Template talk:Original research

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Please add |removalnotice = yes inside the {{ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal. Omni Flames (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is "original research" the right term to display to readers?

Is "original research" the right term to display to readers? This would transmit the message "this is real new stuff in Wikipedia, not just copied"; it is a complimentary term. Among contributors the meaning is (or should be) clear, but perhaps "original research" should be replaced by other displayed text in tags on articles and inline? I don't know what better wording to use, maybe something like "unreferenced personal opinion"? The templates could continue to be {{Original research}}, {{Original research inline}}, etc, with the displayed text changed. Pol098 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

EXCELLENT point. Research that results in actual contribution to knowledge is pretty much by definition original. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggest a potential transwiki to Wikiversity on the template?

What about including a suggestion on the template to consider posting the article, or portion of the article that is original research to Wikiversity? This could help Wikiversity and help Wikipedia. Michael Ten (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems with template

Please check a page with the template. You will notice that the way the template appears on that is quite different from the way it appears on Template:Original research. The latter includes the sentence "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." with talk page being a live link to the talk page. I am unclear why the template does not include this sentence which appears on the template page. I would appreciate any explanation for this and how it might be remedied.Leutha (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 May 2019

Remove the excess space between }}} }}} in This {{{part|{{{1|article}}} }}}. Hildeoc (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Possibly contains" -> "May contain"?

It's a small thing, but it strikes me that "may contain original research" is a neater way of stating the idea than "possibly contains". And presumably no one is tagging out of the mere suspicion of OR—rather, they have good reason to do so. "May contain" strikes me as more in keeping with the level of certainty that's consistent with someone making the effort to tag. (Note: I don't consider this an uncontroversial change, so haven't flagged with the relevant template.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Second. Why has this gone so long without attention? ChromaNebula (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Add "Original research section" template to see also.

The inline template is included in the see also. I don't see any reason why the section template shouldn't be.

The template in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Original_research_section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Of the universe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Please add a functional "reason" parameter, such as in this sandbox edit. TompaDompa (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)