Template talk:Current

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 See also: Wikipedia:Current and future event templates

[edit] Usage

{{current}}	This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
{{current|section}}	This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
{{current|other element}}	This other element documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

etc.

Contents 1 Usage 2 Policy for using {{current}} 3 New text 3.1 Celestianpower 3.2 Netoholic's version 4 Template:Currentsect 5 Update template to include Live 6 Wikinews 7 Protected 8 Wording tweak 9 Inapproriate use of this template 10 WP:LAME + Wording 11 CHANGE 12 Question 13 Line break 14 Edit link 15 Protected 16 Straw poll on protection 17 Hybrid Current/Wikinews 18 Left-Alignment? 19 Interwiki link to vi: 20 TV Programmes... 21 Interwiki link to de: 22 I think we need a new version of this template 23 Alternate version for non-events 24 Separate wording for articles about people? 25 Current events 26 Use in User namespace 27 sortkey 28 Interwiki link to no: 29 Policy and using a bot to remove this template 30 Use of template for nouns 31 Eu InterWiki 32 categorize 33 Managing expectations 34 Suggestion for change of message's wording 35 Section Template 36 Current Year 37 ES interwiki 38 See also: current-section

[edit] Policy for using {{current}}

There's been a bit of discussion about when this tag should be used in an article. As the original creator, let me give some background about why this was created in the first place.

The tag was created in response to the mess that happened following the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks. As the event was happening, the page went through hundreds of edits at the very beginning as news reports and such were added to the article. Several of us had to act as traffic cops just to make sure that people weren't tripping over everybody else's edits.

The tag was created for two reasons:

1. So that users would know that the article was undergoing major revisions as events were happening.
2. So that editors would know the same so that they could keep that in mind if/when they decided to add to or edit the article.

It was originally designed for short-term use as a warning for editors and readers if an event was occurring right that very second (or very, very recently). It was not intended for general use over the span of weeks or months for a long-term, ongoing event that would experience little editing during the event (like Eric Gagne's save streak, which would only be altered at most once per day).

Therefore, I would propose that this tag be limited in its usage to current event articles that will likely experience numerous edits in a short period of time. In this way, the article will follow what the tag says: "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. RADICALBENDER★ 23:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. But it seems like people add the template to every article about something or someone doing some minor thing one day and then the template is left in. We could do with people going through the category and remove the template from all the articles where there aren't much current editing. I'd say that if an article hasn't been edited for 2 days, it's a sign that the template doesn't need to be there. Right now we have articles with no edits for over a month being tagged "current". And this sloppyness is contageous as new editors think thats how it should be, and that an article on, say, a state leader should be tagged current merely because he is currently in office. Shanes 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure people are using it this way anymore, nor do I think we should. For example, a politician that's just been indicted, and revelations are coming out over a period of weeks. Every couple of days there are new revelations (e.g., the Abramoff scandals, etc.). Does this warrant "current" or not? -- Sholom 15:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The {{current}} tag is being used in a different way from the original concept as noted above. The backlog is getting unmanagable. As I see it the causes of this are (please feel free to add more):-

• It is hard to work out why {{current}} was added in the first place, which can be confusing and makes the tag's removal difficult.
• The Category name Category:Current events implies a different function from the policy description above. i.e. to tag rapidly changing articles,which are a subset of current events.
• The concept of a 'Current Event' is hard to define. The United States is always in the News and this is a constantly changing article (over 50 edits today) . Is this current?

Suggested solutions

• Rename this template {{rapid}}, and redirect {{current}} to that : Clarifies use of this template for rapidly changing events.
• Rename the Category Category:Rapidly changing articles : Clarifies use of this category for rapidly changing events.
• Possibly retain {{current}} , but maybe add a parameter so that a reason must be entered {{current|Reason}}. this reason can be hidden in the message box until expanded, so as not to crowd the page but would greatly aid cleanup.
• The page Current events with it's archiving mechanism Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events , handles Current events well presently. : This takes away some of the ambigous nature of what is current.
• change to {{subst:current}} to be used whenever a article is current but set up a similar mechanism to Template:prod so the date the article was made current is stored. New idea GameKeeper 17:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC) <\I>

Issues with the solutions

• Wikipedians seem to love the {{current}} tag, currently around 300 articles are tagged with it. The renaming options above would change the percieved use and leave an unfilled want.

GameKeeper 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The page at Category:Current events suggests that if the article references a date within the last month, it is current. So, while the Jesse Macbeth article is relatively stable, it's still "current" as defined there... I agree with your intentions, but I also agree that items about news from the previous 30 days should get the template, too... even if they're stable... Bugmuncher 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a first priority there needs to be a clarification of the use of this template and category. After that we can begin to sort out a process for cleaning the backlog. I am thinking of asking for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to get a bit more opinion /ideas. Not sure that is appropriate as it is not a dispute (yet!). I have been looking at Template:prod which may provide a suitable mechanism for storing the date of addition of the current tag. Still experimenting GameKeeper 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New text

[edit] Celestianpower

I think that this template needs to be as small as possible. It's at the top so you wouldn't miss it anyway. Plus, it gets very silly when there's a lot of text and other templates (such as wikinews) in the same place (such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. To that end, I have made this:

This article concerns a current event. Its contents are subject to rapid change.

What do you think? Short and to the point. It could flow a bit better so suggestions always welcome. --Celestianpower 8 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

I like your wording, but "or section" should be restored. Also, you need to either replace the semicolon with a period or make the "I" in "Its" lowercase. I recommend the former. —Lifeisunfair 8 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Okay. I've done that (as you can see). Do people really use it for sections though? I've only ever seen it at the top of pages. --Celestianpower 8 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Nobody uses it for sections, and even if someone wanted to, "this article" suffices. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Should we remove the "or section" then? Do you think this version is worth replacing the current one with? --Celestianpower

If it's true that no one uses the tag for specific sections, I agree that this wording is extraneous and should be removed. And yes, your version (or a variant of the two below) should replace the current version. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

[edit] Netoholic's version

Here's mine, with all the proper CSS class/id tags. I like this wording too. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

I like it. I was playing with something similar. I am amateur with CSS so check the coding carefully. :-)

DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

I don't see why "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" is better than "Its contents are subject to rapid change.

• Information > Its contents ~ Flows from first sentence better.
• may change rapidly > are subject to rapid change ~ Mean the same thing. Second does sound more professional and more encyclopedaeic although this is marginal and will always be disputed.
• as the event progresses ~ Unnesessary. Without this, we need not make the second line have smaller text. it's also implied in the first sentence.

