![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| ||
See also:
|
||
It seems painfully obvious to me that "as of" statements are appropriate for discussions, especially for content that one intends to change. The statement remains valid after a consensus is reached either way. — Nahum Reduta [ talk| contribs] 19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This project seems like a great idea, but there seems to be one significant issue with the method currently used. Your problem is this: there are bots which fix double redirects, and they will certainly consider these to be in need of "fixing." Here is my suggestion: Use templates such as the one I created at {{ As of 2007}}. This template transcludes another template, {{ As of}}. This way, you can still see what pages use "as of"-type links at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:As of, and bots will not "fix" the redirects. Also, I bet regular people are "fixing" your redirects, which they would probably not do so much if this method were to be used instead. Good day- Eliyak T· C 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
See discusion at:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
Lightmouse (
talk)
11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus - but what about a way forward? Should we be looking to migrate to something better? If so, here's a suggested way forward:
Am I jumping the gun here? From what I read on the deletion discussion, there is broad consensus to move away from this,somehow? Paulbrock ( talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is ... a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
I don't think "as of" is precise language. Anything that is subject to change could be tagged "as of ...":
It's a 100% certainty that Mark Cuban will not be the owner of the Mavericks at some point in the future, so this usage of "as of" follows the guidelines laid out on this page. (Ironically, "quickly" is imprecise... what does it mean? 10 days? 6 months? a year? a lifetime?) Since "as of" can be used to indicate either beginning or end, its meaning is also unclear in many cases:
Does that mean it became the world's tallest structure, or remained the world's tallest structure in 2008? The usage laid out by this page implies the latter, but the common meaning is the former. This is something that should be dealt with precise language, of course, but right now editors just tack on "as of" phrases lazily.
Finally, this use of "as of" basically amounts to a content disclaimer since it implies: "Disclaimer: if you are reading this after 2008, this statement may not be valid". It violates
Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The prescribed usage of an "as of" phrase is to indicate a statement that is expected to be invalid in the "near" future. I think the "update after" mechanism is a much better way to do this, and is much closer to that meaning. If an editor expects a statement to become invalid "soon", that editor can mostly likely come up with a date to check on the validity of the statement. If not, there's no need to tag it ({{
update after|Mark Cuban dies?}}
). –
flamurai (
t)
09:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Following from the previous discussion and the MfD debate it is fairly obvious that some progress needs to be made with the [[As of xxxx]] wikilink issue. I also agree with various users that the {{
Update after}}
template is inadequate for dealing with all "As of..." situations. So, in an effort to be bold, I have began work in updating the old {{
As of}}
template, which was left in a somewhat unhelpful state (all it did was pipe the text "as of xxxx" to the article "xxxx", thus bypassing the 'what links here' list for the "as of xxxx" article). The main purpose of the modified template is to provide an invisible link to the appropriate "as of..." article without the Click To Be Disappointed blue text, however my hope is to migrate the listings over to hidden categories, which are easier to access and browse, and ultimately remove the [[As of xxxx]] redirects altogether. Currently the template has a few extra features to allow for some flexibility:
{{
Start date}}
template for added microdate formatsI have yet to write up any documentation for the template (next task) so you will need to look at the source code to see how it works. This is designed to be used when an {{
Update after}}
template is not appropriate. Any comments, suggestions or feature requests would be helpful, post them here or on the template's
talk page –
Ikara
talk →
18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
As of}}
template to help explain how it works, and I've also started work on the categories that the template will use to track the template instances. Currently only
CAT:ASOF is online, I'm working on a group template for all the month/year subcategories, and it should be running by tomorrow. Once that is finished I will update the template to use categories wherever possible, using the old style "As of..." links only when a category is not available (which will occur with deprecated instances of the template, thus allowing us to quickly track them down and update them). Currently I plan to use month-and-year cats from 2005 onwards, year-only cats for 1990 onwards, and two special cats: an "all articles..." cat. and a pre-1990 cat. This should keep things nicely organised, although we may need to update it as the template evolves. Does anyone have any reason to object to me not using old-style links once the categorisation is running? (The category pages will link to the appropriate "As of..." pages wherever possible, at least until we can red-link them). –
