Template talk:Current event editnotice

Creation
Hi @Elli! I noticed you created this and added it to Colin Powell. Has it been discussed anywhere else? I like the idea of having a current event editnotice (particularly if it allows us to offload some of the bloat from Current), but I think this is probably too long. The second/third bullets just repeat general editing advice that applies in a lot of places (if they need to be shown, they should be shown everywhere). And I'm not sure the last bullet will actually do much to help avoid copyright violations—something like "don't add an image if it's been nominated for deletion on Commons" might be more straightforward. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * no, it wasn't discussed anywhere. The editnotice was added without a template by - when I checked his past contributions I noticed he'd added a similar editnotice to other articles in the past as well. I thought it would make more sense to use a template for these so they can be more easily tracked. No objections to editing/trimming the wording on this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this should probably have some broader discussion—could we start that at WT:WikiProject Current events? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. I'm not particularly invested in this template just FYI - but feel free to start a discussion. Might want to wait for TomStar81 to respond here, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been using this particular custom edit notice for some years on pages that are judged to be subject to high volume of edits due to subject matter or due to current events (Death of Osama Bin Laden, Trial of Derek Chauvin, etc). Its intended purpose (insofar as it has one) is to remind drive by editors who may be attempting to help build a given article to source their information and write neutrally, and to remind contributors in general that even though its a current event it should be written of in the past tense since thats the default tense on wikipedia and as such when the editing dies down we were going to put the current event in past tense anyway. It was in part adopted from a failed proposal at MILHIST to add similar edit notices to our quality content (GA, A, and FA class articles) so as to ensure people messing the article's information would know to leave source, write neutrally, etc (you can see the prototype templates here). Since its position in the template space allows it to be seen regardless of which section is being edited it helps provide a fail safe measure as it were for people to make sure they have a chance to read the info first. As a practical matter, this is a temple designed more for the anon and new user groups than it is for veterans since as @Sdkb points out some of those points are essentially general editing advice, and as you can see in its editing history at COVID-19 pandemic people have adjusted the template to suit individual needs, so its not altogether unreasonable that it should pass into the mainstream and have some larger discussion over whether or not it should be added to articles and if so what should be in it. Personally, I'd love to see this graduate from a "me" specific template as it were to a general use wikipedia template, subject to the usual course of gaining consensus from the community to make that step, and I'm glad to see that @Elli has taken that first step. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Rebuilt?
For my own curiosity why was the template totally rebuilt without any discussion? The original version has worked fine for years with no one ever raising any issues over edit conflicts and moving the points around, and since I created the original I'm a little upset as it were that this whole thing was changed without so much as a discussion on the issue. I'm also curious why so many other bullet points were added and why the biggest one of all - use past tense for a current event - is now the very last bullet point, in a place where few if any are likely to read it. Was there a good reason for totally rebuilding this, and if so why wasn't I at least pinged for my opinion (or better yet to be part of that discussion)? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reverted those changes; I agree that they make the notice both visually cluttered and unnecessarily large. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elli I think the changes and I made were an improvement, and I'd like to see them restored, or at least the ones that are agreeable preserved rather than reverted wholesale.
 * @TomStar81, the reason we adjusted the template was since we thought it needed some tweaks, so we made them per WP:BOLD. They fall into a few buckets:
 * Adding a border, current events icon, and mild gradient background. This editnotice is generally placed alongside others, so it should at least be a little more prominent than the page protection notice, and it should connote visually that it's present because the article relates to current events.
 * Making the bullet points more concise. All we really need to do to get people to write in the past tense is ask them to write in the past tense (and a now-removed link to MOS:TENSE is nice); verbiage like We are aware that this article documents a current event, but writing in the past tense will make it easier for us to polish the article as it develops doesn't add enough to justify its presence. It's crucial we keep the editnotice concise, or editors simply won't read it. The revised version was 42 bytes shorter, despite the added formatting and bullets.
 * I added the bullet If reliable sources attribute unconfirmed information to a third party rather than stating it in their own voice, it should also be attributed in the article text here. This is common in current events articles (e.g. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine cites the Ukrainian/Russian government's casualty counts), so I think this is important.
 * I added the bullet * Please use summary style, avoiding indiscriminate detail—Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I think this is self-explanatorily important.
 * Jr8825 added the bullet * To avoid an edit conflict, please consider only editing the section you wish to change, rather than the whole page. This seems useful to me, although I could see an argument it's not worth it; the best solution would be to display it only if someone is actually editing the full page rather than a section (we'd probably have to ask at VPT about that).
 * We reordered the bullet points. I disagree that asking people to write in the past tense is the biggest one of all: the most important thing is reliable sources, whereas copy editing details like tense can easily be adjusted by other editors if someone gets them wrong. objects to it entirely, making the point that as written it's not always correct.
 * Elli and Tom, please specify which of these changes you object to and why. I hope that we can find consensus to restore those that we find consensus are helpful. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on the eve of returning to work, so its unlikely you'll here much from me in the next few days - however if the discussion should last that long I can get back here. To begin with, we all need to decide - broadly - on three things:
 * What information is judged to be most useful to those who are new and or anonymous editors,
 * Of that information, in what order should the points be placed (keeping in mind that most people generally interpret the top points to be most important),
 * How concise should the present information be?
