Wikipedia talk:As of/dated

Poll

Resolved

 – Guideline exists and has been relatively stable for over 5 years.

Supporters of this rule include:

• drj,
• GWO ("now", "recently"),
• Damian Yerrick (instead of sixties say 1960s),
• tbc (ditto),
• 24 (strongly),
• Lee Daniel Crocker,
• maveric149,
• Eclecticology (It's an appeal to common sense),
• Arvindn (No reason to use "now" rather than, say, "in 2003", though I think "the sixties" is OK),
• Catherine
• JTD (recently should be banned. If I come across another 'recently' meaning 2001 I'll scream!)
• Rotem Dan (I oppose "now" and "recently", though I think writing contemporary beliefs and speculations is fine, especially on ongoing events or "trends")
• Kaihsu 15:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
• Angela

Opponents include:

• sjc,
• GWO, ("the sixties". Other things will date much faster),
• Enchanter (It's easy for us to stay up to date)
• Stevertigo (I agree in principle, but Enchanter is right, too. Using the word "recently" on occasion, is harmless, as it's often broad; proper to use for months or years. Also, when writing articles, exact dates may not be handy;)

Wikipedia can be updated quickly

Resolved

 – No further discussion in over 5 years.

But the point of wiki is that it can easily be amended... sjc

In my opinion, it depends on what is called quickly. I would certainly not want to hold the thousand years rule, but information that has to be refreshed weekly also does not belong here. Information should be dependable for at least about one year, in my opinion - although for subjects that are in current actuality a shorter period would also be ok, that is part of being a developping article. Of the statements mentioned, there is none that I would want to avoid always, but some I would want to avoid in a context. For example, China might soon become the world's major economic power I regard acceptable, but Vice-president Dick Cheney is in the hospital, but will soon be released not, because the first soon means within a few years/decades and the second within a few days/weeks. I would especially not like to live without is now considered - if a scientific theory is regarded plausible by most scientists, but not considered part of the scientific standard, I want to write is now considered the leading theory in the field or is now thought to be correct by most scientists. -- User:Andre Engels

Well, there are many good points here, clearly I was being a bit extreme. Part of the problem is that words like "now" and "soon" are contextual and it not easy for me, the reader, to tell what you mean when you say "might soon become the world's major economic power". Does that mean in a week's time or a decade's time? I'm no expert, so I don't know the relative economic growths of various countries or how quickly various economies grow over a variety of time scales. To pick an example which I know something about and you probably don't, if I said "the bolting policy for the rock climbing areas in the Wye Valley is soon to be revised" would you know whether I meant next month, next year, or next decade?

"is now considered" for scientific theories seems reasonable to me, probably because it (the theory in question) is largely accepted and likely to remain that way for a long time (though in many cases not as long as a thousand years). But if I say "the wearing of coloured zinc oxide cream is now considered unfashionable" then I think that would be bad. It's all a matter of scale.

"The Sixties" is more interesting. There was a cultural and sociological phenomenom that occurred roundabout the 1960s (free speech, feminism, psychoactive drugs, rock music, ecology, the green movement, space race; you know, all that). Scholars commonly and reasonably refer to that as "The Sixties". It seems to me just lazy, in an encyclopedia, to say things like: "DEC invented the PDP-1 in the sixties" instead of "DEC invented the PDP-1 in the 1960s".

Obviously things like the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack article are a Good Thing and everyone would expect high use of relative and contextual terms whilst it was being built. Still, notice the forsight of the original author in using the full date.

Phew.

-- drj

My only strong opinion on this subject is that, whenever we make statements about what's going on "now" (whenever exactly that is), we do not use ambiguous terms like "now," "yesterday," "tomorrow," "soon," and the like, but instead dates or other non-contextual ways of referring to time periods. Anybody can change any article at any time, but there are zillions of articles here that haven't seen the light of day in months, and that's probably not going to change. Besides, there's no big deal about trying to be more precise about when you're talking about--it's not difficult or inconveniencing. --User:Larry Sanger

1000 years? Give me a break!

By then, the language of the English Wikipedia will look like Old English to readers. I changed "1000 years" to "fifty years", long enough for most slang to fall out of use but not long enough for a Great Vowel Shift. "Fifty to 200 years" may be better. --Damian Yerrick

I agree with the point of avoiding language that dates easily. Yes we can update it, but who will remember to? Will an outdated reference just sit there until someone stumbles into it? I've come across a few sites where we are told, for example: 'the next general election is due in September 2001' but nothing has been updated since. I like Catherine's idea. It makes great sense and is workable. I must start doing that myself. JTD 05:11 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Right. The problem isn't that Wikipedia can't be updated easily, it's that it very frequently is not updated. I encounter 2-years-outdated statements in articles here all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Scale

Resolved

 – No further discussion in over 5 years.

