![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Supporters of this rule include:
Opponents include:
But the point of wiki is that it can easily be amended... sjc
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
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
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
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 This older method has been superceded by WP:ASOF.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Supporters of this rule include:
Opponents include:
But the point of wiki is that it can easily be amended... sjc
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |