Template talk:Original research section

message: Hi guys.  This is my first template, so please check that I did everything correctly. --Slashme 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. Thanks for your work! David Kernow 10:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My First Template

message: I've replaced the code with:
:
which produces:
in order to avoid redundancy. Superm401 - Talk 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the date parameter. Superm401 - Talk 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:original research 

message: Please replace the existing code with an invocation of , 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)
replies: text: 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. --wL<speak·check> 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 :)  for now. -- lucasbfr talk 09:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-merge 

message: It seems like specifying the talk section isn't working. I had to use:  because I couldn't figure out how to make it work with .  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because  only has one parameter: . 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)
thread_title: Problems with specifying talk page section

message: 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)
thread_title: Restore to long version

message: Add a redirect to Template:Original research section because of a double redirect.
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: I saw no reason to add a redirect. However, I did see a reason to . --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  and you had done my thing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 22 February 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: All of the cleanup templates allow a  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)
replies: text:  In response to your response, I now tried using the  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)

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

text: Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for new feature 

message: Please change Template talk:Original research section/Old to  so that users looking for the history aren't redirected back here.
nyuszika7h (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this link says it is for viewing the "history", I used  instead of . --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 21:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2016 

message: "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)
replies: text: I agree -- it should read . I also think  should be simplified to . — Hugh (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic wording? 

message: The wording of this template should be changed as follows:
#  should change to …
#  should be simplified to . — Hugh (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  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  (so one probably would want to think about changing that at the same time too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2018