--Celestianpower 8 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Wording differences are minor to me. I like "information" better than "its contents" because other articles may change rapidly but this one is temporarily changing rapidly as info becomes known because it's a current event. "may change rapidly" obviously goes better with "information" but I also prefer the active voice here. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

I agree mostly with DoubleBlue. I don't like "its contents", sounds too informal. I like the adverb form "may change rapidly", plus it's less wordy and uses non-committal "may". I really don't care about wording too much... more concerned whether the box looks good and is centered in everyone's browser, so I can implement it. :) -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

I like all three designs, but Netoholic's isn't centered in Firefox, and DoubleBlue's contains a significant amount of empty space in any browser. Is it possible to somehow combine the coding of both, thereby eliminating these two issues?

DoubleBlue's wording is my favorite, but any of the above would be fine (and preferable to the current language). —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

I've fixed the IE vs FF issues. Unless anyone sees a problem in my example, I'd like to implement the formatting. -- Netoholic @ 9 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Looks good Netoholic. It's better than the current one, implements the CSS tags, and is the same in IE & FF. I say go. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Your new coding displays properly in all of my browsers. I do prefer DoubleBlue's wording (without the redundant "as the event progresses" language), and I suggest using the following:

—Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Better? Please check the coding also. I am a rank amateur with CSS. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

That looks perfect to me. I can't comment upon the quality of the coding, because I know next to nothing about CSS.  :-) —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

I just realized that the lines begin to wrap when the template is viewed with the default text size (or larger) in Opera, or with any font size larger than the default in IE6 or any of the Mozilla variants. Netoholic's current coding displays properly in all of these browsers, so I agree that we should go with that. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Just a comment. I believe that's just because Neto's box was bigger and this one could have been easily fixed by making a bigger box too:

I don't know if there's a way to have box size grow along with the text size. Netoholic's version doesn't seem to allow box growth either. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

No, the above change adds only one safe text size increase (in Firefox) and introduces empty space at the default text size and below. I don't know the technical reason behind this, but Netoholic's version does proportionally grow to accommodate larger text sizes. This is a comparison of your two most recent versions and Netoholic's version when viewed in Firefox at one text size above the default. This is a comparison of your two most recent versions and Netoholic's version when viewed in Firefox at two text sizes above the default. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Can I ask you all a question? Why are you all obsessed with making it as small as possible and using the least amount of words? What the hell is wrong with what we have now? Does it save energy or something? The way you're all going, it's eventually gonna end up like this: --Hottentot

Yeah, I agree with Hottentot... I don't see the crowding that was first referenced. The London bombings page looks okay to me. By the way, the tabbing in this section/thread is real confusing. joturner 9 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

The current template is poorly worded and needlessly verbose. Your facetious example conveys less information; this is not true of any of the proposed versions. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Firstly, the wording change is minor between Netoholic's and the current one:

• Current: This article or section contains information about a current event.
  Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
• Netoholic: This article concerns a current event.
  Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

I believe it is true that used in a section or not, the article contains info about a current event, so "section" is unnecessary. The rest ("contains information about") is silly. Any encyclopedic article should contain information. I think there is a tendency to use pretty phrases and passive voices because it sounds hoity-toity and "encyclopedic" but it's really just verbose and muddy. Best to be clear, direct, and precise.

Secondly, I prefer dropping the "as the event progresses" because it's understood from the context and the content may continue to change rapidly after the event has stopped progressing. The goal is not necessarily being as small as possible but, rather, as clear and direct as possible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Does anyone specifically object to dropping the "as the event progresses" language? —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

I like "as the event progresses" myself, because I think it completes the thought (i.e. that the changes are related to the progression of the event, rather than arbitrary changes being made rapidly). Also, and this may be strange, but I think the second line should visually be at least as long as the header line, prefereably longer. Looks more balanced. -- Netoholic @ 9 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:

--Hottentot

Yeah. I already got your point from above but I believe Netoholic's new briefer version is actually more clear than the longer previous one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

I concur. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

1. Don't you mean "CE"?

2. Your point is invalid and unfunny.

—Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Netoholic, I understand your point about visual balance and relating changes to the ongoing event. Let's keep your version. DoubleBlue (Talk) 9 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Currentsect

Hey, my Currentsect template redirects here now. Why can't we have a version of the Current tag for sections? (and about the above discussion, I prefer Netoholic's version) TheCoffee 04:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussed above, if there's a section that concerns a current event, then doesn't the article concern a current event? DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update template to include Live

Hi, there was a discussion on the Tfd for {{Live}} which mentioned {{Current}} redundancy. I proposed an update to this template to include both. See Del Log Template:Live.

The proposal: There is an important distinction between the two events (current & live). Suggest editing {{current}}, and adding a parameter for live or current.

Usage would be {{current|live}} or {{current|current}}, which would display the appropriate state of the article with different parameters.

It should also ensure that those using just {{current}} don't end up with the live message.

Proposed change by Garrett

I am not sure of a way to make this change.

Code:

<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10%;">
{| class="notice noprint" id="current" style="background: 
#f7f8ff; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin: 0 auto;"
|-
| [[Image:Current event marker.png|50px| ]]
| '''This article concerns a [[current events|{{{1}}} event]].''' 
<br /> <small>Information may change rapidly as the {{{1}}} event progresses.</small>
|}[[:Category:Current events]]
</div>

In use: {{current|live}}

With this proposed configuration, the user would use {{current|current}}} or {{current|live}}}

