Template talk:Original research section

My First Template

Hi guys. This is my first template, so please check that I did everything correctly. --Slashme 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Thanks for your work! David Kernow 10:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:original research

I've replaced the code with:

{{original research|section}}

which produces:

in order to avoid redundancy. Superm401 - Talk 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the date parameter. Superm401 - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-merge

Please replace the existing code with an invocation of {{OR}}, as in the previous section, as there is no need to maintain two templates for the same task. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made a "test template" in your userspace to check if the template does what it's intended to do? This is a widely used template, and I'd like to make sure that the transition works seamlessly. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same, could someone test it on his userspace beforehand? I see this was tried and undone before, so I don't think this should be made lightly :)

Not done for now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-requesting. Code is at template:sectOR/sandbox, test cases are at template:sectOR/testcases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with specifying talk page section

It seems like specifying the talk section isn't working. I had to use: {{Original research|section|discuss=Talk:Insulin resistance#Original research in symptoms list|date=October 2010}} because I couldn't figure out how to make it work with {{Section OR}}. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because {{Section OR}} only has one parameter: |date=. It does not recognise any others: there would appear to be a spurious paragraph in the documentation, which I have removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to long version

Per Template_talk:Unreferenced_section#Restore_to_long_version and User_talk:SilkTork#Template:Section_OR, unless there are objections I shall amend the parent template so that this section version is restored to the long version in line with other section templates. I placed a notice on the parent template several days ago, and there have been no objections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 February 2015

This edit request to Template:SectOR has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a redirect to Template:Original research section because of a double redirect. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyxp2000:

Partly done: I saw no reason to add a redirect. However, I did see a reason to fix a double redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done and you had done my thing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request for new feature

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It would have been useful for me today to have had a parameter for inserting a reason or comment why I was claiming OR. This would be useful in some cases to pre-empt the need for a discussion on a talk page. —Boruch Baum (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the cleanup templates allow a |reason= parameter. Very few actually do something with it, since it's primarily of benefit to those editing the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: In response to your response, I now tried using the |reason= parameter, and it does not produce an error, but does not add the text to the infobox, which is the feature I'm requesting. If you say that this behavior is common to other cleanup templates, then I guess, over time, I'll be requesting the same feature for those, too. For now, this is the template for which I could have used the feature. —Boruch Baum (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several years later, I find myself wanting the same feature (i.e. having the |reason= parameter add text to the template such that it is visible to those reading the page). I have turned this into a proper edit request. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this template invokes Template:Original research, so I made the request there after testing it in that template's sandbox. TompaDompa (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that didn't carry over to this template since this one ignored that parameter. Re-opening this request. Please make the |reason= parameter functional, such as in this sandbox edit. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change [[Template talk:Original research section/Old]] to {{-r|Template talk:Original research section/Old}} so that users looking for the history aren't redirected back here. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyuszika7H:

Done Since this link says it is for viewing the "history", I used {{history}} instead of {{-r}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic wording?

"Please ... verify" assumes that the tagged claims can be verified, which is problematic when this template should generally only be used when there are claims made that look like they can't be verified. Shouldn't it be "verify (or falsify)", or perhaps with "falsify" replaced with "remove"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- it should read Please verify (or remove)…. I also think possibly contains should be simplified to may contain. — Hugh (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The wording of this template should be changed as follows:

Please improve it by verifying the claims should change to Please improve it by verifying (or removing) the claims…
possibly contains should be simplified to may contain. — Hugh (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The part about removing is mentioned later; best to get a consensus; the wording here has been the same for 10+ years and is the same as in {{original research}} (so one probably would want to think about changing that at the same time too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]