Ikara
talk →
01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC){{
Cat ASOF}}
for creating new "As of..." categories quickly, please see the template page for usage instructions. I will update the {{
As of}}
template to start categorising articles wherever possible next. Feedback at this stage (before changes become too widespread) would be helpful. However, as I have received no objections so far, I will assume everyone is happy for me to go ahead. –
Ikara
talk →
00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC){{
As of}}
is now ready for full testing. The template is fully working now and has already begun categorising "potentially dated statements" at
CAT:ASOF. You can view the complete list of live instances in
Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements. Some of these need adapting to the new template format, however excluding these all instances no longer link to the "As of..." pages (although this is only noticeable after a null-edit, unlike categories). We can now work through the old "As of..." pages converting them to the new template (if someone has a bot that could do that it would help a lot!). At this stage it may be worth changing this page to give the new location for "As of" listings and encourage editors to use the new system. When creating new subcategories of
CAT:ASOF use the {{
Cat ASOF}}
template, a category will appear red-linked in a page's category list after you edit it if it requires creating. –
Ikara
talk →
02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no objection to the new template being implemented in place of the old system, I have begun work on a new project page to reflect this. I invite anyone who's interested to help construct it, please leave comments, suggestions or complaints here. Assuming there are no objections before then, I will move the page over once it is finished. All the best – Ikara talk → 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal now at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to change WP:As of policy. Please discuss there. – Ikara talk → 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Beth Elohim where the "as of" feature has been discussed and (I think) misunderstood. See also my comments here, here, and here. If those maintaining this feature could comment, that might help clarify things. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed and agreed that WP:DATED be merged, although the target is still undecided. Currently, this project and WP:MOSNUM are the proposed targets. I have added a new section containing the information previously contained in WP:DATED to WP:As of#Precise language to help replace the project. I have also removed links to the soon-to-be-merged project. I deem this fairly uncontroversial, but if anyone has any objections please voice them. Feedback on the target would also be appreciated. Thanks – Ikara talk → 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Should talk pages/user pages/archived talk pages be updated to the new As Of template like any article? Because if so, that may mess a few things up, but if not, that'll leave pages in the automatic lists (Special:WhatLinksHere/whatever).
I'm looking in particular at Talk:Canada/Archive 2. -- Web-Crawling Stickler ( talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an option to allow no year display? The year would be redundant in articles such as 2009 California wildfires which have the year in the title. thanks Petersam ( talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why {{
As of?}}
and {{
When}}
should not be merged? From their documentation pages, their intended purpose seems to be the same (although they categorise differently). Tagging something with {{
As of?}}
leaves a cleanup template – indicating that it's something to be fixed – yet it doesn't sort the page to a maintenance category. What's the reasoning behind this?
Putting this discussion here instead of the template pages, since it doesn't look like I'm likely to get a response there. Osiris ( talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
Edit protected}}
request, there is no need to go to TfD and form another consensus. (But you can if you want to.)
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC).I tried to use the as-of template in the middle of a sentence, but it defaults to capital A. Is there any way to get a lower-case option? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
lc=y
is documented at {{
As of}}.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Hello. I have nominated NK Maribor players for FL and I have a small problem. One of the reviewers expressed his concernes about the capitalization of "As" in the middle of a sentence. The problem is that the capitalization seems to occur automatically when using the Wikipedia:As of method. Below is the sentence I used in the article, with the use of the As of method. Is there a way for the use of the method without the "As" being capitalized?