I understand that this would involve editing the articles that use this template, if Garrets proposed change could not be added. This should not take too long, and would enhance the flexibility of this template for future use. Any comments or proposed changes are welcome. <>Who?¿? 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that is needlessly complex for such a silly use. Use Template:Current exclusively. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic. Any distinction between "current" and "live" is extremely flimsy, and your proposed system is patently illogical. —Lifeisunfair 21:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• First I would ask you both so see WP:Civil. It is not "silly" nor "patently illogical", the reason for this proposal was to solve the problem with having two templates that almost perform the same function. There is a distinct difference between "live" and "current". A current event is one that is ongoing, and may need period updating; a "live" event (see the old template {{live}} wording, is one that is "near real time". If you do not like the proposal, you can simply say so, and state your reasoning, there is no need for brashness. I stated this as a proposed solution, I did not attempt to edit the template, and did so in a civilized manner. I only ask for the same in return. Thank you. <>Who?¿? 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to try and work out a solution and discuss it on the talk page first. I must agree with Netoholic as well, however. There is no significant advantage to complicating this template to include "live". Live events are current events so there is no real loss in losing it. It's far more important to keep the template as simple as possible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I kind of agree, about keeping it simple. I figured I would get other users opinions on it, as some wanted to keep both on the Tfd. {{live}} was then chosen for deletion, I don't have a particular problem with it either way, just figured I would offer a "simple", if not complex, solution. <>Who?¿? 03:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "simple" or advantageous about combining the two templates into one. It would be far easier and more practical to retain two separate templates, but {{live}} was deemed extraneous. That's why your idea is patently illogical, IMHO; it completely misses the point. (The issue pertains to subjective quality, not quantity.) And no, this isn't a personal attack. —Lifeisunfair 03:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats understandable, I see the advantages and disadvantages of changing the template, especially with adding on attributes that may confuse users. I am the type to find a way to make the code work, in such a way, that it would be transparent if the attributes were not used; as well creating clear and precise documentation, as to alleviate confusion in use. I didn't take it as a "personal attack" per say, I just notice a lot of defensive terminology when it comes to items that users have invested time in. I just try to be as polite and forthright about how I propose things, and just ask the same in return. Thanks for you reply. <>Who?¿? 04:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you couldn't find a way to make this work (from a technical standpoint). I'm saying that to do so would be a misinterpretation of the TfD discussion. The existence of separate templates isn't the issue. The issue is that a consensus opposes the "current"/"live" distinction. Whether this subjective assessment is fair or not (and I believe that it is), the proposal in question merely complicates matters further. (I can't think of a single advantage to combining the two templates into one.) —Lifeisunfair 04:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry about the confusion, didn't see it that way, presumbably because the consensus had been reached, before I made the suggestion, which was also to delete one of them. Also because I mainly seen it as removal of a redudancy, because if there were any distiction, it shouldn't be demonstrated by having two similar templates. So I brought it up here as a proposal for disussion, but described in detail to be more informative on the proposal. <>Who?¿? 09:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, the "redundancy" is the based upon the belief (right or wrong) that the distinction between "current" and "live" is invalid. It is not based upon a belief that some sort of harm arises from having two separate templates for two disparate purposes.

If a template called {{Relocate}} were to be deemed redundant with the existing {{Move}} template in a TfD discussion, the solution would not be to modify the latter to include the option of replacing the word "move" with the word "relocate." —Lifeisunfair 17:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• As this is an encyclopedia which ideally should only document subjects with the neutrality and perpective offered by the passage of time, we should probably get away from documenting so many current events... and never live events. Wikinews was created to avoid these problems. -- Netoholic @ 15:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews

I've added a small link to Wikinews. It really is only for the benefit our our readers - hence "may have more information". Dan100 (Talk) 15:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Current events already has a link to Wikinews, and there is a separate Template:Wikinews template for linking to a story. I think adding the link here is unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 15:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree. If there's an article on Wikinews, the {{Wikinews}} should be used. We could just as well have links to every sister project that may have more information. Not desirable in my opinion unless it does have more information. In which case, use the appropriate sister project template. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. Not to mention it throws off the balance of text on the top and bottom lines. — Dan | Talk 15:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The link is redundant for articles already having the wikinews-template, and for "current" articles without any wikinews coverage (the majority i think) it's just misleading and confusing to the reader. Shanes 16:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews covers much more news than Wikipedia does, so it's more likely that there's more info on Wikinews than vice versa.

I'm not sure where Doubleblue's objection of could just as well have links to every sister project that may have more information is coming from. Which other projects apart from Wikinews are actually going to have more info? And if there are more - we should add them. Let's put our readers first.

And I really don't think Dan's objection of it throws off the balance of text is a particularly important consideration. Dan100 (Talk) 12:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

So you would advocate having the template say, "Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Commons, and Wikispecies may have more information." ? DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as they're not news services and this is the 'current events' template - no. Dan100 (Talk) 21:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea, I think... I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner. I think we should take every opportunity to promote other wikimedia projects. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

But any relevant article should already use the {{Wikinews}} template. This link is simply redundant. — Dan | Talk 15:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Same here, Chicacomo. Netoholic, the problem is that it's there, but people would rather read the Wikipeida article instead! We don't want competiton for the projects. We wan't to be family, and so we're promoting Wikinews on here. I agree with Chiacomo too, sure there's links to the Wikinews stories, but no link to Wikitionary, Wikibooks or Wikispecies. I mean sure Wikipedia is well know to everyone and Wikinews is getting there (we've just been accepted to be included in Google News and The Boston Globe did a story on us. I hope to see TIME doing a story on us (like they did on Wikipedia) but if we're gonna get to that point we need to get people part of other Wikimedia projects to help one another out, then someday Wikimedia projects will be a force to be reconked with. --Saint-Paddy 16:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like what you really want are banner ads on these pages advertising Sisterprojects. I don't think we want to wander anywhere near that path. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how we lose anything by adding a link here- the unbalancing can be fixed, if that is truly an issue, but in the end, cross wiki connections are a good thing. Wikinews links to wikipedia in almost every article, to encourage and show the strength of both wikis. Adding a link here is just another reminder of WN as well, which in the end will help both groups. Lyellin 16:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I like Wikinews and I've edited and created stories there but there's a fundamental difference between having links from every story to Wikipedia and having links from every article to Wikinews. There is always more background info on some aspect of the story, even if it's just the place where the story happens, which wikipedia is good for. If there is no story at Wikinews, it is inappropriate and unencyclopedic to direct people there for more info. If there is an article, fantastic, put the Wikinews template on it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There would not be a link from "every article." It would only be on current news-type events for a very limited time. Once the tag is removed, the WN link disappears. DAVODD 06:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It would be on all {{current}} tagged articles. How is it helpful to have the link to Wikinews lost after a "very limited time" if there's a story on Wikinews? If there's a story, use {{Wikinews}}. It's inappropriate to tell readers to go there to read more about it, if there's nothing there about it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That is true. Maybe we are trying to solve a problem of pointing original reporters to the appropriate project with the wrong solution. ;-) DAVODD 03:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion of a third template - instead of {{current}} and {{Wikinews}}, use one template that serves both purposes. At the very least, it stops the problem where someone unilaterally decides that the {{current}} template should link to Wikinews, which is a mistake that is bound to be made again and again. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to this discussion that hasn't already been written, so I'll simply state that I strongly agree with Netoholic, DoubleBlue, Dan and Shanes; the link is inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 17:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Support. This is an ideal way to steer people who wish to contribute reporting inthe form os original research to a WP story to a place (WN) where it is allowed. It is collaborative, welcoming and very within the wiki spirit. Unlike the embedded wikinews story links, the tag link would disappear once the event is no longer current. Does anyone else remember suring the 2004 olympics when many instances that current event wikireporting led to original, uncited reporting? It was banned from WP as unacceptible, angering many new editors. Instead of angering potential contributors, this would help gently guide them toward a more appropriate wiki project. DAVODD 07:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