Mentioning the time context will usually imply a time scale, too, as a side effect. E.g. compare "China is expected to become a large market in the 21st century", "In 2001, Java has not reached its stated target of a highly portable medium", and "Currently (September 2001) airline security even small knifes will not be tolerated on flights." These all convey an idea of how fast things are expected to change.

It may be useful to stick to a handful of standard phrases. This way we can search for them and find all statements that are on their way to obsolescence. User:--Robbe

"As of" links

Resolved

 – Rejected.

In general, I agree that dated statements should be avoided -- it's not that hard to do. In some areas though (political change, legislation, artistic and music releases, etc), it's worthwhile to note "current" or "impending", but soon to be "past" facts. I think authors who do this should take ownership of that date, however -- add it to their watchlist or to do list or whatever so that it DOES get updated eventually.

Personally, I liked the idea I encountered recently -- apparently begun by AstroNomer and seconded by Brion in Talk:As of 2002. The notion is to use As of 2003 to hyperlink "2003" or "currently" or "this year" in your text. The "As Of" page redirects to 2003, allowing context. And at the end of the year, or whenever you feel like making sure the 'pedia is up to date, you can use "What Links Here" from the "As Of" page to find articles that need updating. Works for me. Catherine

Should AstroNomer's "As of" idea be added to the article's guidelines then? Catherine 19:16 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I believe so: for more info, visit Wikipedia:As of. --Nelson 16:18 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See my "This page is scheduled for review in 2005" suggesion at the bottom of the article.

If this sounds workable, I'd suggest replacing or supplementing the current "As of xxxx" pages with a set of "Review in xxxx" pages. One could then simply type "This page is scheduled for [[Review in xxxx]]" at the bottom of the page, followed by a source code comment describing sections which definitely need review. --Scott. 03:25, 2004 Feb 10 (UTC)

Replaced with WP:ASOF

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Years later, this turns out to not be a good idea, for precisely the same reason that date autoformatting has now been deprecated: It creates links to "articles" that are simply lists of unconnected trivia, which serve no purpose for the reader. This older method has been superceded by WP:ASOF. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Recently"

Resolved

 – Current guideline addresses these points.

I agree with banning "recently," but I'm less gung ho about this than I used to be -- for instance, my opposition to "X is PM of Elbonia" (as opposed to "X was PM of Elbonia at the time") has evaporated as I realized the full implications of the "Edit this page" link -- to wit, when X is replaced/deposed/assassinated/whatever, the article can be changed.

And if you see "the next election will be in 1972" and it hasn't been updated since, well, be bold. --Charles A. L. 21:38, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Proposal to merge page

Resolved

 – No consensus for merge.

I propose to turn this page into a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and merging the policy (suitably reworded) into that page. Please let me know what you think. jguk 11:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At MOSNUM talk, there's a major overhaul underway. I propose to include a summarised version of this page in the revised MOSNUM, and a summary at what we're now negotiating will be inserted into MOS central. Please object here if you have issues with this course of action. We plan to act at the end of next week. Tony 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Update after}} ready for testing

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

As a partial replacement for As of, the Update after template appears to be ready for testing, review, and approval. The visible parts have been simplified to the point that they do not need any maintenance; all that is needed is that editors click on the links at Wikipedia:Updating information and update the articles listed. There are links for articles needing update today, yesterday, this month, last month, this year, and last year; that should be plenty of time to get a page updated one way or another. Documentation for using the template is in the template itself, at Update after. If you see any problems or think of any improvements, please report them at Wikipedia talk:As of.
--Scott McNay 07:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Update to Template:Update_after

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

I've made changes to Template:Update after (it now links to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and Wikipedia:As of), and made significant changes to the documentation at Template:Update_after (including documenting the built-in ability to add a comment, and a changes in where it's allowable to be used); please review, and provide comments at Template talk:Update after if you think any are appropriate. Thanks! --Scott McNay 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ASOF up for deletion

Resolved

 – Consensus was "keep".

If the deletion of WP:As of goes through, then the second part of this guideline page will be wrong and the first part is already covered better by WP:MOSNUM. I'll wait and see what happens with the MfD. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Page was just added to style guidelines

The reason I demoted that page a half-year ago was because there was a discussion about another page that would have superceded it. That discussion didn't work out, but I'd still prefer to hear a rationale for adding this to the style guidelines, if we're going to do that. Generally, we're working to keep the list of style guidelines from looking overly scary, and one thing that makes it look scary is a lot of short, outdated pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that this of all guidelines was outdated is particularly ironic. Note no smiley here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the style cat; the merge proposal below should cover it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge redux

Resolved

 – Pointer to merge discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#WP:DATED merge.

This should definitely be merged into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) since this is nothing but a dates issue, and the page is so short (and can be compressed further) that there is no reason for it to stand alone here where virtually no one sees it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Archived

This talk page was previously located at Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, which has since been jointly merged into WP:MOSNUM and WP:As of. The page is archived here for ease of access from the most relevant project – Ikara ^talk → 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)