Template talk:Current/archive3

Managing template use & draft guidelines for the template page
Over the last three weeks, I have cleared out most of the aged and inappropriate uses of the current template from articles. It was a great help that the template now has a date tag added by a bot. When I started, the template appeared on about 1,300 pages. At this moment, it appears on about 350 pages: about 330 on various and miscellaneous user, article and Wikipedia talk pages, and about on 20 mainspace articles. Here are approximate ways to view its current use:
 * Articles
 * All uses

The template was found on more than a few artilces that had not been edited in months, and on a number of articles that the most recent edit, months before, was the addition of the current tag. More often, the tag had been added when the topic was once in some newspaper or journal. Then also it was on a number of articles that are about years-long processes, such as wars, meetings of legislatures, and also leading figures of the world often in the news. In nearly every case, I removed the tag where there had been five and fewer editors editing in the prior day or two. In general, my edit summary upon removal said something like:
 * Removed Current tag, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. See: Template talk:Current

Steps toward keeping the template well managed: The single suggestion made by another editor, commenting after I removed the "current" template from all of these articles, was to add on the template's page a guideline for use. This is my draft proposal. Comment and suggested improvements desired. -- Yellowdesk 12:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Without objection, I have posted guidlines. Somewhat revised, here's the posted version. -- Yellowdesk 00:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

- The template current was removed from the article Suharto, per the guidelines here. I came here expecting for a consensus to have developed before these guidelines were attached to the template, but see that no discussion has occured. Despite much on the wording of the template itself, there's been little attention to the circumstances in which it can and should be applied.

When it was created, the discussion gave no indication that the template was for articles being edited by very large numbers, rather that it was simply to mark that information may change. While I understand the concerns marked above - using this template on the article of the current US congress or similar would be innapropriate - there is a place for using this template in current events that may change as information comes to hand. To take the example of Suharto again; the former president of Indonesia was admitted to hospital on the 4th of January, and is currently in a critical condition, having suffered multiple organ failure, and is being kept alive by machine. It is widely recognised that he is near death. Things may change rapidly (and indeed things have changed while the template was in place).

To summarise, the focus of use of this template should be on the event, rather than the editors. I've seen it removed from multiple articles where events are progressing significantly, but editing activity is moderate. I'd like to see discussion about how this template should be used. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion you seek about the template's founding and original policy for use can be found on the talk page archives here, starting with the section Template_talk:Current/archive2 which was archived out of order, because it sat at the top of the talk page when other items were archived--it is dated in 2004.  You'll find multiple sections and discussions subsequent to that throughout the archives, indicating the template was founded on handling edit-conflicts for extremely active articles. It has been demonstrated unworkable to use it merely for some article that has recent news, and this encyclopedia is not a newspaper; all of the articles rely on other sources, often quite recent. Adding the template just because an item in the news, or may change soon provides no new information about the topic. The text of an article is perfectly capable of indicating the contingent nature of the information in it, and how recently it was reported to be accurate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that the guidelines for this template are being considered binding on every editor, when that simply isn't true. The opinion of those who created and edited this template does not bind anyone else in how they use it.  This reflexive "I reverted because the use doesn't meet the guidelines" approach has the effect of making the guidelines proscriptive rather than descriptive.  Common sense trumps guidelines.  --SSBohio 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The template guideline follows the intent of the template's creation, and also repeated efforts and discussions over the template's history on how to handle uses that do not serve that intent, or the articles it may be posted to: to inform that a rather large number of editors are actually working on the article today, and therefore care should be used in editing the article. Other uses cause unmanageable proliferation of the template and fail to add the substance that should appear in the article: prose that dates the information and describes the changing circumstances, along with citations to sources serving as footnotes.  When an article has been updated because there are several journalistic articles recently reporting on the topic, the article merely joins tens of thousands of actively edited articles with similar circumstances, an unremarkable occurence. In that sense, the guidelines for use of the template are appropriate for all articles, and improve the quality of all articles.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Inuse
editprotected please add a link to Inuse in the "See also" section. Thanks, Neparis (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor fix
The third example on the documentation page illustrates a minor flaw in the template code, since the null string for an unnamed parameter does not translate to undefined, thereby resulting in the template displaying "This documents..." instead of "This article documents...". To correct this, please update the code to the following:

This should fix the problem. Happy‑melon 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ DMacks (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki link
An admin should add zh:template:current to the interwiki section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - though any user could have made the edit to the unprotected /doc documentation subpage. Nihiltres { t .l } 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried, but couldn't find where the interwiki links are located. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Template interwikis can be added, inside an, on the documentation subpage. You can also see this diff , where I made the change. :) Nihiltres { t .l } 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent
I suppose this has been suggested before but why not create a "recent" template?