How about a boilerplate message for user talk pages that say, OR is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Please submit your story to Wikinews. Surely, an article on something that is generating so much interest in wikireporting will have Wikinews stories and the Wikinews template would be far more useful. Furthermore, the current template includes a link to Current events which has a large logo and link to Wikinews at the very top-right of the page: "To read and write about current events in detail, please visit our sister project, Wikinews." DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• • You have a good mind for compromise here. This idea should be developed further. Good thinking! DAVODD 03:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At present, only a fraction of the stories mentioned in the Current News section of Wikipedia have stories at Wikinews. Until such time as nearly every story there is covered, I don't agree with using this snippet of text in the Current template. However, if we keep seeing {{wikinews}} templates in more and more current event stories, then I would agree with putting this in. It's a matter of reaching a critical mass at Wikinews. - McCart42 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternative - For popular current events (such as the Olympics or London bombings) that are also coevred on WikiNews, there should be one template at the top of the article that says that this is a current event, and that the latest information may be available in the Wikinews article. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not have late-breaking, possible erroneous or speculative, reports. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, if you hear "Another bomb on a bus..." on the radio while editing Wikipedia, and you really feel compelled to add it to the WP article rather than to WN, then it should be entered as "Early reports indicated that there may have been a bomb on a bus". The present tense ("There are reports of a bomb on a bus") has no place here, and I think directing "latest information" to WN is the way to avoid this. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You're the second person to have this idea, and I think it's a very good one (a special template for stuff on both WP and WN). No doubt certain editors will object if I attempt to implement it, however... Dan100 (Talk) 19:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Look, this is just dumb. There's been almost a hundred edits to this template in the past month, and for what? All that was accomplished was the removal of the meta-template and the POV/vandalism warning. I'm sick of this showing up on my watchlist with an edit summary of "rv - other guy's being stupid". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are protecting this template for personal reasons. I believe that is against policy. Please unprotect now. Thank you. —Cantus…☎ 03:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected - invalid reason citied for protection. Open editing and lively, civil debate are the wiki way. Our unfettered combined efforts should be unhampered in finding a solution that all of us agree upon. DAVODD 03:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the protection was inappropriate, but Cantus is repeatedly imposing controversial edits without discussion. And for the life of me, I have no idea why. (The phrase "a solution in search of a problem" comes to mind.) As far as I can tell, Cantus' version merely inserts inadvisable code and increases the template's empty space. If Cantus has some unknown benefit in mind, it should be explained on this talk page. —Lifeisunfair 04:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a long-running slow revert war whose effects cascade onto dozens of pages. How that's "personal", I don't see. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wording tweak

Changing:

"Information may change rapidly as the event progresses."

to:

"Information may change rapidly as events progress."

What'cha think? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That would conflict with the first sentence, which states that "this article documents a current event" (emphasis mine). This redundancy is mildly bothersome, but a direct contradiction would be worse, IMHO. —Lifeisunfair 05:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inapproriate use of this template

I was just checking the "What links here" links and there are a large number of articles where this template does not belong. Part of the problem is that it is being used on quite a few articles to denote a recent update to the article, and there are also quite a few articles where it is being used to note that the information (usually just in one section of the article) will probably be changing in the near future (2-6 months). There needs to be a general clearup of the use of this template, and there probably should be two new templates created for the uses that I mentioned above. What does everyone else think about these ideas? BlankVerse ∅ 06:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OMG, not more templates. The ones you propose serve no real purpose. "denote a recent update to the article" - that's what page history is for. "information ... will probably be changing in the near future" - I can't imagine something that could be used on thousands of articles, yet have absolutely no practical purpose. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There certainly needs to be a clean-up, especially when you consider [[Template talk:Current#Policy for using {{current}}|why the template was created]]. I will get on it. Dan100 (Talk) 06:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dan100 and Netoholic here. The "recent update" idea sounds like a software feature request. The "expect changes in the future" notice sounds like it would be much better as part of the written article. (e.g., The Olympics opening ceremonies will be on 10 February 2006.) I just now notice that 2006 Winter Olympics is already using a new template, {{future}}.

Doing a clean-up to return {{current}} to the purpose of an article undergoing many changes as events develop is a good idea and I will help when there's time. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Done, although I was quite soft. If the true original purpose of this template was adhered to it would rarely be used, and then only briefly (no bad thing). However some articles are subject to revisions as the "current event" continues (mostly elections and sports series), so I left the tag on them. Dan100 (Talk) 14:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LAME + Wording

Wow. This does belong to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. I can't think of anything doing more harm to server performance than editing a much used template very often.

A more positive note, or rather question: is there a good reason why "is about" got replaced by "concerns", then "documents"? I find the current wording kinda unnatural. KissL 13:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You honestly believe that "contains information about" (or "is about") reads better than "concerns" or "documents"? You're entitled to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. —Lifeisunfair 14:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems we disagree then. I find "is about" (not "contains information about") simpler, more natural, and therefore more professional and easier to read. But I'm far from crazy about this :o) KissL 15:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, you and I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, "documents" is simpler, more natural and far, far more professional than "is about." Not only is this phrase clumsy (again, in my opinion), but it's less precise; the word "about" has no fewer than fifteen definitions, one of which ("In reference to; relating to) applies. The word "document" has only a handful of definitions, most of which share the same theme.

Both "concerns" and "documents" accurately convey the situation in a straightforward manner. I don't care for "discusses" (because the more common connotation refers to conversation). —Lifeisunfair 19:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You should be saying 5 meanings for "about" and 3 for "documents", because they are used as a preposition and a transitive verb respectively. But I think the fact that "is about" is less precise is more an argument for it than against it in this case. A vague term can sometimes have the disadvantage of possibly being misunderstood, but I can't imagine anyone with even a very basic knowledge of English who would read "this article is about a current event" and think "oh, so this article is in the vicinity of or surrounding a current event" (using the definitions from your link). I find the disadvantage of more precise terms much worse. All of them are too precise and therefore inaccurate. "Furnish with a document" is not quite what the article is doing to the current event (it's rather the contributors who document the event by writing the article). The other two meanings are clearly out. "Concerns" and "addresses" (8 meanings as a transitive verb:)) are somewhat better, but they have the same problem, not to mention "deals with", "treats", "discusses" and the rest. The fact that "about" is a term which is used in loads of contexts other than this doesn't make it any less professional if it is the most accurate way of expressing what we want to express, IMO. KissL 09:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the English language (not to particular parts of speech), so my counts stand. I do believe that "is about" is considerably more likely to be misinterpreted by a non-native English reader, but that wasn't my point. My point was simply that phrase is relatively weak (in my opinion).

