Wikipedia talk:Updating information

Historical discussions related to the initial implementation of template:update after are at Wikipedia talk:As of. The "update after" mechanism is intended to largely replace the Wikipedia:As of mechanism. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments here[edit]

This is brilliant! It would probably work best for elections etc in minor locations. For something that's well-known like a US predidential election, the information would be updated anyway and the template would just get in the way and confuse things.

I like the idea of allowing a category to be specified when the page needs updating. Perhaps a default category could be used if a category is not specified? Tra (Talk) 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an optional category (categorization only happens after the indicated date), but no default category. Given the "what links here" technique for finding all "update needed" articles (per day, month, or year), is a default category really necessary? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What links here" would show you all of the pages using this template, including those that don't need updating. A default category would allow you to see just those pages that need updating, which is useful for allowing people to browse through that category and update anything listed there. Tra (Talk) 19:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template adds a reference to a non-existent page for the given year-month-day, another non-existent page for the given year-month, and another non-existent page for the given year. Using what links here to the appropriate (non-existent) article, you can find pages needing updating today, tomorrow, this month, last month, this year, etc. (the links on Wikipedia:Updating information work like this). This is all in addition to the possibility of adding a category, and the article is only added to the category after the indicated date. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the non-existent pages mentioned above do not need to exist, and in fact SHOULD not exist, since the system would then need maintenance; Rick had a FANTASTIC idea when he proposed that change; it makes the entire system very elegant. Using a category is optional, and is intended for use by editors working on articles which are part of a series, for instance when a physicist editor wants to be reminded when a physics article needs updating; s/he would simply look at the appropriate category page (the name of which would be agreed upon by the consensus of the editors working on physics articles) to see if there's any articles listed. Having a default category would basically be redundant, since Wikipedia:Updating information already has links to the articles which are in need of updating. --Scott McNay 06:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i like facility of editing provided by wiki. Random drive-by editor comment: this looks great. Thank you for taking the time to code it. I'll just start using it on some low-profile articles and see what happens. Sandstein 13:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to update a person and it never seems to update

See Sinclair Stevens talking points Joelstevenwright (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use the bot signal![edit]

I think this could benefit from a bot to populate the list. Other than that, sounds useful. >Radiant< 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to populate what list? The intent is "no maintenance required" (see above). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; unless there's a serious flaw with the way that the system works, there's no need for anyone to do anything except update the indicated articles, and then either remove the template from the artcle (if it is obsolete) or adjust the template parameters (for a new date when it WILL need updating). Rick and I had an intermediate version which would have needed the list to be populated, but the current version *should* not need this, unless our understanding of the mechanics of WikiMedia are incorrect.

P.S. I like the colorful sig --Scott McNay 06:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future updates[edit]

In case anyone is wondering how many articles are needing update in the future, take a look:
2007
17år 2008 *
18 år 2009 *
19 år 2010 *
20 år 2011
21 år 2012
22år 2013
23 år 2014
24 år 2015
25 år Mikhail Benette Ranedo Ucat

Use of template in section headers[edit]

Upon looking at User:Sandstein's edit to his article, I realized that the template cannot be used anywhere on the same line as a section header, since it either makes the header not be recognized, or changes the header when the time comes. This is not good, since it is possible to link to headers, meaning that if someone clicks on such a link, it will fail. I'm updating the usage instructions appropriately. --Scott McNay 06:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC) last year 2007 on September 24 Velkommen til Norge so får familie på facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikbenu90 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Template:Update_after[edit]

I've made changes to Template:Update after (it now links to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and 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 04:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a relevant guideline?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_77#Wikipedia:Updating_information. Feel free to reply here if you wish to discuss the future status of this page. -- œ ^™ 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yess it is necessary make a village pump it is very needless thing

Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC

Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material. Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3.0 Unported (CC Aditya nabriya (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FiTZ Iz FiTZ full name Fitsum Haile Selassie — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiTZ (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for evolving situations[edit]

Do we have guidance somewhere for editors to follow when updating pages to reflect evolving situations? I'm thinking particularly in terms of removing details after they've been overtaken by newer details.

Suppose you're writing an article about some institution or condition provided through legislation (such as Medicaid or the National Health Service or women's right to vote). Suppose your topic went into law on May 5, 1995, before there was even a Wikipedia. For the history section, you'd probably write "[such-and-such] was enacted by legislation signed on May 5, 1995" and be done with it.

What we have now are articles about newer developments, such as same-sex marriage. First an article will read,

Legislation allowing X was introduced on March 21, 2017.

Soon, that's augmented:

Legislation allowing X was introduced on March 21, 2017. It was taken up by the Judiciary committee on March 28, 2017." A couple of weeks later: "Legislation allowing X was introduced on March 21, 2017. It was taken up by the Judiciary committee on March 28, 2017. It came out of committee on April 9, 2017, and was sent for its first reading before the Legislature.

And so on and so forth until, five years from now, the article tells us:

Legislation allowing X was introduced on March 21, 2017. It was taken up by the Judiciary committee on March 28, 2017. It came out of committee on April 9, 2017, and was sent for its first reading before the Legislature. It received its first reading on April 20, 2017. It was sent back to committee on April 30, 2017. The committee made changes and released it on May 4, 2017. It was read again before the Legislature on May 6, 2017. The Legislature approved it in a voice vote on May 8, 2017. It returned for a second reading on June 29, 2017. It was approved on June 30, 2017. The bill was signed by the president/prime minister/queen on July 12, 2017. It went into effect on August 12, 2017."

From the perspective of the person reading this in 2022, all we probably need to have, unless something non-routine, something truly remarkable occurred over the course of the legislative process, is

X became legal on August 12, 2017.

There may have been some occurrence over the course of the legislative journey that is still informative today, but an awful lot of it is leftover trivia. There is merit to brevity, to give the reader the essence of the subject rather than burying the highlights among a morass of detail. Do we have some guidance suggesting to updaters that they prune, and with tips on how to prune, at the same time that they're adding the latest information? Largoplazo (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]