Template talk:Current/archive4

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Current. 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.

'Recent' equivalent

What about a modified copy of this template. for recent events? (I ask because this template is on US Airways Flight 1549, which happened yeasterday.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For what purpose? Nearly all additions to wikipedia are the result of some event of variable recentness and significance, written about in some journal or news source. That implies tens or hundreds of thousands of thousands of articles would use such a template, with, ahem, zero improvement in the content of the article. All recentness can be ascertained by the article content, references, and often by section titles or article title.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was just coming here to ask the same question. What I had in mind was a {{recentevent}} template which would be used for all article covering an event that had happened within the past week, and which were not being edited at a level that justified the use of the {{current}} template. The recentevent template redirects to the current template at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for other current events

Should the guidelines for this template extend to all the other "current" (and maybe even "future") templates (Here's a list)? It seems pretty straightforward to me to use the same guidelines for all "current" templates, at least, unless otherwise noted on the other templates. Which would mean, for example, that Template:Current bill should only be used in an article if that article is, arguably, a current event. Template:Current bill shouldn't be used in every article about current bills, just like this template should not be used in every article that is in some way current. Any thoughts? --Conti|✉ 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they "should". You're likely to see wailing and mayhem if attempted for the various related {{current sport}} templates. Though, I think that series should be deleted. You'll notice that there are nearly 500 links to sports articles at this time, with <ahem> zero improvement to the content of those sports articles, most of which might have one or two edits a day. The non-sports templates related to {{current}} are borderline disclaimers and as such would benefit from some guidelines.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we could invite users at various templates to comment on my idea. I honestly can't come up with a reason not to apply the guidelines from this template to the other current-event-related templates as well, and I'm quite willing to discuss things if there is any disagreement. We could start with all "current" templates that don't have any guidelines on their own about when to use the corresponding template. --Conti|✉ 12:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not ask people to violate the rules

Wikipedia policy says that Wikipedia is not news WP:NOTNEWS. Yet this template has a subtle encouragement to write news. In other words, it's encouraging people to violate Wikipedia policy.

A slight change to the template will solve this.

In fact, let's make this an alternate choice. User F203 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the subtle encouragement in the template to violate WP:NOTNEWS? Just because an article may change frequently because an event is current, does not mean that the article is not on an encyclopedic topic and written as an encyclopedia article. (You should probably re-read WP:NOTNEWS as I did). —Centrx→talk • 18:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

purgelink

Perhaps all the current boxes should have a purge link to purge the frequently updated page? 76.66.196.218 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this icon better?

I made this one: - SSJ ☎ 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

CURRENT:

PROPOSAL (size of image can of course be tweaked):

I think it's better. Nice work! Althepal (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. well, an admin has to change it. - SSJ ☎ 22:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely prefer the new one. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 08:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's too intricate, I'd prefer or or the original. -- penubag (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Too intricate" is a strange complaint but fair enough. I prefer the first one you listed to the latter and original versions. However, remember that other editors have rejected this icon previously. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason they have rejected this icon previously is because it was proposed before it got the facelift. At small sizes, the land was hard to discern from the water but this issue was fixed since then. It would be nice gain concensus for this new logo, if it is preferred. -- penubag (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Wikinews

I've a slightly changed version of this template here, can be seen in use here. Documentation would need updated appropriately to explain the 'wikinews' parameter. See {{Recent death}} for what was done on linking to obituaries on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Undone. To avoid duplicate discussions, please see Template talk:Recent death#Optional link to a Wikinews obituary. Flowerparty^☀ 13:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Image size

The current version of the template, with the image size set to 46px, is mostly made up of blank space:

I propose decreasing the image size so that the template is more compact and less obtrusive. Another route would be to cut some of the blank space from File:Globe current.svg, so that more of the image could be visible without inflating the size of the template. Here is what it looks like with the current image at 40px:

At 35px:

At 30px:

At 25px:

At 20px:

Which is optimal? Skomorokh 03:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of responses, I've gone with 30px for now. Skomorokh, barbarian 07:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should switch to a different image. The current one has too much whitespace and is too intricate. This one I'm proposing also fits the general look of ambox images. What do you think? -- penubag (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, as long as the resolution remains ~30px. Skomorokh, barbarian 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it looks better and clearer scaled down than the other one. Can it be changed? -- penubag (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Skomorokh, barbarian 07:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews link

{{editprotected}} Please add, right after the period in "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.":

{{#ifeq:{{{wikinews}}}|suppressed|| Wikipedia is not a news site; {{#if:{{{wikinews|}}}|please consider expanding ''[[n:Main page|Wikinews]]'' [[n:{{{wikinews}}}|coverage]], or writing a [[n:Wikinews:Article layout in a nutshell|follow-up]]|in-depth [[n:Wikinews:Article layout in a nutshell|news coverage]] is more appropriate on ''[[n:Main page|Wikinews]]''}}.}}

Per the fairly clear consensus at WP:PROPS#Resurrected: WP:NOTNEWS, news belongs on Wikinews. Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a fruitful discussion, but no clear consensus yet. And shouldn't be the default not to link to Wikinews, instead of the other way around? --Conti|✉ 07:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be; the point is to direct people to the appropriate place for certain content. There is a large majority supporting adding the link, and if someone thinks of improvements later, and there is consensus for them, it wouldn't be too difficult to add them. Nothing is stuck one way permanently. --Yair rand (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points:

I agree that, while not unanimous, the support for this proposal is sufficient to implement.
I have moved your code to the /sandbox where it is easier to inspect, comment on, and edit.
There are some test cases on /testcases to show what it will look like.
I agree that the default behaviour is an important consideration.
There was some discussion about introducing a date parameter so that the message can be made to disappear after a few days. This is perfectly possible to accomplish, and I may be able to help.
As there is still ongoing discussion about the implementation of this proposal, I have deactivated the request for now. In particular I think that Luna Santin raises useful points. Feel free to replace the request when the details have been sorted out, either here on on WP:VPR.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there in fact a way to add a time limit for the added message? If so, how? --Yair rand (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, you could call {{current|time=~~~~~}} which would add the time/date signature and then a simple parser function could check whether this is within 3 days of the current time. But I would prefer that you get some agreement that this is the best solution, before I spend time on it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that all #if, #ifeq, #ifexpr and #switch functions are recalculated only when the cache is purged, so it would be impossible to have a parser function change the template after a certain amount of time unless someone made an edit to the page after time was up. (Look at User:Yair rand/sandbox for an example, the result will only change when the page is edited.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No it doesn't require an edit. It's quite technical and I'm not an expert but it's basically a cache issue. Generally a new visitor to a page will see the up-to-date content; purging will also refresh the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this addition, plenty of users agreed such a wording was highly misleading. Cenarium (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot

I've made a request to have a bot assigned to remove the current and current-related tags from articles once many hours have passed without a human edit. I asked for 12 hours, bot may end up waiting 24 hours. It was suggested that making a note here would be nice. Abductive (reasoning) 03:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the threshold be two hours. The template was created for those occasions that there are hundreds of edits in a day in which editors are stepping on each other's edits. Any article with the template that does not have an edit in two hours does not have the "many editors and many edits" problem, hence has no need for the template.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with two hours. Articles that has not been edited in two should not have this template. The bit should also remove {{recent death}}. Rettetast (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And all other current event templates, while we're at it. --Conti|✉ 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Any number of hours is fine with me. The bot designer might have to worry about server load or something; if that is the case then the wait time should be minimized. Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of {{current}} templates in use at any one time rarely runs above twenty, so server load is likely a non-issue.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the BRfA has been started at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I read at the bots request page the threshold was set for 12 hours. Kindly reduce that threshold to 2 hours. For the operator, the bot need not run more often than every 90 minutes.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the two hour criterion is too short. The template does not read as a warning to editors that "there are hundreds of edits in a day in which editors are stepping on each other's edits." I read it as a warning to readers that the article may not reflect most recent events and that there may not yet be consensus on the material. Perhaps my concern goes beyond the bot and is that the template's guidelines don't seem to be consistent with the text of the template because the bot is consistent with the guidelines.--Thomas Darcy McGee (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Similar templates