I'm puzzled as to how the definition "to furnish with a document or documents" is inapplicable; that's precisely what these articles do for the reader. Many, meanwhile, also support claims with evidence or decisive information. And of course, while obviously inapplicable, "document" as noun is pertinent to such matters. —Lifeisunfair 11:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is at least one non-native English reader who thinks "is about" as part of "This article is about a current event" is absolutely unlikely to be misinterpreted :) What exactly does "weak" mean here?

"This article supplies a document for a current event" (using the definitions of document and furnish) - well, you decide if this is really so precise, for me it sounds more like a strange personification. Documents just don't supply or furnish anything (nor do they do anything that is best described using an active verb). On the other hand, although it is true that the word "document", if used differently, can have a meaning that is relevant to the matter in question, but this does not make its particular use in "This article documents a current event" any more appropriate. KissL 15:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

By "relatively weak," I mean that the phrase seems less natural and doesn't flow as well (in my opinion, of course).

And no, it isn't personification, because the characteristics in question are its own (not strictly human). The articles do supply documents for current events, and the fact that humans are ultimately behind this is irrelevant. To state that something inanimate serves a purpose (id est, does something) is not tantamount to stating that it displays lifelike traits or is alive.

Your contention that "documents just don't supply or furnish anything" is incorrect. (People supply documents, and documents supply information.) This is, however, beside the point; as you wrote above, the template states that documents are being supplied, not that documents are supplying something. —Lifeisunfair 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I wanted to say "article" there, it's the article that's "supplying a document" with the current wording. I, too, find the personification (or metaphor if you like) in "the article supplies information" appropriate. I'm even OK with "the article supplies documents" if this is to mean that "there are other documents, or references to other documents in the article", but not if "the article supplies itself as a document" is meant, whereby, for the purpose of using "documents" as the verb, what is essentially the object of the sentence is made into the subject at the same time, causing some confusion.

Anyway, I'm surprised to see that only the two of us are discussing this after all the edit wars that there have been. "What reads better" is quite a subjective question, so however much it pleases me to discuss it in detail, I'd be interested in other people's opinions - which is why I brought the point up in the first place. KissL 17:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried protecting it, but they claimed it was "inappropriate" and "personal". -- Cyrius|✎ 18:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think "is about" is more accurate than "documents". We are not documenting anything, we are merely writing an article about it. Documenting is what the police are doing. I really dislike the redundant "as the event progresses" which requires the use of smaller font size. Perhaps we should scrap the whole second sentence and let people draw their own conclusions. And what is all that redundant code? The preferred style for these template is to use a table as far as I know and no div. I propose something like

This article is about a current event.

Nah? --MarSch 11:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I also like

This article is about a current event. Information may be outdated.

not sure about the bolding though. --MarSch 11:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to the possibility of changing "documents" to something else, but I don't care for "is about." Would "pertains to" be acceptable?

As for the second line, I agree that "as the event progresses" is redundant, but we definitely need to retain the general statement. "Information may be outdated" is unsuitable, because the template isn't intended to serve as a warning of outdatedness. On the contrary, the purpose is to alert readers to the fact that the article is being updated in real-time (more or less), and therefore is subject to frequent changes (and the associated inaccuracies, redundancies, contradictions, etc.). "Information may change rapidly" conveys this concept fairly well, in my opinion. —Lifeisunfair 12:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't like "Information may be outdated" either. "Information may change rapidly" is much better. I'm even getting used to "documents", though I can't see the consensus behind that :) KissL 08:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CHANGE

I am adding two links to the template - recommending section editing and not ignoring edit conflicts. This should not be too controversial, and should help the incredibly infuriating edit conflicts galore on fast moving news pages, like John G. Roberts or the London bombings. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 01:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

An addendum - the advice is especially useful since lots of newbies edit "Current" articles and may not know what either of those two things are. Fuzheado | Talk 01:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you insert that in the edit-conflict prone articles, only, then where you think they are apropriate? A current article doesn't have to use this template, you know. This template is used in hundreds of articles and the looks and wording have been debated to a great deal here and was about to settle on an agreed upon version. Personally I find the radical changes you made way too much addressing the wikipedia editors instead of its readers. Shanes 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"This template is used in hundreds of articles" - it was used that often, but that was inappropiate, and such uses have been purged. Dan100 (Talk) 18:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The current template is intended for edit-conflict prone articles. Normally, one would expect such editor instructions to be on the talk page, though. On the other hand, Fuzheado is probably correct in assuming that current articles can attract newbie contributors who are unfamiliar with the technicalities. However, does saying "use section editing" and follow "edit conflict instructions" really add anything useful or is it a kind of instruction creep? The edit conflict instructions already appear when there is an edit conflict. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with DoubleBlue. I think we shouldn't put editor instructions on the content page even if it is helpful to newbie editors – most of the readers are readers, and the content page is primarily for them.

I certainly do not agree with "edit intro". If we really want a link like that, it should say "edit lead", but I think this would best be a feature request for MediaWiki, not part of a template. KissL 08:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the link to read "edit" (thereby matching the standard links).

Indeed, the feature should be added to the MediaWiki software. In the meantime, however, I feel that its addition to this template is extremely useful. Among articles containing this template, the opening paragraph is likely to be edited very frequently, and this could prevent countless edit conflicts (and the side effects thereof). —Lifeisunfair 09:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, section editing doesn't avoid conflicts, so that advice is pretty pointless. Besides, I agree with others that this template shouldn't contain editor instructions. Let's just keep it simple. --P3d0 02:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Uh, section editing doesn't avoid conflicts" - yes, it does. Dan100 (Talk) 18:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this text should be included, but can you please explain why section editing wouldn't significantly reduce the quantity of edit conflicts? —Lifeisunfair 04:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the link: "Unlike what one may assume, an edit conflict may still occur if two users edit different sections at the same time." --P3d0 15:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wish that the text were more specific than that. —Lifeisunfair 19:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I just tested this in a private sandbox. Here is what I did:

1. Created the page with two sections
2. Clicked the [edit] link next to each section, to open in a new tab
3. Edited section 1 and saved
4. Edited section 2 and saved

Result: My first edit was overridden by my second edit, without any "Edit conflict" screen appearing.