Thank you, Ratipok ( talk) 13:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Readers of this page may have interest in the discussion about the use of the phrase "as of" taking place here. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the "Usage guidelines" section should be updated to discourage the use of "As of" when describing a current state. Here's an example, from the current version of the Megyn Kelly article: "As of 2014, Kelly hosts The Kelly File on weekdays from the network's New York City headquarters." In a case like this, it would be better to leave off the "As of". The article should just say that she hosts the TV show, and when at some future point that's no longer the case, the article can be updated. This is in contrast to the proper usage in conjunction with facts expected to change soon, as in the example given, "the population of Toledo as of the 2010 Census was 287,208". I'll be happy to update the page myself but I'm posting here first to solicit the opinions of other editors. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
As of November 2014, the Grand Canyon is in Arizonawould be unhelpful, but there are still scores of other "current state" situations where editors find "as of" helpful. The current guidance puts it to editor discretion, and it's better to use "as of" in many of those cases than have stale and obviously outdated articles a couple of years from now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify my point. I think it's preferable stylistically to leave off "As of" for a current state, even if it's quite possible that things will change soon. The phrase is not needed to improve understanding, and it's all the more unnecessary in a Wikipedia article because the article can be updated at a moment's notice. This is in contrast to things like the population of Toledo as of the 2010 census. The next census won't be till 2020, which is not at all soon, but we'd want to make it clear as of when the population had a certain value. — Mudwater ( Talk) 23:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
In my articles, using precise language generally means that the asof template ends up in the middle of a sentence. How do I get it to render as "as of" instead of "As of"? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Testing... as of 2014
[update] vs. as of 2014
[update] vs. As of 2014
[update].
Maury Markowitz (
talk) 13:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, according to those tests, a simplification would be to simply assume that the strings |lc=yes
and |lc
are synonymous, which leads the greatly simplified syntax.
Maury Markowitz (
talk)
13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
By analogy to MOS:PUNCTFOOT and in accordance with stylistic good sense, I believe the commas following "as of" should occur before "[update]," not afterwards; this:
Not this:
In this edit, I attempted to effect this change but was reverted by Debresser because he didn't like my edit summary and appears to think using the template in accordance with its documentation is inappropriate for a help page. Rebb ing 17:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#"Currently" does not belong on Wikipedia regarding the continual use of "currently". Interested editors are invited to contribute there. Kablammo ( talk) 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Per discussion on Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher#"As at", it has been proposed that the proper British English form must be "as at". As a lifelong American Anglophile, I am confused by the evidence that I have read in dictionaries and grammar guides versus what has been told to me be @ SchroCat: who is British. It would appear that "as at" does not have an equivalent meaning to "as of" as we mean it when we use the {{ as of}} template. Furthermore, WP:ENGVAR exhorts us to take advantage of commonalities. I have not found evidence that "as of" is excluded or unknown by British English speakers. While I have found decent evidence of some usage of "as at" around the project, I have also found no evidence of its discussion, its support, or the relative merits, vis-a-vis the template usage for dated facts. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 10:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding as at
, this source:
indicates: as at (= as of) is characteristic chiefly of BrE financial jargon ... It's a construction best avoided.
The same source has this for as of
:
as of.
A. Generally.
As of should be used with caution. Originally an Americanism, the phrase frequently signifies the effective date of a document, as when the document is backdated, postdated, or signed by various people at different times <this contract is effective as of July 1>.
As an example, I submit that the phrase As of August 2021, the novel is currently in early development ...
fits this usage as described by Garner, as the phrasing could be rewritten The novel is effectively in development as of August 2021 ...
& still would mean the same thing.
Peaceray (
talk)
07:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
There are over 400 articles using "As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}" with also the day-year or just year. This is used properly on the Wikipedia article where the associated information is generated daily through other magic words and/or templates, but the majority of articles using this are falsely claiming material to be perpetually updated. While in many cases the information may be true, it may not be verifiable on a daily basis and if at some point the information changes then the article would then be reporting a falsehood. Would it be worthwhile to have a couple sentences in this Wikipedia guideline to discourage this practice? – Reidgreg ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
As of|{{MONTHNAME|{{REVISIONMONTH}}}} {{REVISIONYEAR}}}}
(e.g. As of November 2023
[update]), but you'd have to assure that every edit to the page actually checked that the information was still valid (including bot edits). I think the odds that every editor would actually verify the information when changing anything in the page, including a section edit to another section, are slim. --
Ahecht (
TALKWhere possible, avoid items such as "now" and "soon" (unless their intended meaning is made apparent by the prose), "currently" and "recently" (except on rare occasions where they are not redundant), variables such as, but I'd worry about WP:BEANS.{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}
or{{CURRENTYEAR}}
(unless the information being referenced is also updated by a variable), or phrases such as "in modern times" and "the sixties" (unless their frame of reference was previously made clear).