Instead, create it by

Or something along the lines of this. I am meaning a template in which a current event is happening or has happened and so information is likely to change rapidly over the next week. Simply south (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is such a template name in existence, and its purpose is to point out that an article is out of date. See recent, which is a redirect for update. Perhaps of interest is recentism, which points out recent information lacks a full context for an article. As to your proposed template, it is pointless to have such a template. Every article on Wikipedia has, or should have references to a source, and most articles are created when an item appears in a journal or newspaper with recent news about a changing situation. The references and text of the article is perfectly capable of indicating the age and reliability of the information, and its likelihood of changing. The proposed template would appear on  thousands of articles, and would be constantly on articles about nations, political leaders, sports teams, and so on without adding to the content of the article itself, and causing the need to manage the presence of the template on thosands of articles. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I changed the target of to make it point here instead, as → seems more intuitive, to me, than → . --Waldir talk 12:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Current sport
I have removed some 50 current sport tags using the guidelines of this template as a reason. In my opinion, current sport have the same wording and meaning as current, and have very little use at the top of every article about an ongoing sports season. current sport is currently used on some 400 articles, and most of the articles are only edited by one or two users per day, at most. current on the other hand is only used in a handful of articles. My actions were not appreciated by some (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey), so it is perhaps good to have a new discussion about this before I proceed... --Kildor (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see a reason why you would remove it from current season articles, as those articles are edited and accessed by multiple people every day. The whole purpose of this particular template as opposed to current is for seasons, as single events in sports are not likely to have their own pages. (There are exceptions of course.) -Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that if using current sport seems to irk some users, it may be better to create current sport season as a subgroup. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it does irk many users. If it is on 400+ articles, it is obviously the established way of using the template and besides, it is a completely different template than current. -Djsasso (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the archives, and you will find that this template was created for situations when hundreds of edits were made during a day (a good example is 2008 unrest in Tibet). But this is not the case for most sport season articles. If we tag any article that see any kind of activity or recent news, we would have to tag thousands and thousands of articles. And for no use, since the tag does not provide any information that the reader already know. There is really no difference between current and current sport except for the latter being specifically for sport events. So why do you think it is important to tag articles with current sport? --Kildor (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that is what current was created for, but that is not what current sport was created for. There is very much a difference between the two templates. One is for tagging current seasons of sports teams etc and the other is for current events that are going to be hit by many edits at one time. My question to you, is what harm is it doing to the article? Why do you so badly want it gone? Templates often replicate what is already in the article, that is what infoboxes and navboxes do all the time. There is nothing saying a template can't replicate what is already in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * current sport is simply a variation on current with almost the same words. And I want it removed because it look bad and does not provide any useful information (unless the article is undergoing massive changes by several users at the same time). An infobox is useful because it collects useful facts easily located by the reader. I believe you did not answer my question - why do you think it is important to tag articles with current sport? --Kildor (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For pretty much the opposite reason you want to remove it. I believe it does add to the article, and makes for a quick grab of information in much the same way an infobox does. Just because it is worded the same, does not mean it has the same use. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is is important to tag the article with current sport because IT IS A CURRENT SPORTS-RELATED EVENT WITH INFORMATION THAT CHANGES FREQUENTLY. The number is useers editing anyone single one of those articles, has no relation to the fact the information changes rapidly. Flibirigit (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is really important to warn readers about articles that will change, we will have to tag almost every article here. All articles on Wikipedia are subject to change, and it is not a newspaper. If the purpose is to get attention to the article, please take a look at How the Current events page works for an alternative approach. --Kildor (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you are misguided. You for some reason cannot understand that current sports seasons are not the same thing as current events in the news. You appear to have some sort of problem with a template being used for a purpose other than what you think it was created for. Consensus on its use is clearly accepted by WikiSports projects, and yet you don't accept that. Flibirigit (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of the template is to indicate that the stats on the page may be out of date because the season is ongoing. -Djsasso (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that any article on Wikipedia may be out of date. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a news site, we do not make any claims on that articles are up to date on a daily basis. And information about the date of stats can be given in article text. Which also is the case for many season articles (example: "after games played on March 18" in 2007-08 NHL season).