This means that section editing reduces the number of edit conflict notifications, but doesn't do anything about the conflict itself, but rather accepts the last of the conflicting edits only, effectively reverting the rest. So until this is fixed in MediaWiki, I suppose we should encourage "whole page editing" on heavily edited pages, to make users aware of edit conflicts :) KissL 10:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I recently experienced a similar problem on this very talk page, but my second edit (which, according to the revision history, removed my first edit) never actually appeared on the page. When I eventually realized this (and resubmitted the second edit), the version history indicated the restoration of the first edit (because the comparison was made to the imaginary second edit), but the first edit wasn't actually removed at any point.

It's my impression that these bugs manifest only when a single user edits two sections simultaneously. I haven't encountered such a problem when another user has edited a different section at the same time that I've edited mine, nor has it arisen when I've clicked on a section's "edit" link after editing a different section. —Lifeisunfair 19:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

See here and here for a counterexample (diffs of two subsequent edits): Dtcdthingy happened to edit a different section at the same time, and unwittingly removed the changes of Robertbowerman. I remember having seen this multiple times in that specific article, once even causing an anonymous user to accuse others of intentionally reverting his edits. KissL 09:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't support the addition of the new text. I wasn't opposed to it either, but the doubt as to the wisdom of this advice has changed matters. —Lifeisunfair 19:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What disturbs me is the fact that the MediaWiki software now seems to combine edits (sectional or non-sectional) that don't conflict with each other (id est, modifications to different lines of text). This just created the illusion that I edited a version of {{Current}} containing flagrant image vandalism (which occurred during the same minute), but didn't bother to remove it. In fact, the code that I submitted did not contain said vandalism, but the software took the liberty of superimposing my edit with that of the vandal (instead of notifying me of an edit conflict).

The same "feature" recently allowed me to unwittingly submit a talk page reply to a message that nearly duplicated someone else's from a minute or two earlier. —Lifeisunfair 19:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a different bug arising from the fact that whenever you edit something, (at least) three things happen separately: first the "last change" timestamp is checked against the timestamp when you started editing to see if there is an edit conflict, then if there isn't, your edit is recorded, and finally the page history is updated. Normally, the execution of these steps shouldn't be allowed to be interrupted by any parallel operation (such as another update), but it seems that MediaWiki is not implemented that way. See this diff for a proof – the newer revision even appears to have been created a minute earlier than the one it is reverting. On the history page, the corresponding records are sorted by timestamp, and thus in inverse order with respect to the edits. KissL 09:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Fuzheado's additions are excellent. BTW, when seperate users on seperate computers use section edit links, conflicts do not occur (and no information is lost, either.) Dan100 (Talk) 18:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

This assertion is wrong, as shown by the proof cited in my 09:38, 22 July 2005 comment above. Please read the discussion carefully before contributing your opinion. KissL 09:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is this template directed at (a) regular visitors (ie. non-potential editors) to warn them that the version they are reading may not be the most up to date version, (b) potential editors to warn them that they should be careful when editing this page because edit conflicts may occur, or (c) trying to be both?

If (a) I would suggest a message like:

This article documents a rapidly-evolving event. Refresh this page continually to see new information.

If (b):

This article is currently being edited by several users. Please use section editing to avoid edit conflicts.

Or if (c):

This article documents a rapidly-evolving event being edited by several users. Refresh this page continually to see new information and please use section editing to avoid edit conflicts.

Comments anyone? —Cantus…☎ 07:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• How about an (a) type message for article page and a (b) type message for talk page. And, the talk page message would be an appropriate place to add that wished-for Wikinews link. I think I still prefer the former wording for article page: DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I like this one at the bottom the best to be honest. I wish this would get settled because I'm really tired of seeing this template being changed so much. It should be small and speak to the viewers, not the editors. K1Bond007 01:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with "It should be small and speak to the viewers, not the editors." However, as pointed out above, "as the event progresses" is redundant. Any comments on "concerns" / "documents" / "is about" / "pertains to"? KissL 10:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I really think it should be for the viewers more than the editors too. Screen editing and edit conflicts can be encountered/used on any article. -- Joolz 10:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It should certainly focus on viewers, but on current events there is a higher likelyhood of novice/new editors reading, and editing the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "Information may change rapidly..." to "Refresh this page continually..." which makes it sound to newbies like they should be repeatedly hitting "Refresh". Also, "information may change rapidly..." sounds more encyclopedic because it does not address a reader in the second-person. —Lowellian (talk) 23:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line break

By definition the mid-sentence break by Stevertigo wasn't arbitrary; it was meant to improve the aesthetic of the template by splitting a hella long sentence into two parts. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I very much dislike the whole addition. It does not pertain to readers whatsoever and is still a hella long sentence – with line breaks or without. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There are valid arguments for and against the added text. As far as I'm concerned, either way is fine. I'm mainly interested in the formatting and syntax. I will say that the shorter version is easier to configure. —Lifeisunfair 00:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an aesthetic improvement on your screen and on Stevertigo's screen. On someone else's screen, however, it might look like this. —Lifeisunfair 00:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow that is hella bad; wouldn't it be possible to maintain the line break and fix that aberration? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so. —Lifeisunfair 06:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this article just to add line breaks anymore. Clearly there is no concensus about it, so your edit is likely to be controvercial, and layout is really the job of the browser anyway. --P3d0 16:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit link

I disagree with the inclusion of an edit link in the template for the following reasons:

1. It's the "Current" template, not "Current and section 0 edit link"
2. The link looks misplaced on some articles
3. The link isn't always necessary - articles using this template don't necessarily suffer from mass editing and thus edit conflicts

I believe that a separate template, if one doesn't exist already, could be created to add the link when somebody thinks it's necessary. violet/riga (t) 20:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. A separate template does exist, and previously was embedded in this one (before its code was copied over). —Lifeisunfair 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

articles using this template don't necessarily suffer from mass editing and thus edit conflicts - it is only these articles this template should be used on. Dan100 (Talk) 18:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Since this template is always one click from the main page, and considering the recent vandalism, I've protected the template and image. If you want to be a contrarian, please reply here first rather than unprotecting. I'm open to discussion. -- BRIAN0918 15:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would hope this simple and useful template would be protected from now on. For all intents and purposes (other than vandalism) it is a finished work. Calicocat 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