Do not use variables to automatically update the date, such as "as of. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 06:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC){{CURRENTYEAR}}
", unless the information being referenced is automatically updated each time the page is parsed, such as{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
As for remediation, strictly speaking, subst'ing the current date is only correct if you do a fact check at the time of the subst. A more conservative approach would be to find when the statement was added and use that for the date. But as Ahecht noted in this comment from last April, when "as of" is used as a header for a table of competition winners, it can just be removed. I removed a statement from The Bachelor (American TV series) which was problematic from a BLP sourcing perspective. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 02:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I got a bit carried away and removed some headers which did actually refer to data generated with {{ age in days}}, so I went back and replaced those with footnotes or temporarily reverted the removal. Check out e.g. the column footnote solution, and the cell footnote solution and let me know what you think. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 13:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the application of ASOF to Rotten Tomatoes scores in film and TV articles that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF. Comments from any editors watching this page would be greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
'As of' is not natural English. It sounds like someone in the military. The problem is that it sounds like it's hot information that's going to be updated every few minutes/days ... and it isn't. 2020 - and I'm seeing 'As of 2016 ...' as if that's hot off the press. If the author wrote: 'In 2016 ... x was true ... that would make more sense. The information was true in 2016 and hasn't been updated. It's also normal English ... I'd be suspicious of any friend who used it in everyday conversations. Francis Hannaway ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| ||
See also:
|
||
It seems painfully obvious to me that "as of" statements are appropriate for discussions, especially for content that one intends to change. The statement remains valid after a consensus is reached either way. — Nahum Reduta [ talk| contribs] 19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This project seems like a great idea, but there seems to be one significant issue with the method currently used. Your problem is this: there are bots which fix double redirects, and they will certainly consider these to be in need of "fixing." Here is my suggestion: Use templates such as the one I created at {{ As of 2007}}. This template transcludes another template, {{ As of}}. This way, you can still see what pages use "as of"-type links at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:As of, and bots will not "fix" the redirects. Also, I bet regular people are "fixing" your redirects, which they would probably not do so much if this method were to be used instead. Good day- Eliyak T· C 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
See discusion at:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
Lightmouse (
talk)
11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus - but what about a way forward? Should we be looking to migrate to something better? If so, here's a suggested way forward:
Am I jumping the gun here? From what I read on the deletion discussion, there is broad consensus to move away from this,somehow? Paulbrock ( talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is ... a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
I don't think "as of" is precise language. Anything that is subject to change could be tagged "as of ...":
It's a 100% certainty that Mark Cuban will not be the owner of the Mavericks at some point in the future, so this usage of "as of" follows the guidelines laid out on this page. (Ironically, "quickly" is imprecise... what does it mean? 10 days? 6 months? a year? a lifetime?) Since "as of" can be used to indicate either beginning or end, its meaning is also unclear in many cases:
Does that mean it became the world's tallest structure, or remained the world's tallest structure in 2008? The usage laid out by this page implies the latter, but the common meaning is the former. This is something that should be dealt with precise language, of course, but right now editors just tack on "as of" phrases lazily.