 * The fact that current sport is used in 400 articles is not evidence on that there is consensus on using the template in that way. If you make some time to read the discussion on this template, you will see that the current was used on some 1300+ articles 7 months ago. And yet, there was no consenus on that the template should be used in that way - rather the opposite. --Kildor (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that neither of those things is really true. BECAUSE this is an encyclopedia most people expect the stats to be up to date and current. I know I do. Secondly, based on the archives of this page it seems only a small number of people didn't like how the template was being used. Just because a few people who happen to look at this talk page don't like it doesn't mean there wasn't a wider concensus in wikipedia as a whole that it was being used correctly. -Djsasso (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you completely ignore any consensus regarding current sport reached within WikiSports Projects. You are confusing the two templates as being one with the same use. The past discussions on current have no bearing whatsoever on the use of current sport. Furthermore current sport is applicable to current seasons in all sports, irregardless of what you think current is used for. Flibirigit (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand that you do not agree with me. But please - don't you think that the templates and their use are related? If I create a template out of this template but replace "event" with "festival" - then I would say that the guidelines of this template have some relevance... --Kildor (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, No, Absolutely not. Its usage has evolved. Flibirigit (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should throw in my opinion in the debate too. Since Current and Current sport are more or less the only article message boxes that I like.

I normally really dislike article message boxes. That is, I don't dislike their design, but I dislike them being slabbed on articles everywhere. I think they might scare of readers and even more scare of editors that tries their best but still get one or more boxes slabbed on the article. (I am all to familiar with how that feels.) The boxes usually discuss the editing process thus they are self references. They really should be put on talk pages instead. Talk pages are where article content should be discussed, not the article page itself. Most boxes are just a tool for lazy people who like to complain but are to lazy to edit the article and even to lazy to be bothered to type down more precisely what they dislike on the talk page.

But I find the Current and Current sport boxes to be rare exceptions. They don't disturb the article, they don't say the article is bad, instead they are informative. They kind of say: "We will probably be updating this article frequently to reflect how the event develops, so welcome back again and see." So they can even be seen as saying: "Wikipedia is fresh, it is constantly updated, and by the way; you can edit it!"

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you on that the current tags are nicer than most other article tags. But I also think that they infer with the layout of the article, providing (and highlighting) information with almost no value to the reader. Wikipedia is fresh - and you can edit it. Which is true (or should be true) for most articles here. And then we will have problems with tags left on articles that are not so very fresh... --Kildor (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My view on current sport is that its use is almost always pointless and adds nothing of value to the content of the article. Its message it obvious to nearly every reader of wikipedia, hence redundant and superfluous. There are thousands of other articles that are as subject to change as a sports article, that don't have a template indicating that the content may change. Most of the articles on sports teams have reason to change perhaps once every day or two; no different than an article about, say New York, New York or say, 110th_United_States_Congress. Any intelligent reader of an a sports article knows the contents may change, and become out of date, just as a reader of George W. Bush knows the same. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

new icon
editprotected

As per the standardization of icon styles for Ambox template based messages, please change the icon to Image:Ambox currentevent.svg ViperSnake151 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've switched back to Image:Gnome globe current event.svg. Where was the consensus for this change? I'm not the only one who thinks the new icon looks worse than the old one. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template usage
There seems to be a disconnect between what this template appears to be used for and what it was intended to be used for. The first guideline statement says: "This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors." Normally, editor advisories appear on talk pages rather than articles. Of course, not everyone checks the talk page, so I understand why this would be placed on the article instead. That's probably okay, except for this: the wording of the template suggests that it's merely descriptive of the article subject rather than a warning to editors about the editing process. That's what leads to its widespread "misuse" which Yellowdesk has been policing.

