Template talk:Original research inline

Purpose
I have created this template modeled after facts ( [ citation needed ] ) due to the occasional necessity of specifying one or two simple passages in the given text of article that are questionable rather than marking the entire article (or section) with the somewhat overbearing Original research. Netscott 08:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the idea, but I'm worried that people might view this as POV or even a personal attack if their precious text suddenly becomes peppered with them. GarrettTalk 11:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Thief Garret. As far as people taking this template as a sort of personal attack I'd say that it was doubtful, the [ citations needed ]  template has been around for awhile now and to my knowledge it is not taken that way. Still, being that I've only just created it, this template is not a done deal and could use additional  editors viewpoints/contributions (like your own) on it. Netscott 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems
I personally don't think that this template is such a good idea. It's important to note that the 'citations needed' template is supposed to be used if you think that something does belong in the article, but just needs a citation added to it; it allows an uncited fact to remain present while people search for the proper citation. This template, by comparison, seems designed to be attached to original research, which can't really be fixed... if you think something is original research, then you should be bold and remove it from the article, rather than just tagging it, and move discussions to the talk page if anyone objects. If I was ever editing a page where I noticed this tag, I would look at the tagged material, decide whether it's original research or not, and either remove the tag or remove the material. Or, in short, this is yet another tag that seems to serve no purpose but to highlight disputes in the middle of article text; I think that that kind of template should be avoided as much as possible. They get in the way of most readers and distract from the goal of actually resolving the disputes in question. --Aquillion 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I should also note that naturally, at the very least anyone who adds this tag should have to provide an explaination on the talk page to start discussion; any instances of this tag without a relevent (live) discussion ought to be quickly removed in the same fashion used for npov and other dispute-issue tags. --Aquillion 03:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough I would tend to agree with you save for the fact that the template exists and is used quite extensively. My only contention with that tag is that it is very broad relative to a given article or section and doesn't allow for any type of pinpointing of a given bit of text as possible original research. Editors that are new to editing a given article are obligated to go to the talk page and hopefully find talk that specifies what text is considered as possibly original research or otherwise spend the time to research a given topic until such time as they can understand it somewhat comprehensively. As I look at this tagging template as it is now, the only issue I can think of is the ? at the end. While I haven't considered the question mark on the end in depth it is possible that one could argue that such a question mark has the potential to set up a POV war. Netscott 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct about specifying that one needs to add to an article's talk page to elucidate why they have used this tag and as such I invite you to add this 'rule' to the template (or I will later on if you do not have the time). Netscott 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now added the add talk specification for this template. Netscott 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the ? that was formerly at the end of the tag due to a concern over the possibility of the tag advancing POV hinged upon such a mark of interogation. Netscott 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's in a question mark...?
I added a question mark. My intention is to change the template from a declaration of unworthiness to a request for more sources. If there is no chance that a statement is not OR then it should be removed and this template would be useless in those cases. If there is a question.. then now there is a question mark! :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Inline templates proposed
WikiProject Council/Proposals. I've been meaning to do this for a while. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FACT tag
I currently replace all inline or tags with inline fact tags if there is no discussion on the talk_page within a few days. I think this is a good idea, as the [original research?] it adds has a negative connotation, while [citation needed] is much more nearly-NPOV. It seems to be general consensus that we shouldn't add the or tag without discussing it on the talk page, so I think this is a good way of handling that situation without having to try and figure out why the tag was added in the first place. -- trlkly 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is misguided. Our article improvement policies are not subject to overrule by NPOV.  If you think something is original research, say that openly, or better yet help fix it.  Superm401 - Talk 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Better name?
The name of this template seems to cause some confusion with OR. Though this is noted on the doc page, the bots apparently can't read the note, per this diff! Would Template:or-inline be a better option? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes mea culpa on that one, but also I believe capitalisation should not change the semantics of templates. How about we make OR redirect here? Rich Farmbrough, 04:13 3 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I actually like OR being used for Original research. But I agree that "OR" and "or" going to the same thing is probably best, whichever one they go to. - BillCJ (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stripping whitespace?
See the test cases. This template is stripping whitespace if the following text is a link. Can anyone verify / explain this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the problem has to do with the erroneous category addition on line 6. if that gets removed, it should work as ordered.  I'll request it.
 * can someone remove the bit of code   from this template, and add a new parameter line which reads  |cat=  after the 'date' line.  this should fix the noted formatting issue, as well as removing OR pages from the category 'all pages needing cleanup', in favor of the more specific category. Ludwigs2 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * can someone remove the bit of code   from this template, and add a new parameter line which reads  |cat=  after the 'date' line.  this should fix the noted formatting issue, as well as removing OR pages from the category 'all pages needing cleanup', in favor of the more specific category. Ludwigs2 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. --- RockMFR 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Gracias. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request to a protected template
I've decided to make a new redirect to the template. It's called Template:Original research?. Minima c  ( talk ) 12:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added that to the list of redirects, which is on the unprotected page Template:Or/doc. Algebraist 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template
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)

Use outside article namespace?
Since this template categorizes pages with Category:Articles that may contain original research is it appropriate to use outside of the article namespace such as in the project namespace? Hyacinth (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This template is built around, which uses the main parameter of , so it already prevents such categorisation when used outside article space. But, when would it be useful in project space? -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Add span capabilities
I propose to switch this template from fix to fix-span, so that particular problem could be indicated in less ambiguous way. The change is implemented in sandbox and showcased in testcases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:OR → Template:Original research inline – Per WP:TPN, "Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization". The current title is ambiguous and easily confused with original research. PC78 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If this template is moved, a sysop should retarget the fully-protected redirect Template:Or (and perhaps lower its protection), since the double redirect bots wouldn't be able to correct it. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 22:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Something that should have been done a long time ago. Te present name is not logical and not in line with the other inline templates. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as the current name is easily confused with other templates.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I would support this even if original research didn't exist in the first place. This template name is a needlessly breif acronym (as are too many other template names in Wikipedia). P p p er y  (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for the record, per above. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 01:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template-protected edit request on 18 December 2020
Please add the RFD to the OR and Or redirects per Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 19:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2021
Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25 has been closed as "keep" please remove the RFD tag from OR and Or  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and Happiest of New Years to You and Yours!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paine Ellsworth happy New Year to you to.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Original research span" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Original research span and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2022
Change the title and text parameter to: | title = The material near this tag  contains original research. | text = original research

If one is certain it is OR, the word possibly is not needed. lol1VNIO[not Lol1VNIO] (talk &#8226; contribs) 20:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * . Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)