 * At present I see consensus for reliable source and neutral point of view, with past tense usage and proper media licensing given as questionable use and no consensus at present for edit conflicts, concise summaries, the inclusion of WP:NOT, and (for the moment) the question of the border and image in the template. For the moment, lets consolidate these last two points under the heading of aesthetics" and set them aside as - for the moment - it appears to be the back seat to the greater issue of what should or should not be included. I can see two possible routes to moving forward with the information:
 * Debate and reach consensus for what should be included and how it should be worded, or
 * Build the template the way we build project templates to account for the B-Class criteria so that each individual point can be added or subtracted on an "as needed" basis.
 * Both options have their benefits and their drawbacks, but if we debate and reach consensus for how to address the issues and what should or should not be included I'm certain we can remodel the template in a way that speaks to project's core values while still retaining relevant information for our editing base. To begin with, are we all in agreement that the primary purpose of the template should be to assist the new and/or anonymous users who edit such pages? If not then we do need to dig deeper into who the template should be built for, because differences in edit patterns for the new and veteran users are increasingly pronounced and as a result some information is best advertised to one group or the other group, but rarely both groups together as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Tom. I agree that the primary purpose should be to assist new or anonymous editors, but that a secondary purpose is to remind more experienced editors. One thing we can do is change how it displays for new vs. experienced editors through If extended confirmed—for instance, we could suppress the RS/NPOV bullet points for EC editors who can be expected to already know about them (they're also redundant to the universal editnotice). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Page that extended confirmed protection should display differently for those already in the know. We also appear to agree on RS and NPOV related FYIs. If we're going to change how it displays for which group then it suggests debating and reach consensus for what should go into the template as opposed to the individual points being added or subtracted - unless we build two different templates and use one for the general population and one for the extended confirmed, as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding tense: we shouldn't advise editors to use past tense in cases where present tense is more accurate. In some cases, incorrect use of past tense would severely misinform readers. Imagine if the Joe Biden article said that Biden "was" (instead of "is") the 46th president of the United States. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mx. Granger, what do you think of the way it was phrased in the new version? I added "for past events" to align with MOS:TENSE. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That phrasing seems fine to me, though I'm not sure it's needed in an editnotice. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you edited the template. Do you have any thoughts on the revamp? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the ping. Not too bothered about the layout/reworking, but I feel a link to WP:V is better than the term "backed up", hence my edit. Thanks  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox
I've created a sandbox for us to workshop the changes. The first two bullet points, for sourcing and neutrality, are set so that they only appear to non–extended confirmed editors; to view them, log out or open an incognito window. I also set the bullet point about edit conflicts to appear only if the article has been edited in the past 20 minutes, as that's around the frequency when conflicts become likely. Overall, the bullets are roughly in order of how important I'd say they are. Thoughts? Is there anything that you think is missing or excessive? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The current version of the sandbox looks fine to me. I would suggest removing the word "unconfirmed", as I think the sentence is clearer without it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. It would be nice if we could make that line shorter, and that cut helps. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So is that everything? Please let me know if there are any further concerns, and if all's well I'll plan to implement the sandbox version in a day or so. Thanks all for collaborating on this! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay in getting back here, there's been a stomach virus going around at work and I ended up putting in two nights of overtime to help offset the lack of personnel and have been wiped out for the last day and a half as a result. I believe the template looks good, although the first line appears to be malformed when looking at the overall layout. Is that something you can fix,, or is that something that was done by design? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And having gotten back into it a little I'd suggest one other thing: making the past tense bullet optional (ie: |past tense =yes or |past-tense=no) so as to allow for flexibility on the matter when deployed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Encouraging more use
Most of the time that an article has Current, it should probably also have this editnotice. (Since any time a page is in the news enough to need to alert readers, there are generally also things about which to alert editors, and we'd ideally like to do that through this template rather than cramming the info into the reader notice.) But comparing the categories, it often doesn't. That's partially because a template editor is needed to add it, but also this doesn't seem as well-known. I just tweaked the documentation at and Current event templates to make it more prominent, which should help a bit. But we could consider stronger steps, up to and including some sort of automated process that'd add this editnotice on any article that transcludes. Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In principle, current is purely an editor template, and should not be applied to current-event articles that are not being heavily updated. Mach61 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, current is maybe a bit overused? Not sure though. If we want this to show up on every page with current, a change to the base editintros would be the best way (like how BLP editintro shows up on all BLPs). But that'd probably require a change to MediaWiki:Common.js. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Usage of Current is policed by Yapperbot, which removes it if an article has not been edited for too long. I actually quite like the thought of making it a magic editintro. Should we request the edit and see how it goes? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In theory, anyway. In practice Yapperbot hasn't run at all since December 19. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, re In principle, is purely an editor template, anything intended only for editors should be in an editnotice, not presented to readers. Part of the broader philosophy behind this is to help move stuff for editors to the editnotice, so that Current can then be tailored better to reader needs. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Section editing advice
Re Special:Diff/1233822119, if section editing doesn't help prevent edit conflicts, then that entire bullet point should be removed.  Sdkb  talk 03:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)