Template talk:Or
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have created this template modeled after {{facts}} ([citations 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)
[edit] 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 {{Original research}} 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)
- Interestingly enough I would tend to agree with you save for the fact that the {{Original research}} 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)
[edit] whats 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)