In other words, if it's supposed to be a warning to editors, make it a warning to editors: say "lots of people are editing this article, be forewarned." That will reduce misuse. Powers T 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * About five off-standard uses a day is not exactly widespread in an activity with tens of thousands of editors, but it sdoes add up when left unattended. Five times 365 days gets above 1800 not-so-useful placements on articles in a year. What exact text do you propose? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted at Current and future event templates, the template really has two uses: to notify readers that the information in the article could change as the event progresses, and to notify editors that the article will be undergoing frequent edits as a high-profile topic. It strikes me that as the first purpose is similar to that of future, perhaps we should have two "current" templates: one for relatively low-profile events that warns the reader that the information could change at any time; and one for high-profile events that does the same, plus warns the editor that the article is undergoing frequent editing.
 * For the former, the current wording would be sufficient. For the latter, perhaps something like "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Editors should be aware that the article is undergoing frequent revisions."  That may violate WP:SELF, but since it's supposed to be a temporary template, that may not be a big deal.  Powers T 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to use the tag for the sole purpose of informing the reader that the information can change, since that is in fact true for every article here on Wikipedia. Instead of endorsing such usage, we should rather discourage the use of these templates unless the article is being heavily edited by many users at the same time. --Kildor (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not true for every article here on Wikipedia. The information regarding the life of, say, John F. Kennedy is not likely to change appreciably at any point in the future, whereas the information regarding the 2008 Sichuan earthquake is changing by the minute.  It's not absurd to highlight the latter to readers just because some minor detail of the former's childhood might be uncovered tomorrow.  Powers T 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indeed less likely that the JKF article will change, but it is certainly possible (though not likely) that some major facts regarding the assasination is revealed. But other articles, like United States, Dalai Lama or Madonna are probably more likely to change. Should these be tagged with a disclaimer tag as well? Regarding the earthquake, the information will most likely be changed and updated the next couple of weeks. Which, of course, is obvious to anyone reading the article. Do you ever read an article in a newspaper that have an eye-catching disclaimer at the top informing the reader that the information in the article may be inaccurate because more information may have been revealed since the article was printed? I really don't see the point of such a disclaimer/reminder. And this template was never intended to be used in that way. --Kildor (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a newspaper. The very purpose of a newspaper is to report news, by definition the "latest and greatest" on developing stories.  This, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia -- a unique encyclopedia, in fact, in that its articles can be updated at a moment's notice.  While it's trivially true that any article could be so updated, there are certain articles that are very likely to have information changing very rapidly -- these are the ones that should be marked, because most encyclopedias are not topical enough to need such a notice.  Powers T 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. We have articles that are updated often, and we have articles not updated so often. Exactly why do we need to tag those being updated often? --Kildor (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reason we tag articles with Future: to alert the reader that the information in the article may change rapidly in the near future. Some level of change is expected in any Wikipedia article, yes; but when the information may change rapidly as an event develops (as opposed to when someone gets around to adding/updating the information in the case of most articles), the reader should be aware of that.  Powers T 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I still do not understand. What difference does it make if we highlight the fact that the information may change in the near future? --Kildor (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not just change, but change rapidly -- that the information on which the article is written is ongoing and the final details/true facts/ultimate denouement may be different than the information presented in the article, for reasons completely unrelated to the incompleteness of Wikipedia but rather due to the nature of the described event. It signals the reader to look for up-to-the-minute information elsewhere if they want to be sure they have the latest data, and warns them that the information in the article may be outdated or incomplete not due to editorial error or lapse but simply because the sources are changing rapidly.
 * Reflecting on that, maybe that's the key: the notice serves to tell the reader not just that the article may be changing -- as you rightly note, any Wikipedia article could change at any time -- but that the sources on which the article is based could be changing at any time. Not literally, perhaps, but more that new sources are being written due to the nature of the event.  Powers T 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is no different from any news article about the earthquake. And you don't find any "warning tags" there. --Kildor (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because it's a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Powers T 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the difference? A person reading a news article about a major earthquake will certainly understand that the information provided is not "final". More information will become available within the hours, and the article itself may be outdated even when printed. What is different from a Wikipedia article? The information on the subject will certainly be changed, the article will certainly be updated, but it may also be outdated. What good does it make to add this warning tag? And why do you think you never find anything nearly similar anywhere else? --Kildor (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is different is the reader's expectations. If the reader is reading a news article in a newspaper, he or she is expecting recent information -- news.  In Wikipedia, we don't know where the user is coming from or what link he or she clicked.  If the article on Sichuan mentions "the 2008 Sichuan earthquake", and the user hadn't heard about the earthquake yet, then the notice at the top of the linked article will inform him or her that it's a developing event rather than one in the past.  That an event is developing is assumed when reading a news article, but can't be assumed when reading an encyclopedia.  Powers T 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Somehow, I didn't notice your reply until now). Well, reading an article titled the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, you will certainly realize that it is/was a pretty recent event. And the article lead clearly explains the timing and circumstances of the earthquake. So I do not see the need of highlighting the fact that the article contains some recent news. And I do not like the idea of tagging every article with some recent information. Then the tag would appear on a huge number of articles on Wikipedia. --Kildor (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A year alone doesn't tell the user whether it's an ongoing event. Recent, yes, but that's not what I'm proposing.  Likewise, it wouldn't go on every article with "some recent information" (say, Sichuan); only those articles whose primary topic is currently undergoing frequent changes.  Powers T 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is recent? Obviously, someone think the 2008 Sichuan earthquake is no longer recent or current, since the tag has been removed. And even if it is/was, why is not the article lead capable of informing the reader about when it happened? You said above that the reader might not expect to find such an article in an encyclopedia. But here it is. What difference does it make to the reader now that he/she has found it? --Kildor (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that article is no longer really current, but at the time it was a relevant example. =)  Anyway, the lead can inform the reader when it happened, and even (to some extent) whether the facts of the event are still taking shape, but the template notice serves as an immediate visual cue, much like future and its related templates.  I think that has value.  Powers T 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the meaning of such immediate cue, since the reader will be aware of the ongoing/current nature of the subject anyway after reading the very first sentence of the article. (btw, I think the future templates are equally superfluous). --Kildor (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To Powers: If the point of your interest is to cause the wider wikipedia community to notice some article, the best way to do so is to look over the Wikipedia:How the Current events page works information, and also to take a look at Portal:Current_events. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not. My intent was to alert readers that a particular topic was undergoing rapid development.  Powers T 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To what end? All wikipedia articles are subject to the general disclaimer that the article may change, perhaps for the worse by an editor who has no expertise on a topic. The link is at the bottom of every page. See General disclaimer -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Is there a part of my above discussion with Kildor that you don't understand?  Powers T 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How is your desire different than the present and intended use for this template: that (very) many editors are presently editing the article, which provides an indication of change? Alternatively, how is your desire different than what the template inuse or its like provide, when one or two editors are intensively working on an article? The great middle between these two ends of the spectrum are the tens of thousands of articles that are being actively edited, for which it is the standard state of affairs that the article is changing. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because my suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with editing frequency, a fact I thought I'd made clear above. Powers T 19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume that Powers means this proposal from above:
 * If this is your point, my view and experience is that this particular kind of disclaimer on an article has been demonstrated to be unworkable, as an article template. Without a clearly defined end point for its use, such a template will undergo proliferation. And, such a use really doesn't improve the quality or content of the article in question, causing significant template management and revert tussels like the following, with editors claiming in edit summaries:
 * There are fifteen edits today, that's a lot. Revert removal.
 * ...and the like. This sort of thing despite there being a number of articles on any particular day that have 50 to 100 edits in a day, without the need for a prominent and self-referential template advertising the activity of the page. At this particular moment, June 4, 2008, at the very end of the U.S. presidential primary season, examples of active pages without such advertsing are the U.S. presidential candidate biography articles.  It is a standard effect of the editability of wikipedia that articles change, and this is unremarkable. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Current single?
The template for current single was agreed for deletion here, why is it still listed on this page? 86.150.213.184 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The current single template is deleted and is not listed here. I believe you are referring to an example on what you can do with the parameters to this template. The example is produced with the code . --Kildor (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the unlikelihood of that particular use having an article edited by many many editors on the same day (which is what this template was actually intended and designed for), it's time to revise that example. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The example was changed to, which is a far more likely use. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