I just realized that Template:Current tropical cyclone categorizes articles into Category:Current events, yet its instructions are exactly those which are frowned upon when using the present template: "Reminds people Wikipedia information may not be up-to-date." Shouldn't the same limitations go for that (and similar) templates as for the present, "mother" template? __meco (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Current&action=edit&section=26

Yes, they should have the same guide for use, as it is a copy of {{current}}. It is pointless to note that any article is subject to change, as every article is subject to change and being out of date. And, in general, all of the {{current}} clones are vulnerable to being deleted, since they all redundantly duplicate (and are a proliferation of) the functionality of the original {{current}} template.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Current hurricane/typhoon/cyclone

Just a note, writing {{current|image|hurricane|date=August 2010}} would give "... documents a current hurricane...""". Shouldn't the alternate names typhoon and cyclone also be provided for usage, since their usage would differ by geographic occurence? So it would be something like "... documents a current hurricane/OR typhoon/OR cyclone..." ANGCHENRUI ^Talk ♨ 14:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want a reply from me soon, just alert me at my talk page. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk ♨ 14:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly likely that this template is desirable to use for an image, as no image is subject to editing by dozens of editors in the same day. As such, I recommend against using the template with an image. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Smaller section template?

In my eyes this current event template looks too large. We could create a template with about same style as {{Expand section}}. Re-living the old {{Current section}} or make a parameter small=yes? Thoughts? --Kslotte (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion fails to respond to a described problem. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here was "looks too large". The problem is more on a nice to have level. --Kslotte (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also combining with other section templates makes it look uggly. Section templates are quite standardized according to Template:Ambox#The_small_parameters. Why should 'current section' be an exception? --Kslotte (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea

So as of late, some editors have been viewing the rules stated here quite literally. This has led to current events basically being untagged within a day. I'm more of a liberal interpreter of the rules and I like to leave them there for a week, since much longer is "old news". My question is, what do others think of the rules, and should we loosen them so that we can have a category which is not empty most of the time. In my opinion, anything that's on "In the News" should automatically be tagged with the template since it will naturally generate a high amount of traffic. I know that others probably have a differing view so I'm interested in what others think should be done here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One way of delineating the appropriate usage period would be to use the length of the particular news cycle. A more restricted period might be "once the basic facts have been established" (i.e. for a report of a celebrity death, remove the template once the death and cause have been officially confirmed. I agree that editors have been overly zealous in removing it early in recent months. Skomorokh 10:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the flawed name of the template (which is possibly what could be changed to stop this confusion), the only purpose of it is to highlight articles undergoing a massive amount of edits. The only way to reliably judge that is to look at the history, any other rules are just needless complication. Keep it simple. MickMacNee (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the template – "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" – indicates otherwise; it's a warning to readers that the information in the portion of the article dealing with the event is provisional and should not be taken as gospel. The amount of editing going on in itself does not affect the quality of information; that is dependent on updated sources. Skomorokh 13:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The purpose of the template is well established and understood, hence the very clear usage instructions. It does not exist to act as a mere disclaimer that information might be changing due to unfolding events. This is in no small part due to the fact we already have a general disclaimer to tell people not to take anything here as gospel, fact that information here is being constantly updated and added to as part of our core functionality, and the fact that on any given day, we do indeed have hundreds of article being changed due to changes in real world circumnstances. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, we should create some sort of timeline because adding the template then having it removed less than an hour later by people who believe that it isn't an event when it might even be on "In the News" is rather counterproductive to the template's "mission". What good is a template that is meant to be used on many articles at once (hence the permanent editing lock) when it is almost never used at all? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As MickMacNee says, the template's name isn't ideal. Telling our readers that "This event is currently ongoing" would be a statement of the obvious (for anyone that reads the lead of the article, anyhow), and quite pointless. That is not the purpose of this template. It exists to warn our readers in the rare(!) case of an article being edited a lot more than usual (dozens of edits per hour). As such, this template should be used rarely. As for the current event category, that can be added and removed without the use of this template. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Conti and MickMacNee. This template is not meant to be used on many articles at once (although it can be), but only when needed. Garion96 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If the template is intended for editors rather than readers is it possible to display it only when attempting to edit the article?--Thomas Darcy McGee (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to agree with the editor who opened this section, that most articles describing a current event stay so for at least a few days.

