Template talk:Update after

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archive of earlier discussions 2 Alternatives needed to be clarified 3 "Review after" template 4 4th option 5 Usage notes 6 Banner 7 Combining Update after and Update

[edit] Archive of earlier discussions

Historical discussions related to the initial implementation of this template are at Wikipedia talk:As of. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives needed to be clarified

I wasn't active in the discussion/establishment of this template. Less subtle but related alternatives exist at {{update}} and {{out of date}}. I'd like to encourage someone involved in this template's creation to take a look at these other two templates, the categories they make use of (Category:Articles with obsolete information & Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating), and Wikipedia:Template messages in general. It would be nice if the usage information accompanying all of these alternatives could include information that clarifies the differences and current preferences. Thanks -- 66.167.139.80 01:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

I've added a "related templates" section here, and see you've crosslinked this one from the others. Is this what you're looking for? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the 'update' and 'out of date' templates effectively mean the equivalent of {{update after|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|{{CURRENTMONTH}}|}}CURRENTDAY}}|Articles with obsolete information}}... and indeed could probably be recoded to just call this template in that fashion. Having a single system for identifying such articles would certainly help efforts to address them. I might suggest an optional parameter for specifying that the 'update needed' should be an inline superscript (as it is currently) or a banner saying that the following page or section needs to be updated. Would just impact the text printed out after the specified date and easy to add if people think it worthwhile. The text display and category display ifexpr conditions could be combined unless there is some reason for wanting them to possibly have different 'delay periods' (both currently 0 days). Finally, there should be some sort of instructions for people using this template when they can see that info is date sensitive, but don't know when it should be updated... info which seems like it may already be out of date (such as something which is listed as having happened on 'September 17' but no year... for an event from several years ago) could be tagged as above with an updating 'current date' to indicate that it is out of date until corrected. Seemingly current info might be tagged with one year after the date it was noticed if the user doesn't know exactly when it would become dated. Et cetera. --CBD 10:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of this template in its current form is not exactly taking Wikipedia by storm (unlike, say, template:CategoryTOC that got plunked onto several thousand categories within a few days of its creation). I don' exactly understand why this template does not seem to be generating any interest. I suspect the problem is not that it is not functional enough, so I'd hesitate to add more options and parameters until there's some evidence that it might actually get some use. All of these are more or less reasonable ideas, but if the template isn't going to get used why bother? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A major problem is that the current template requires a future Year, Month and Day with an optional Category. It should be modified to only require the Year with the other three parameters being optional -- KelleyCook 05:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We thought about making the month and day optional, but if only a year is specified does this then mean the same thing as Jan 1 of that year (and similarly, if only year and month are specified does this mean the first day of that month)? The point of making these mandatory rather than optional was to discourage use of this template for cases that are merely "somebody should look at this sometime later to make sure it's still accurate" (which can probably be said about nearly everything in Wikipedia). If the narrow use to mark facts that will certainly expire on a certain date (political officeholders are perhaps the prototypical example) becomes common, we thought we might develop a similar template for slightly more vague conditions ("review after"). This one is meant to draw a reader's attention to an expired fact and encourage them to fix it. Noting that a fact should be reviewed doesn't seem to need to be quite as visible. It's not technically difficult to default the day to 1 and the month to January, but are there really a lot of facts for which Jan 1 is the expiration date? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First, if the exact date was omitted then it would seem more prudent to default to the end of year/month. But, yes there are MANY issues that need to be updated (not reviewed) in the future. For example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project is expected to be completed by 2009. Construction projects rarely have exact dates. Another examples are the new WiFi draft 802.11n which won't be approved until every 75% of the committee is able to agree on the specification. That is expected sometime in 2007, but one can't give an exact date as it is unknown when they will agree.

And this template would be especially useful for a date on page that refers to 802.11n expected to be completed in late 2006, (say a pre-802.11n router) as that would be far less likely to be remembered to be updated after the new specification is ratified. -- KelleyCook 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For something like 802.11n, I'd use Template:Update after|2007|1|1 to ensure that someone at least looks for a new scheduled date, and if none is available, update the article to say something like "approval has not been announced as of 2007 January 1" and bump the reminder up another month or so. More examples would probably be good. My biggest concern is that the current Wikipedia:As of is so watered down by stuff which really shouldn't even be linked.

I thought it best NOT to default, in an effort to prevent an overwhelming pile of update-needed articles on a particular day, like the first or last day of a month or year; if there's going to be a large pile, it'll be because people deliberately selected that day. I'll add a design-decisions paragraph on the subject.

When I was updating the documentation the other day, it occurred to me that this template could be used to hook into all other existing mechanisms, simply because it's a template: As of, Category:Articles with obsolete information, Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating, and with some fiddling: {{update}} and {{out of date}}. --Scott McNay 17:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Review after" template

WOuld this be a useful addition? I think so, as a WP wide "tickler" file. Rich Farmbrough, 08:49 27 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] 4th option

I note that the 4th option in the template is category specific only. Would it not be more flexible to have the 4th option as a comment field which could state the proposed type of update and/or the category? This would allow this information to become visible along with the tag, rather than leaving an orphan comment within the body of the article text for another editor to remove.

I envisaged the template I requested as a method of tagging an article with a date specific event without the need to add the article to ones watchlist. When coming upon an article by either the Random Article method or other means of chance, an editor may note that the article will need changing on or after a specific date but the editor will not be available to amend the article at that time; leaving a note of changes needed with the date of same covers that problem. The template here is almost perfect, but could perhaps be further refined. Outside of a couple of pet articles and projects I spend most of my time editing random articles for spelling, grammer and wikification. I'm looking for a general use tool that I can use on a suitable article, and then move onto the next.