Finally, this use of "as of" basically amounts to a content disclaimer since it implies: "Disclaimer: if you are reading this after 2008, this statement may not be valid". It violates
Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The prescribed usage of an "as of" phrase is to indicate a statement that is expected to be invalid in the "near" future. I think the "update after" mechanism is a much better way to do this, and is much closer to that meaning. If an editor expects a statement to become invalid "soon", that editor can mostly likely come up with a date to check on the validity of the statement. If not, there's no need to tag it ({{
update after|Mark Cuban dies?}}
). –
flamurai (
t)
09:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Following from the previous discussion and the MfD debate it is fairly obvious that some progress needs to be made with the [[As of xxxx]] wikilink issue. I also agree with various users that the {{
Update after}}
template is inadequate for dealing with all "As of..." situations. So, in an effort to be bold, I have began work in updating the old {{
As of}}
template, which was left in a somewhat unhelpful state (all it did was pipe the text "as of xxxx" to the article "xxxx", thus bypassing the 'what links here' list for the "as of xxxx" article). The main purpose of the modified template is to provide an invisible link to the appropriate "as of..." article without the Click To Be Disappointed blue text, however my hope is to migrate the listings over to hidden categories, which are easier to access and browse, and ultimately remove the [[As of xxxx]] redirects altogether. Currently the template has a few extra features to allow for some flexibility:
{{
Start date}}
template for added microdate formatsI have yet to write up any documentation for the template (next task) so you will need to look at the source code to see how it works. This is designed to be used when an {{
Update after}}
template is not appropriate. Any comments, suggestions or feature requests would be helpful, post them here or on the template's
talk page –
Ikara
talk →
18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
As of}}
template to help explain how it works, and I've also started work on the categories that the template will use to track the template instances. Currently only
CAT:ASOF is online, I'm working on a group template for all the month/year subcategories, and it should be running by tomorrow. Once that is finished I will update the template to use categories wherever possible, using the old style "As of..." links only when a category is not available (which will occur with deprecated instances of the template, thus allowing us to quickly track them down and update them). Currently I plan to use month-and-year cats from 2005 onwards, year-only cats for 1990 onwards, and two special cats: an "all articles..." cat. and a pre-1990 cat. This should keep things nicely organised, although we may need to update it as the template evolves. Does anyone have any reason to object to me not using old-style links once the categorisation is running? (The category pages will link to the appropriate "As of..." pages wherever possible, at least until we can red-link them). –
Ikara
talk →
01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC){{
Cat ASOF}}
for creating new "As of..." categories quickly, please see the template page for usage instructions. I will update the {{
As of}}
template to start categorising articles wherever possible next. Feedback at this stage (before changes become too widespread) would be helpful. However, as I have received no objections so far, I will assume everyone is happy for me to go ahead. –
Ikara
talk →
00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC){{
As of}}
is now ready for full testing. The template is fully working now and has already begun categorising "potentially dated statements" at
CAT:ASOF. You can view the complete list of live instances in
Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements. Some of these need adapting to the new template format, however excluding these all instances no longer link to the "As of..." pages (although this is only noticeable after a null-edit, unlike categories). We can now work through the old "As of..." pages converting them to the new template (if someone has a bot that could do that it would help a lot!). At this stage it may be worth changing this page to give the new location for "As of" listings and encourage editors to use the new system. When creating new subcategories of
CAT:ASOF use the {{
Cat ASOF}}
template, a category will appear red-linked in a page's category list after you edit it if it requires creating. –
Ikara
talk →
02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no objection to the new template being implemented in place of the old system, I have begun work on a new project page to reflect this. I invite anyone who's interested to help construct it, please leave comments, suggestions or complaints here. Assuming there are no objections before then, I will move the page over once it is finished. All the best – Ikara talk → 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal now at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to change WP:As of policy. Please discuss there. – Ikara talk → 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Beth Elohim where the "as of" feature has been discussed and (I think) misunderstood. See also my comments here, here, and here. If those maintaining this feature could comment, that might help clarify things. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been proposed and agreed that WP:DATED be merged, although the target is still undecided. Currently, this project and WP:MOSNUM are the proposed targets. I have added a new section containing the information previously contained in WP:DATED to WP:As of#Precise language to help replace the project. I have also removed links to the soon-to-be-merged project. I deem this fairly uncontroversial, but if anyone has any objections please voice them. Feedback on the target would also be appreciated. Thanks – Ikara talk → 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Should talk pages/user pages/archived talk pages be updated to the new As Of template like any article? Because if so, that may mess a few things up, but if not, that'll leave pages in the automatic lists (Special:WhatLinksHere/whatever).
