Talk:Dana Delany/Archive 2, Posting info on an artist's future schedule

Posting info on an artist's future schedule
Nothing makes a web page look dated more than references to things as occuring in the future when they've already taken place. Doesn't it make more sense to wait until they have actually occured, then putting them in the Wikipedia? This way corrections aren't intrinsically necessary. Besides, the wikipedia isn't for promotional purposes.Rphunt 04:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectively disagree, as I believe that by the very nature of Wikipedia, references are made to be regularly updated and changed, and that what makes it much better than encylopaedias is that the articles can be as up-to-date as possible. But I'm not really concerned that much to ask for a duel or anything hehe. Daydream believer2 09:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"by the the very nature of Wikipedia, references are made to be regularly updated and changed" Not precisely true, or at least that's not the proper use. Besides, I'm talking about the reasonsfor the updates. Predictions have an intrinsic expiration, thus automatically rendering the info incorrect at a certain time, thus requiring someone to come back and correct it.

Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a periodical or blog. E.G., if providing info on a comet, it's better just to present a timetable of when it's visible from earth, as opposed to saying "the next time it will be visible is". Rphunt 15:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess it might sound a bit strange, but I think that this about the idea of the NPOV. But it's from a temporal standpoint. When saying that something is "currently" happening or "going to happen", it's from a particular temporal POV. So I try to word my writing so it's "temporally neutral", or referencing a point in time (e.g. "as of 2005"), or as a default, in the past tense.rphunt 09:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Temporal References
Interestingly, the Manual Of Style has a section on temporal references.x 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)