I'll keep a watch on this page for a while in case there is anything else I can bring to the discussion.LessHeard vanU 10:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can add "comment=" as the last argument and it will be in the source but otherwise ignored. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was writing much the same thing, but Rick beat me to it. ;) All we have to do is document it. --Scott McNay 18:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! What I did previously was leave a note on the articles talk page, but I could use the comment function to direct editors to it, i.e. "comment=see talk page" without cluttering up the template. Thanks.LessHeard vanU 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This technique can be used with almost any (some templates might use "comment=" for other purposes) template which is not replaced; some templates are one-shots and disappear after being used. There are restrictions on the use of named parameters, so you probably should ensure that they follow any unnamed parameters. When templates are not used, or when one-shot templates are used, you can use an HTML inline comment, which looks like this: <!--- This in an inline comment. --->.

I'd suggest mentioning which section on the talk page; some talk pages can be quite lengthy. Now that I'm back home, I'll go update the usage notes, if Rick hasn't beat me to it already again. :). Well, I peeped and he has beat me to it, but I think the wording should be changed slightly. --Scott McNay 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the template and page is all there, as an end user type it seems well explained and easy to use. In the example you use (forthcoming US President election) then the article talk page will likely be full, and the section should be named in the comments or the full explanation given there. In the "3 small paragraphs" article I have used it in the talk page is even sparser, and I simply titled the section 'Update After template' - it will be very easy to navigate to. I didn't want to place the instructions into the template as I felt that the template would have been almost as big as the article when it launched (and there is no point in frightening the potential editor). This a editing style preference rather than an observation; I think you guys have sorted a decent little tool. Nice work.LessHeard vanU 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You can actually add named parameters whether unnamed parameters are also used or not, and can interserse named with unnamed without changing the numbers of the unnamed. See m:Help:Advanced templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the problem occurs when using a named parameter which has the same name as an unnamed parameter. So, that wouldn't apply in this case. --Scott McNay 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage notes

I think some discussion about using the template as a page header or inline text might be warranted in the usage section of the main page.--G1076 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? It is completely invisible (or should be) to readers until the "due date", at which time the "update needed" text appears. --Scott McNay 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think G1076 is suggesting something similar to what I said above. Basically, in some cases you might want to mark an entire section (or page) as needing to be updated after a particular date rather than putting the inline text after every sentence. It would be possible to include another parameter to display a banner line, 'This page or section needs to be updated', instead of the inline "update needed"... keeping all the other logic as is. --CBD 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CBD got the jist of my comment. My initial understanding of the template is that it should be inserted inline at the point following the information that needs updating. However, I ran across the article Haslev municipality that uses the template as header (it uses the comment parameter to say that the whole article needs to be changed from present tense to past tense on a given date). Given the fact that there was no specific guidance for either instance (inline or header), and I am just an interested observer (not bold enough do it myself), I thought that you might want to add something.--G1076 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the template should be robust enough to use as either header or inline; if the template is placed at the first instance needing updating the other (sub) sections can be referred to in either the commentry or category. Once an editors attention is drawn to the fact that updating is needed, the details of what and where can be provided elsewhere - providing directions are given. Where an entire article requires updating, and Haslev municipality was the catalyst for my original request, then it works as a header. Is this doable?LessHeard vanU 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ps. My only comment regarding inline is that articles so large that various sections may need updating are likely to be well maintained, so the template may not be required but useful.

Shouldn't be too hard to cannibalize a header out of an existing template (I'm thinking of {{update}}), and add a named parameter BANNER=Y to force use of the banner. I'll see about tinkering with it later today. --Scott McNay 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that it shouldn't be hard, but there appears to be a problem with nesting a table within a conditional. If someone wants to poke at it, feel free; the test template page is here and the test sample page is here if someone wants to tinker with them. The only alternative that I can think of which might work is to use a child template which contains only the table for the banner. Is this the first time that someone has tried to do this? --Scott McNay 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

No, see Template:Fix for a similar structure. You are probably running into the '| problem'... Wikipedia uses the | character both to designate a new parameter and in table markup. Thus, when it encounters a '|' in table markup inside a conditional it incorrectly interprets the | as the start of the next parameter. This is usually resolved by switching to HTML table code or using the {{!}} workaround template to 'delay' the | character until after the conditional logic has been evaluated. I'll take a look at it. --CBD 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a quick example on your test page using just a wiki defined CSS class rather than local table markup. Obviously the wording and other details can be redone as desired. --CBD 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banner

Thanks to CBD, the banner should now be working, and I've updated the documentation accordingly. Please test to ensure that it works as it should (see the examples at User:Scott_McNay to see what they should look like, but look quickly, since I'll probably remove them later) and that I didn't manage to break something else. "BANNER=Y", "banner=Y", and "Banner=Y" are all accepted, but I've documented it as only "BANNER="; the other two should be officially considered undocumented and subject to go away in the future. "Y" and "y" are also both accepted, but again, I've only documented "Y", and "y" should be officially considered undocumented and subject to go away in the future. Anything other than "Y" means no banner. I adjusted "COMMENT=" to all caps also, for consistency. Does WP have a standard for the case of named parameters? --Scott McNay 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combining Update after and Update

CBD suggested (above) that {{Update after | {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} | {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} | {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} | BANNER=Y }} is a direct replacement for {{Update}} (I deliberately chose the {{Update}} banner for that reason, and because it fit), with the exception that {{Update after}} also links to As of. So, my question is, is there any reason not to document this possibility, or to take the next step and actually make that change? As far as I can see, joining the several outdated-material methods is good, and I can't think of any disadvantages. --Scott McNay 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

P.S., it looks like a redirect will probably do the trick. --Scott McNay 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)