I'm looking in particular at Talk:Canada/Archive 2. -- Web-Crawling Stickler ( talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an option to allow no year display? The year would be redundant in articles such as 2009 California wildfires which have the year in the title. thanks Petersam ( talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why {{
As of?}}
and {{
When}}
should not be merged? From their documentation pages, their intended purpose seems to be the same (although they categorise differently). Tagging something with {{
As of?}}
leaves a cleanup template – indicating that it's something to be fixed – yet it doesn't sort the page to a maintenance category. What's the reasoning behind this?
Putting this discussion here instead of the template pages, since it doesn't look like I'm likely to get a response there. Osiris ( talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
Edit protected}}
request, there is no need to go to TfD and form another consensus. (But you can if you want to.)
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC).I tried to use the as-of template in the middle of a sentence, but it defaults to capital A. Is there any way to get a lower-case option? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
lc=y
is documented at {{
As of}}.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Hello. I have nominated NK Maribor players for FL and I have a small problem. One of the reviewers expressed his concernes about the capitalization of "As" in the middle of a sentence. The problem is that the capitalization seems to occur automatically when using the Wikipedia:As of method. Below is the sentence I used in the article, with the use of the As of method. Is there a way for the use of the method without the "As" being capitalized?
Thank you, Ratipok ( talk) 13:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Readers of this page may have interest in the discussion about the use of the phrase "as of" taking place here. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the "Usage guidelines" section should be updated to discourage the use of "As of" when describing a current state. Here's an example, from the current version of the Megyn Kelly article: "As of 2014, Kelly hosts The Kelly File on weekdays from the network's New York City headquarters." In a case like this, it would be better to leave off the "As of". The article should just say that she hosts the TV show, and when at some future point that's no longer the case, the article can be updated. This is in contrast to the proper usage in conjunction with facts expected to change soon, as in the example given, "the population of Toledo as of the 2010 Census was 287,208". I'll be happy to update the page myself but I'm posting here first to solicit the opinions of other editors. — Mudwater ( Talk) 22:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
As of November 2014, the Grand Canyon is in Arizonawould be unhelpful, but there are still scores of other "current state" situations where editors find "as of" helpful. The current guidance puts it to editor discretion, and it's better to use "as of" in many of those cases than have stale and obviously outdated articles a couple of years from now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify my point. I think it's preferable stylistically to leave off "As of" for a current state, even if it's quite possible that things will change soon. The phrase is not needed to improve understanding, and it's all the more unnecessary in a Wikipedia article because the article can be updated at a moment's notice. This is in contrast to things like the population of Toledo as of the 2010 census. The next census won't be till 2020, which is not at all soon, but we'd want to make it clear as of when the population had a certain value. — Mudwater ( Talk) 23:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
In my articles, using precise language generally means that the asof template ends up in the middle of a sentence. How do I get it to render as "as of" instead of "As of"? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Testing... as of 2014
[update] vs. as of 2014
[update] vs. As of 2014
[update].
Maury Markowitz (
talk) 13:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, according to those tests, a simplification would be to simply assume that the strings |lc=yes
and |lc
are synonymous, which leads the greatly simplified syntax.