While I don't like protection very much, I think that the recent "attention" this template has gotten has just been silly. I agree this is a "finished work". If you don't like the appearance, then change it in your personal skin settings. -- Netoholic @ 17:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason this should be protected - it certainly is not a "finished work", as the above debates show. Also see m:Protected pages considered harmful. Dan100 (Talk) 18:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not a "finished work", but definitely a target for vandalism (7 times in the past week). Given the high visibility of this template, I'm inclined to leave the protection in place and set up a /temp for "real" edits. - jredmond 18:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If your only argument is that people won't be able to edit this 2 cell table, it's not a very good one. It takes 3 seconds to get an admin's attention if serious discussion is leading toward the unlikely event that this template needs some sort of significant change, and 3 seconds is much shorter than the normal pace of a talk page discussion. There is nothing controversial about the template, so there are no real time constraints in changing it. You're free to default to a contrary view, however. -- BRIAN0918 19:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the protection. There has been no consensus (not even a significant number of opinions) in any of the questions above. I still only know about one person who agrees with me that "is about" is better than "documents", and one person who disagrees. No one else took the pain of saying which one they prefer. On the other hand, there has been a lot of partisan editing without even trying to reach a consensus first, and on top of that, vandalism almost daily. If this is not reason enough for protection, what is?

In the unlikely-looking :) event that people actually voice their opinions: I think "documents" should be replaced with "is about", and " as the event progresses" should be removed as redundant. The rest, including the layout, is good as it is (and I don't care even if it stays this way; it's not actually bad). KissL 09:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It takes 3 seconds to get an admin's attention... - you could say that about any protected page. However, as you well know, that's not the wiki way. Temporary protection from vandals is, of course, justified, but permanent protection is not. Granted you could regard my point of view as placing principles ahead of practicalities, but there you go. Dan100 (Talk) 10:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

So then I guess we should unprotect everything on the Main Page? This isn't like article protection, protected articles are likely to need admin's attention much more often, so protecting them isn't worth the hassle unless it's for a serious edit war. Protection of this template is justified: it's always one click from the main page, it consists solely of two sentences, there hasn't been serious debates over its content, or edit wars, there is no hurry to change the content, the template has been vandalized repeatedly with what many probably consider obscene images. But, you're always free to default to contrarianism on any and all matters. -- BRIAN0918 13:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with the decision to protect. I had asked User:Evil Monkey to consider protecting this page before and we decided against the need for it, but I do support the decision in this case. It's high visibility and targeted recently. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep protected If "it takes 3 seconds to get an admins. attention," then if there's a good and needed update, well, again, it takes 3 seconds to get an admins attention. If there's a needed update, people put examples up, we can discuss and vote, then unprotect the template, make the changes and restore the protection again. Isn't that better than reverting vandalism all the time? I think it is. Calicocat 01:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I started a straw poll, please vote.

[edit] Straw poll on protection

Let's get a reading on the opinion of the editors about this issue.

Do you think this template should be protected?

Vote: Yes, keep it protected

1. Yes Keep it protected. It can be unprotected anytime an important update is needed. It's been subjected to too much vandalism. Calicocat 01:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Yes Concur with Calicocat. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes It's always one click from the main page and is not under pressure to be changed. -- BRIAN0918 01:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Yes. I'm usually very strongly against protections, but this one is simply not worth it. Shanes 02:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
5. In this case, yes. Someone needs to write Wikipedia:Protecting certain pages considered beneficial. -- Netoholic @ 02:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Yes per Calicocat. KissL 08:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
7. violet/riga (t) 09:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote: No, leave it unprotected

1. No. m:Protected pages considered harmful. This template isn't that high-profile that it needs to be permanently protected. JYolkowski // talk 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Uhh, it's always 1 click from the main page... Also, the meta page doesn't apply as it is referring to articles for which there are frequently edits being made. -- BRIAN0918 01:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
     • So is the featured article and we don't protect that. Protecting this template would be very unwikilike. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
       • Of course we don't protect the featured article, because of m:Protected pages considered harmful. This template is not the same as an article. Have you even read that meta page? The only complaint it brings up is "Difficulty of editing". Well, have fun showing that to be true for this 2 cell table. Stop choosing to be contrarian. -- BRIAN0918 02:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
         • Excuse me, stop trying to (incorrectly I might add) read into my motives. This template receives many good edits from non-admins and I think it should still be open for them to edit. JYolkowski // talk 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
           • Alright, this is turning into a joke. Cite some valid policy or reasonable... reasoning and please stop pulling at strings. I suggest you read the article you've linked, and talk to the creator of the page about his opinion. -- BRIAN0918 02:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
             • I've read that page dozens of times. This case isn't one of the cases listed there. Also, I am not "pulling at strings". I believe that this template is not high profile enough to warrant protection. If people want to perform high-profile vandalism, they can just vandalise pages; protecting this template isn't going to solve anything. If you look at my contributions and the protection log, you will notice that my stance here is entirely consistent with everything that I have done before. If you are going to argue this further, please don't make personal attacks. JYolkowski // talk 02:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
               • So let's summarize your arguments so far:
                 1. This template isn't that high-profile.

                    It's fairly easy to argue that the news articles linked on the main page are collectively clicked more than any of the other individual articles linked on the main page (please don't try arguing this, or my head will implode). Now, all of these news articles (usually 5) have at the top of them this template. So this template is collectively pulling in at least as many and probably more viewers than a given day's featured article (articles are only featured for 24 hours). It is high profile. Even if you don't believe it is viewed as much as the featured article (which I'm sure you will), it is still at the top of the group of high profile pages. Summary: No case. -- BRIAN0918 02:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

                 2. m:Protected pages considered harmful

                    Effectively you're arguing that this case doesn't fit case 2 on that page, so it's the same argument. See above. -- BRIAN0918 02:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

       • A featured article is linked directly from the main page for exactly 96 hours, while this template can constantly be reached via an average of about 4 links on the main page. A featured article is usually a long one, with thousands of possibilities for e.g. typos (and, of course, a great deal of possibilities for more substantial errors as well), while this template is small. So this is a false analogy. And stop giving orders to each other. ;o)))) KissL 08:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid Current/Wikinews

As it stands right now, the "Current" mini-banner takes up prime area where Wikinews articles could be linked to for more detail at the time. A solution would be the following mini banner that would include both the Wikinews artilce to link to, plus the information of the current "Current" template:

This article documents a current event. Our sister project Wikinews has news related to this article: [[Wikinews:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]

Feel free to edit as needed, however I think this would really help WN out a lot. --Mrmiscellanious 14:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your desire to get more attention to Wikinews, I don't think it's a good idea for this template to attempt to do two jobs. It's quite possible that WN will not have news related to the story and it's asking too much for anyone to tag an article as current to require them to search WN for the story title to insert in the {{current}} tag. We have a separate {{Wikinews}} tag that does the job of linking to WN stories well enough. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Let me clarify, I am not saying that there should be a rewrite, however I'm proposing a new template. The current WN box is usually stuck at the far bottom, where no one sees it. The Current tag, however - is at the top, where users can get more information about an event if the article lacks it at the time. For items that do have WN articles, I think they should have a template like this. --Mrmiscellanious 17:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea and hope it catches on!! --Celestianpower ^talk 20:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me -- interesting to see some Wikipedia topics (read: breaking events) become stubbed, notable and completed in about 24 hours in an encyclopedia. Guiding the masses to Wikinews seems sensible. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left-Alignment?

