Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era

current event date
I have placed the date at the top, intended to indicate at what point in time the article was considered valid. It has been removed with an opinion that subject of the article is „not a current event". Well, I am not sure. Though „event” might not be an appropriate description, it is a process which keeps unfolding, and hence contents of the article might get outdated or even - if pathetically outdated - inaccurate. An experienced WP user can surely see when the article was created or last edited and on that basis make some assumptions as to its accuracy, but my opinion is that also the unexperienced users should be taken into account.

New books on the issue are being published every year; in 2016 only there was 1 I am aware of released already. A time stamp indicates clearly that the phenomen discussed - historiography on the subject - is developing and warns readers to be vigilant for would-be latest titles which might not be acknowledged. I am not sure what damage it does to the article keeping a time stamp at the top. Maybe there are some WP rules that time stamps at the top should only be applied to events like Euro 2016 Football Championships, if this is the case I consider such application sectarian and doctrinaire.

I am reverting the edit and restoring the time stamp; I can not see how it may adversely affect the entry. cheers, --Dd1495 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

should the time stamp be in or out?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

should the time stamp be in or out? Dd1495 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC) One, or even a few, books a year is not "quickly" and, unlike an out of date statistic, does not invalidate the information already in the article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it as per Template:Updated which states
 * "This template should be used as a hatnote for sections in articles which may require frequent updating. See As of for details on why this may be useful."
 * Books are still being published on many/most historical subjects - we don't hatnote them all. The template is meant as a "technique is a method to deal with information that will date quickly."


 * are editors involved in a controversy supposed to respond to RfC generated calls for comments? I thought the call is intended for other users, in case those involved in a controversy can not agree on common stand.--Dd1495 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, no-one else has bothered to reply to my request, it is still a me-versus-him controversy, where do we go from here in terms of WP rules for sorting out a disagrement between users? Guess arbitration request would be a bit of an overkill :-)) --Dd1495 (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The timestamp is quite inappropriate here. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No time stamp. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks to those editors who were kind to share their opinion, even though there is not much of a rationale provided. There are still plenty of colours left, maybe another one will pop up, so perhaps I will wait a month before removing the RfC tag.--Dd1495 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No time stamp. I am unconvinced that enough work is being published on Carlism during the Francoist era (a fairly niche topic!) that the article is likely to require "frequent updating".  It's certainly not the case that (as in statements such as "the population in the most recent census was XYZ,PQR") the article is wrong after every new work published, simply outdated.  I don't know of a single other history article which feels the need to use "as of", though many of them are just as susceptible, if not more, to being rendered outdated by the publication of new works. Checking three "historiography of" articles at random, historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, historiography of early Christianity, and historiography of the French Revolution all don't use the template.  I just don't see any good case for putting it in: any possible case that I can imagine can be made would open the doors to putting in the timestamp on a significant proportionn of articles in wikipedia, which would render the template unhelpful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks to all. It seems to me that most contributors to this discussion tend to ignore the difference between "historical subjects"/"history article" and historiography when speaking against the tamp stamp. However, I am bought by an argument that abundant use of the time stamp might make it meaningless in terms of general WP usage. --Dd1495 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.