This, and the alternative of clicking on the link to bring up a popup (rather than going to some pointless generic page), have been suggested quite a few times over a number of years. For whatever reason, nothing has ever been done. 86.171.43.54 (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This seemed to work for me for a while, but now it's stopped (Win 7 / IE 9). Not sure why... 86.177.107.165 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make reason= visible on hovering the mouse 

message: Why does one of the examples (the one with the reason parameter) include "subst:" which substitutes the template, while the other examples don't? —Kri (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it's confusing. A few weeks ago, somebody amended  (and a few other maintenance templates, both inline and banner) so that if they were substituted, two things would happen: (a) the attempted substitution would be turned into a proper transclusion; and (b) the template would be automatically dated. Thus, , when saved, becomes ; and so  is essentially the same as . The first reason is a good one - some templates should never be substituted, and this guards against it; but the second reason merely allows you to be lazy. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, how can  become , is there some kind of circle reference going on here or has subst: been modified specifically for this template? For example,  just becomes  again. —Kri (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly so: the point is that the template must appear in the wikicode as  and not as the underlying . The template code begins with some code which essentially boils down to "if this template has not been substituted, the template code is , otherwise the template code is ; and in the latter case, has a  been provided - if not, fake one in". Part of it is done by means of , the doc page of which has further information. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution? 

message: Hi, I would like to request that someone changes the explanation of the "reason" parameter to read as follows. The changes are to document the new mouseover feature. Although I found the apparently editable "doc" subpage, I was prevented from making the edit myself by a "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive" message.
----
;:
Because it may not be immediately apparent to other editors what about the tagged passage is in need of clarification, it is generally helpful to add a brief reason for the tag:  (this is preferable to using an HTML  after the tag, as it is more tidy to keep all of the -related code inside the template). If the explanation would be lengthy, use the article's talk page.
As well as being visible in the source code for editors' benefit, the reason parameter is, if provided, displayed when the mouse is hovered over the "clarification needed" link in the article. For technical reasons, this mouseover feature does not work if the reason text contains double quotes. Use single quotes instead, or use the code " if it is essential to include a double quote.
----
86.181.204.203 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks. I've also made a note at the edit filter which stopped you from making the edit yourself, suggesting a possible fix. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 19 May 2012 

message: One of the examples given in the documentation is . It is unclear what the purpose of "subst" is, or why this example includes it and the others don't. I have used this template several times, with "reason" parameter, and have never used this "subst" thing, nor do I understand if, why, or when I should.
There is some discussion about this above, but it is way over my head. I think that the documention should explain, in very simple terms for ordinary users, why "subst" is needed in the one example and not the others. Otherwise the "subst" should just be deleted. 86.160.87.142 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not needed, but if omitted you should provide your own  - the template is written so that a subst: fills that in automatically. So,  is exactly equivalent to  --Redrose64 (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK. I think that should be explained. However, there is also a bot ("AnomieBOT") that comes along and adds missing dates to this and other tags. 86.146.108.51 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing examples 

message: I noticed some pages using a clarify template like
 {{Clarify|date=November 2011|reason=This is not a proper reference citation. Use <ref...> inline in the article
(see [[WP:CITE]]) to source the specific facts provided by this reference.}}
that displays like  which messes up the text after it
and displays extra end brackets (just search for "[This is not a proper reference citation]" without quotes and you'll discover many pages using similar code).
The original code seems to be a substituted template (because similar code is used on many pages), but I can't find it. The problem would be solved if "(see WP:CITE)" is replaced with "(see Wikipedia:CITE)".
 {{Clarify|date=November 2011|reason=This is not a proper reference citation. Use <ref...> inline in the article
(see Wikipedia:CITE) to source the specific facts provided by this reference.}}
displays like  which doesn't mess up the text after it.
Can someone find what template that clarify code is from and suggest this change there? - Xin-Xin W. (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was  almost eight months ago; your example is from before that fix. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks in reason= parameter 

message: There's a discussion related to this template at Template talk:Clarifyref, as  and its  variant use , and someone has objected to this. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ  Contrib.  22:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion about Clarifyref template 

message: Would it be possible to change the  template to work like , so as to enable the editor adding the template to make part of the article a parameter to make it unambiguous exactly what they had found unclear? That is, just as e.g.  currently outputs "", so should, I believe, e.g.  produce: "lots". It Is Me Here t / c 18:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enable unclear-text parameter? 