To reply to the previous editor. This is not really possible technically. Also, what would happen if an editor would edit only one specific section of an article? Debresser (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is possible technically; it's called an editnotice. However my impression is that this template is not only for editors but to inform readers as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But our maintenance templates are not editnotices. In any case, I agree with MSGJ that the notice is as much for readers as for editors. Especially since on Wikipedia every reader is a potential editor. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am favorable to the idea of extinguishing all of the several "current" templates in favor of using {{editnotice}} exclusively.
The right way to do that would be a collective discussion in the appropriate forums, probably including Wikipedia:Village pump, proposing to extinguish all of the various current temporal templates as needless, confusing and superfluous, duplicating the standard Wikipedia:General disclaimer policy and contrary to the Wikipedia:No disclaimers guide, along with a persuasive rationale to decide. The number of proliferating current templates was pared down by a couple of dozen or so in the last three or more years, but editors tend come along, believing their favorite topical subject needs its own current template, and wikipedia, over time, has an accretion of redundant-functionality copies of {{current}}, each of which add zero content to the articles they are placed on; some examples include {{current sports transaction}} and {{Match in progress}}. You may find the complete list of temporal templates at Category:Temporal templates.
Here is a list of the proliferating and generally superfluous, functionally equivalent templates originally copied from the current template. In every case, several appropriate words in the lede of the article render the templates redundant and superfluous, and for the original {{current}}, {{editnotice}} satisfies the need for warning to editors.

{{Current}}
{{Current disaster}}
{{Current person}}
{{Current related}}
{{Current spaceflight}}
{{Current sport}}
{{Current sport-related}}
{{Current sports transaction}}
{{Current tornado outbreak}}
{{Current tropical cyclone}}
{{Launching}}
{{Match in progress}}
{{Recent death}}
{{Recent death presumed}}

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

current in infoboxes

In tennis articles many events such as Wimbledon, US Open, etc... have an infobox with things like name=, logo=, country=, and current=. As far as "current" I have seen edit disputes as to what should go after the equals sign. Wimbledon 2011 won't start until July but should Wimbledon 2011 be listed under current or should wimbledon 2010 be listed? I searched for wiki rules on this but I guess my skills were lacking in this ability. What do other sporting events do or can someone point me to the wiki policy that covers this? It looks like most keep the 2010 listed until the 2011 tournament starts but I have no idea if this is policy or not. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is discouraged to include the template in any article that is not presently being massively edited by a large number of editors. As such, any {{current}}-type template should not be included in any infobox, and such inclusion may subject the infobox to attention and revision. In general, it is merely news that an event or tournament is occurring, and it is the natural state of affiars that any article may be slightly inaccurate. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Idea: Work in disclaimer from {{Current disaster}}

We all remember the drama that surrounded {{Current disaster}} and {{Current tropical cyclone}} back in the days, when people debated whether the additional disclaimers essentially stating that Wikipedia should not be used in situations where official information may be more reliable and safe to use. But then I began to wonder, maybe making a separate template for it isn't a good idea. I'd like to propose a change in the content of this template:

This article documents a current event. Its content may change rapidly as it progresses, and might not always reflect the most current and/or accurate information.

While this may seem like we are trying to cover our butts here, it is important that all readers be informed about our risk disclaimer whenever reading an article dealing with a current event. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since all Wikipedia articles have a link at the foot of the article to a General Disclaimer, where there are additional links to Legal, Risk, Medical and Content disclaimers, the suggestion is superfluous, and redundant to existing policy and warnings on appropriate use of Wikipedia. The guideline at Wikipedia:No disclaimers surveys some of the existing territory, such as it is, on disclaimers.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{edit requested}} Please kindly add Cantonese Interwiki [[zh-yue:Template:Current]]. Thank you--WikiCantona (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. No admin needed actually. Template:Current/doc is not protected. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)