is there a way
to have an option so it could say "relates to a current event"? I just used it. cftc is in the news. it's a kinda big story. but no one has put any news in the article yet. but I wanted to tag it. what do y'all think? Squirt guns w|w/ Muffles 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a template called current related, but note that it is intended for articles actually related to articles that the current template applies to right now--namely an article that is actively edited by many on the same day and has the current difficulty that editors are stepping on each other's edits. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we x-ref wiki news?
Should we try to use this template to redirect news style updates to wikinews? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not via current. There is an existing template to cross reference the existence of wikinews articles. See Wikinews. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about redirecting readers, but about redirecting contributors. When pages are changing rapidly as new information emerges, Wikinews is the 'right' place to post.  Once things become clear, that's the right time to put things into Wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that wikinews is intended for original research from people that may interview participants in an event, or have personal observations, the ability of wikipedia editors to participate fruitfully there there is fairly limited. Better to point to an actual article there, for which the wikinews template is the best means to publicize Wikinews's existence. The typical wikipedia article is read by many more people than edit it, so it is not good form to link to a non-existant article there.  It would be more appropriate to have a talk page link/template to wikinews, specifically for editor attention. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we datestamp this template?
Should we add (optional?) parameters showing when the template was added - it would help in removing it from places it no longer applies. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An inspection of Current shows there is such a parameter. Those instances of use not dated will get dated by a bot, SmackBot -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick look around suggests that SmackBot either isn't run all that often, or it misses at least some instances. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do old instances ever get cleaned up? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Up until mid 2007, rarely. Now, regularly. You can see from this link to "what links here" for current the number of articles using the template. Here, for example -- Yellowdesk (talk)