Maury Markowitz (
talk)
13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
By analogy to MOS:PUNCTFOOT and in accordance with stylistic good sense, I believe the commas following "as of" should occur before "[update]," not afterwards; this:
Not this:
In this edit, I attempted to effect this change but was reverted by Debresser because he didn't like my edit summary and appears to think using the template in accordance with its documentation is inappropriate for a help page. Rebb ing 17:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#"Currently" does not belong on Wikipedia regarding the continual use of "currently". Interested editors are invited to contribute there. Kablammo ( talk) 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Per discussion on Talk:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher#"As at", it has been proposed that the proper British English form must be "as at". As a lifelong American Anglophile, I am confused by the evidence that I have read in dictionaries and grammar guides versus what has been told to me be @ SchroCat: who is British. It would appear that "as at" does not have an equivalent meaning to "as of" as we mean it when we use the {{ as of}} template. Furthermore, WP:ENGVAR exhorts us to take advantage of commonalities. I have not found evidence that "as of" is excluded or unknown by British English speakers. While I have found decent evidence of some usage of "as at" around the project, I have also found no evidence of its discussion, its support, or the relative merits, vis-a-vis the template usage for dated facts. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 10:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding as at
, this source:
indicates: as at (= as of) is characteristic chiefly of BrE financial jargon ... It's a construction best avoided.
The same source has this for as of
:
as of.
A. Generally.
As of should be used with caution. Originally an Americanism, the phrase frequently signifies the effective date of a document, as when the document is backdated, postdated, or signed by various people at different times <this contract is effective as of July 1>.
As an example, I submit that the phrase As of August 2021, the novel is currently in early development ...
fits this usage as described by Garner, as the phrasing could be rewritten The novel is effectively in development as of August 2021 ...
& still would mean the same thing.
Peaceray (
talk)
07:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
There are over 400 articles using "As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}" with also the day-year or just year. This is used properly on the Wikipedia article where the associated information is generated daily through other magic words and/or templates, but the majority of articles using this are falsely claiming material to be perpetually updated. While in many cases the information may be true, it may not be verifiable on a daily basis and if at some point the information changes then the article would then be reporting a falsehood. Would it be worthwhile to have a couple sentences in this Wikipedia guideline to discourage this practice? – Reidgreg ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
As of|{{MONTHNAME|{{REVISIONMONTH}}}} {{REVISIONYEAR}}}}
(e.g. As of November 2023
[update]), but you'd have to assure that every edit to the page actually checked that the information was still valid (including bot edits). I think the odds that every editor would actually verify the information when changing anything in the page, including a section edit to another section, are slim. --
Ahecht (
TALKWhere possible, avoid items such as "now" and "soon" (unless their intended meaning is made apparent by the prose), "currently" and "recently" (except on rare occasions where they are not redundant), variables such as, but I'd worry about WP:BEANS.{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}
or{{CURRENTYEAR}}
(unless the information being referenced is also updated by a variable), or phrases such as "in modern times" and "the sixties" (unless their frame of reference was previously made clear).
Do not use variables to automatically update the date, such as "as of. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 06:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC){{CURRENTYEAR}}
", unless the information being referenced is automatically updated each time the page is parsed, such as{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
As for remediation, strictly speaking, subst'ing the current date is only correct if you do a fact check at the time of the subst. A more conservative approach would be to find when the statement was added and use that for the date. But as Ahecht noted in this comment from last April, when "as of" is used as a header for a table of competition winners, it can just be removed. I removed a statement from The Bachelor (American TV series) which was problematic from a BLP sourcing perspective. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 02:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I got a bit carried away and removed some headers which did actually refer to data generated with {{ age in days}}, so I went back and replaced those with footnotes or temporarily reverted the removal. Check out e.g. the column footnote solution, and the cell footnote solution and let me know what you think. -- Tim Starling ( talk) 13:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the application of ASOF to Rotten Tomatoes scores in film and TV articles that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF. Comments from any editors watching this page would be greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
'As of' is not natural English. It sounds like someone in the military. The problem is that it sounds like it's hot information that's going to be updated every few minutes/days ... and it isn't. 2020 - and I'm seeing 'As of 2016 ...' as if that's hot off the press. If the author wrote: 'In 2016 ... x was true ... that would make more sense. The information was true in 2016 and hasn't been updated. It's also normal English ... I'd be suspicious of any friend who used it in everyday conversations. Francis Hannaway ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)