message: The current default reason says,
:The text in the vicinity of this tag needs clarification or removal of jargon
I propose it be changed to,
:The text near this tag may need clarification or removal of jargon.
The primary reason is to make the text shorter (so the tooltip doesn't wrap as often), easier to understand ("in the vicinity" vs "near"), more accurate ("needs" vs "may"), and to add ending punctuation. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and did it. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword default reason 

message: Hi… I know this template has had a long history of moves, but for consistency, either this template should be moved to Template:Clarification needed, or Template:Citation needed should be moved to Template:Cite. In other words, either both should have titles that are verbs, or both should have titles that follow the format "… needed". Wikipedia—as much as possible—must be consistent in its format. — |J~Pæst|  16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'm not against what you propose. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Citation needed cannot be moved to , because the latter is a redirect to Template:Citation, which has a completely different purpose. Granted, some people do use  when they should have used  (); but there are also a lot of people who use  in the full knowledge that it's a shorthand for , and these people would suddenly find that their carefully-constructed reference suddenly started to display [citation needed] instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about Template:Cite, Redrose64. Though I was focusing more on the Template:Clarification needed proposal, I obviously didn't think through well enough what JPæst proposes. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

text: This might have implications for a large number of inline templates; see listing at WP:WikiProject Inline Templates. Redirects work just fine in my opinion; consistency is often a goal at Wikipedia, but generally only with regard to things that are directly reader-facing, such as article titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move template to [[Template:Clarification needed|Clarification needed]] 

message: I think I've just added the TemplateData to the documentation page, but it seems that to get this to take effect in a reasonable timeframe a null edit to the main template page is needed. As its fully protected, would a passing admin please do that edit? Thanks. PamD 20:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been done - I asked at ANI. PamD 20:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Null edit, please 

message: A protected redirect, Template:Clarify me needs redirect category (rcat) templates added.  Please modify it as follows:
* from this:
#REDIRECT Template:Clarify
* to this:
#REDIRECT Template:Clarify

* 
Template Redr is an alias for the  template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories.  No protection rcat is needed, and if  and/or  suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically.  (Also, the categories will be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.)  Thank you in advance! – Paine  10:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . Also lowered the protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Martin! and I hope all is going very well with you and yours! – Paine  14:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: No problem.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the gazillionth time, thank you Martin, thanks very much!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 July 2015 

message: You previously lowered the protection of the above  redirect to semi-protected.  If you'll also lower the protection of the  redirect, I'll go ahead and tag that one with the  as well.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the gazillionth time, thank you Martin, thanks very much!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional request

message: In my opinion, the text of this template is a little long. [clarification needed] is wide, taking up a lot of space on the page. Is there any interest in shortening it to [clarify]? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is'[clarity needed]' Short Enough between '[clarification needed]' and '[clarify]'? pl2nmOdXlm7ykr0 15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to [clarify]? 

message: The article contains . However, the documentation for  has an example with a wikilink. Is that valid? If so, shouldn't it be explicitly documented as an exception? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The  and  parameters are not the same, they are processed in different ways. Warnings that apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the text of the  at the top of the article is generic; the mention of  is only given as an example. Shouldn't the documentation of parameters to which the warning does not apply explicitly say so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've boldly removed the warning against using wikilinks, as it seems to be outdated. The reason parameter is wrapped (since 2015) by a call to , so wikilinks there don't cause any issues (they're just ignored). I also tested wikilinks in the text param, and saw no issues. See Template:Clarify/testcases. Colin M (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the post-text example with a wikilink valid? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:What ?. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3#Template:What ? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:What ?" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:What does this refer to?. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 3#Template:What does this refer to? until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Elli (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:What does this refer to?" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:Whatthefuck. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Template:Whatthefuck until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 07:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:Whatthefuck" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: to '[clarity needed]'? pl2nmOdXlm7ykr0 14:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can '[clarification needed]' be Shortened? 

message: For short reasons current state is better than adequate. 
If a discussion is necessary, a link to (already existing or newly created) topic on talk-page might be welcome and useful. 
:  here is an example (template call is malformed, I copied it as it is, I'll correct that as needed when I succeed to get to relevant sources, think it through and change the relevant part of the article).
: The problem of providing necessary clarification is that: 
:* definition is (both time and place) context depending
:* the affected part of the article could (and should) be written better, but not removed; if it were removed the initiative to make it better might never reappear, but that's for discussion on that talk-page
:* WP has essays about when alternative definitions should be part of wiktionary (and just link to a  topic there included in the WP article) and when alternative definitions should be discussed in the article.  That should IMO be discussed on the talk page for that article, and a link to appropriate section there would be welcome to be added to the template (or near it) in the article. 
:* I was looking for a way to do that, but couldn't find it in current template documentation; either it doesn't exist yet, or is not visible well enough in the documentation. 
*Ideal IMO would be a link to a talk page topic (and maybe creating it if it doesn't exist yet), and a link available there to the place where template is in the article, but that might be overdoing it (search for unachievable perfect instead of creating something good enough). 
*What is needed (IMO) is a possibility (a new named parameter?) to show a link to a discussion section on talk page (where links to other discussions could be provided if needed). 
: For the idea, this parameter could be something like Talk= or TalkSection= . The first would be short enough and, if instruction and example in the template doc is clear and good enough, unambiguous enough (IMO). 
I understand that  is realized through other templates that could/would be affected, so change is not simple. But other templates of similar type might benefit too if a parameter with a link to talk-page and/or it's section were possible. If such possibility already exists elsewhere, it might be much easier to add something like that here too. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the last example at Template:Clarify#Parameters, you can use e.g. . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somehow link to a topic with discussion might be usable