Current? High traffic?
The current text and the description on the template page are contradictory. The text says it is for a current event, but the description says that the template is for pages experiencing a lot of edits, it is explicit that it is not for the bulk of current events - on the grounds that most do not generate heavy traffic - and it implies that it would be appropriate for something that is not a current event, or even not an event at all, so long as at least 100 editors per day are editing the page. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an optional template, created for those rare occasions that many many editors are active on an article, to guide editors to not step on each other's edits as they follow some phenomenal event. In that sense, the template, and the guidance are in alignment. In general, it is unremarkable that an article or topic is in the news; there are tens of thousands of articles that are updated every day because some news item causes the topic to be visible to an editor here. It would be pointless to also have tens of thousands of articles marked as "current", and would further require some process to remove the tags--all to little result that improves the content of the article. The lede of any article, and related text and footnotes are fully capable of indicating the temporality and recentness of the topic, if appropriate.   If you desire to cause some topic to be noticed by many, you may be interested in seeing how items get posted to the "In the news" section of Wikipedia.  See In the news section on the Main Page. And relatedly, you may desire to check on How the Current events page works. Also there's the general policy describing the focus of the encyclopedia as not news. See What Wikipedia is not. These all guide the editor from marking up articles with self-referential templates emphasizing the transient nature of the topic. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm reading this page I'm finally understanding why you keep removing the tag Yellowdesk... perhaps a more informative edit summary and/or a comment on the talk pages would be helpful... most of the time you just return every day to the same articles and remove the tag with a simple "not relevant tag" summary. As it is, it keeps getting added because the wording of the tag and the meaning you have ascribed to the tag are two very different things.  This is quite obvious given the number of times you have to remove it and the number of times so many different editers on different projects replace it.  Perhaps it's time to change the wording of the tag.  NJGW (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pehaps so. Have you a proposal? It has been my experience that many additions of the tag current are IP editors, and less experienced editors, many of whom have updated, or merely viewed an article that they think is urgent, or important. Then there are articles that have in the current day had perhaps eight or nine  editors, or so. Merely an actively edited article. There are  hundreds of thousands of active wiki editors, so there is potentially a large pool of individuals  who have seen the template on some hot topic, but don't know what occasion the template's use is  desired for.  The message on the link for my edits that remove the template, is brief and actually informative, with access to more information, for the  editors that care to learn more, via the link. That message as of this date:
 * Removed, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. Template:Current.
 * -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "There may currently be many people editing this article, as it documents an event which has recently occurred. Please be aware of possible edit conflicts and active content discussions."  That gets to the heart of the matter, and is obviously directed at editors rather than readers (though it also alerts readers to an important issue).


 * FWIW, your edit summaries have been fine, but people don't seem to agree with your interpretation of the tag, as I've seen established editors replace it several times while commenting that they don't agree with your summary. Also, I've seen you remove the tag at articles with upwards of 20 editors per day, so maybe 100's is too many.  Either way, if the purpose of the tag is cleared up in its wording, you shouldn't have to jump around removing it all the time.  NJGW (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be informative, yet a lot of words. Part of why I have so far refrained from proposing changes to the template is it has had a history of much ado (and edit wars, apparently) with nearly nil net result, and the reason it became a protected template, which the archives here reveal. Many editors have a little urgency about "current" items, the below comment being an exemplary instance, even though this project is not a newspaper, but rather a backgrounder and context creator. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's silly, a current event is a current event regardless of how many users are interested in editing it. If we want a template to use for articles with high edit-traffic, we should create one, not try to conflate two intersecting purposes. — CharlotteWebb 00:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An examination of the archives will demonstrate that this template is the "high traffic" template you describe. It was created to handle the massive edits involved with the first several days for the article 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a current event is a current event and this template may appropriately be used to designate its status. Fred Talk 17:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To a reader who comes upon an article of which (s)he know nothing, "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" says fairly clearly "Warning: events may have overtaken this article and it may not be up-to-date". It doesn't at all convey "It is a template created for those rare occasions that many many editors are active on an article, to guide editors to not step on each other's edits as they follow some phenomenal event." Which is certainly why there are disagreements between those who interpret the message in these two quite distinct ways. Another form of wording was suggested above, but rejected as too wordy. Why not both say what we actually mean, and keep it short and to the point:


 * "Frequently edited article; if editing, be aware of possible conflicts."