Why is the template now left-aligned?

--Super-Magician / Talk 16:30, Aug 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese Wikipedia:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Đang diễn ra]]

Thanks!

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV Programmes...

Just wondering if some sort of 'current event' template should be put on pages about a TV program happening at the moment (for example, Space Cadets). Is there a template created for TV series that are 'current events' (for example, Space Cadets has a live broadcast every night for the next two weeks or so)? gtdp 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's strange - I came to this talk page looking for advice about the Space Cadets issue and it was already here! Anyway, I think there may be a template saying that this televsion program is a current event or something. Thelb⁴ 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to de:

There's a link from de:Vorlage:Neuigkeiten to here, but for some reason there's none from here to de:Vorlage:Neuigkeiten.—Wikipeditor 20:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think we need a new version of this template

This template says this article documents a current event, but what about just this section? I think we need a "This section documents a current event" variant. A Clown in the Dark 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See {{Current section}} Shanes 03:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the syntax of {{current}}. Use "{{current|section}}" instead. We don't need a separate template to accommodate a single word. — May. 24, '06 [06:24] <freak|talk>

[edit] Alternate version for non-events

It's a pity the template is protected. At Slobodan Milošević we saw that "current event" may be very inapporperiate, therefore I propose to add a possibile alternate text that allows to choose between "This article documents a current event." and "This article is related to a current event." -- Kirils 19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate wording for articles about people?

"This article documents a current event" just sounds stupid when used on an article about someone who, for example, has just died. Any objections to creating a parallel {{PersonCurrentlyInTheNews}}? Pcb21 Pete 10:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-- I propose modifying existing template as mentioned just above this, so we could conditionally switch texts. Kirils 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well from an implementation point of view, two separate templates seems simpler than one containing an if statement, but yeah let's just change it. Pcb21 Pete 08:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

I propose alternative templates for current events for articles that will go through serious updates but nothing remotely as major as lets say a hit news event such as madrid bombings. Stuff ranging from recent episodes to scientific discovery.

The intention of the template is to say "this article will be improved really soon whevever data is avalible, just come back in a little while". Current template would be inaproporate as article probably wouldn't go through a single edit conflict in the process but undergo major improvement.

This would also limit/discourage the usage of {{current}}...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use in User namespace

A number of editors have used the {{current}} template on their user page. While I agree that the template looks nice and that people might argue that they are, indeed, current (though that isn't the intended use of this template, or it would be applied to everyone in Category:Living people), this has the unfortunate side effect of adding their user pages to Category:Current events. Ideally these userpage boxes would be subst'ed and the category removed, but I wouldn't like to tread on toes by editing people's userpages. -- Mithent 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected this issue by invoking the category only when {{NAMESPACE}} equals the null string, i.e. actual articles. — May. 24, '06 [06:17] <freak|talk>

[edit] sortkey

I'd like to propose a change to the sort key that this template uses:

[[Category:Current events|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]

This will ignore namespace and allow the editor to enter a custom category sort key in. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to no:

Can this be added:

[[no:mal:Pågående]]. __meco 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy and using a bot to remove this template

This template is showing up in a lot of places, and it is not needed in most of them. I suggest two things.

1. Creating a clear (but short!) policy page saying when it should be used, say Wikipedia:Using the current events template.
2. Using a bot to remove it from articles which have not been edited for at least two days, as suggested above. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really like this idea . Some other ideas .

1. An alternative to 'not edited for 2 days' the trigger could be '7 days after {{current}} was added'. A problem with this is that it may still be current after 7 days.
2. Instead of removing current automatically a category could be added say "Current events not edited in 2 days" which would mean some human filtering occured , but that it was easier to filter.

GameKeeper 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of template for nouns

I am pretty sure this topic was probably mentioned before. But I am not sure.

Basically, I've found many articles in the past that are nouns and have this template attached to it on the top. People, cities, etc. Now, I know the reason for putting the tag on that particular noun is due to some widespread attention. However, if this is the case, every living person and every city would have to be tagged a current event. For example, as of June 5, 2006 (today) -- Toronto has the current tag on it. I strongly oppose this type of tag on a city. -Tcwd | Talk 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eu InterWiki

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Txantiloi:Eguneratu. Thanks.--Berria 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done Ashibaka tock 06:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categorize

Please add this template to Category:Temporal templates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Managing expectations

The reuters story that the Signpost writes about was quite silly for us who know how the process works, but User:Fuzheado suggested an important thing: "trying to manage expectations". This is something we should think more about. One obvious step would be to update {{current event}} to aknowledge that information may be not only rapidly changing, but also sometimes incorrect. Zocky | picture popups 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for change of message's wording

Considering the aftermath of Ken Lay's death with regard to Wikipedia, in which all sorts of false info concerning his cause of death was put in to the Ken Lay article, I propose that the wording of this template be changed to the following:

"This article documents a current event. Content may change rapidly as the event progresses or new information becomes available."

--  Denelson83  00:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Template

Can we have a similar template that is for sections only? BhaiSaab ^talk 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this okay? BhaiSaab ^talk 00:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. See the usage notes above. All you need do is use {{current|section}}. DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Year

I have a deceptively simple question. Should this tag be placed on the current year? Philip Stevens 13:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's... like a silly joke... although I'm sure it's not being asked in that spirit. What I mean is, that would be highly redundant, IMHO. But funny. riana_dzasta 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ES interwiki

Please, could someone add the "es:Plantilla:Actualidad" interwiki?. Thanks --Martin Rizzo 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also: current-section

I am requesting that the following link be added to the See also section of the article:

• Template:Current-section

Makes sense to link it as well, don't you think? Thanks. ♠ SG →Talk 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. NCurse _work 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)