An unambiguous statement like this would end the disagreement. The template could be perhaps called "often-changed" rather than "current" If desired, a different template could be created to warn readers that articles about a current event may be out of date, though I take Yellowdesk's point that this can be conveyed in the introductory paragraph. Pol098 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose there could be a Template:Frequently edited to do what you suggest. We would still need template current for current events. Fred Talk 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yellowdesk suggests that this isn't necessary, a comment in the introduction is sufficient without a tag. I tend to favour a tag, but don't have a very strong opinion. In a previous comment we find "It has been my experience that many additions of the tag 'current' are IP editors, and less experienced editors, many of whom have updated, or merely viewed an article that they think is urgent, or important." Translating that, it means "People who read the tag and take it to mean what it says [by the way, this would include readers who do not edit] all think it means the article is about a current event. Only experienced Wikipedians [the elite...] understand that it's really a coded way to say 'often-edited' " Let's say what we mean, without obscure codes of practice. Pol098 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you ought to be able to use Template:Current on an article about a current event. There shouldn't be any fuss about it. Besides even if it had not been changed to reflect that common sense notion, it is only a guideline, not a policy. There is no justification for attempting to strictly enforce a guideline. Policy is one thing, guidelines another. Following or not following guidelines is a matter of editorial descretion. Fred Talk 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The guide is in plain sight, not a secret, available for all users to notice. It follows from the policy No disclaimers in articles (that is, there is already a general disclaimer at the bottom of every Wikipedia page). To simply mark an article as "current" ammounts as a disclaimer; all articles are subject to change, whether rapid or not. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No disclaimers in articles is not policy, it is a guideline and subject to exceptions in appropriate cases such as this. It is inappropriate to override others editorial judgement by constant editwarring as though you were enforcing a rigid rule vital to Wikipedia. Fred Talk 13:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, No disclaimers in articles is not a policy document. I follow the guide as has been stated for more than a year, which has been a formal description of appropriate use since the start of the template's creation: if some article is merely in the news, or has had its editorial attention drop off, or is receiving a mere 10 to 20 edits in a day by less than dozens of editors, it is not subject to rapid change, and is merely one of the thousands of articles with some news about the topic. All temporal templates must have an end point, and when editorial attention has dropped off, or is merely active, it is entirely appropriate to remove this template, which adds zero to the content of the article. Without such a standard, the meaningless proliferation of the template continues apace. The template was created to handle the massive edits involved with the first several days for the article 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, which received 200++ edits per day at its start. It is actually a rather rare occasion that an article receives such attention, and needs the traffic-police warning that this template amounts to. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Category
Can you please add Category:Current_Events to this template and all similar templates?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done. These templates are already properly categorized into Category:Temporal templates, and pages which transclude these templates are categorized into Category:Current events or its subcategories. --- RockMFR 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like the category added so that it is transcluded on to the pages that are "current events".  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand it already does that, but sorted into subcategories by date. You know that Category:Current events and its subcategories are hidden categories? -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars
The confusion over the meaning/correct usage of this tag (caused by a disconnect between the wording on the banner with, the self-referential nature of its usage guidelines) is causing slow edit wars. Can we please have some movement that will help correct this? The text on the banner makes it sound like a reasonable caveat for many articles which might not have 100's of editors per day, so it keeps getting replaced on those articles. NJGW (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is invited. See two sections above. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fix the no text wrapping please
editprotected

This template's text fails to wrap because coding (" ") is used between words instead of spaces so the one sentence is seen as one word. Can this be fixed in some way? Even one space in the middle of the sentence would help. Village pump technical suggested I should solicit help on the template itself. I don't believe this to be controversial as much as a technical bug that needs a workaround. -- Banj e b oi   02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Banj e  b oi   03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)