This page was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 See also: Template talk:As of Wikipedia talk:Avoid statements that will date quickly (archived) Wikipedia talk:Updating information

[edit] "As of" in discussion

It seems painfully obvious to me that "as of" statements are appropriate for discussions, especially for content that one intends to change. The statement remains valid after a consensus is reached either way. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rise of the bots

This project seems like a great idea, but there seems to be one significant issue with the method currently used. Your problem is this: there are bots which fix double redirects, and they will certainly consider these to be in need of "fixing." Here is my suggestion: Use templates such as the one I created at {{As of 2007}}. This template transcludes another template, {{As of}}. This way, you can still see what pages use "as of"-type links at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:As of, and bots will not "fix" the redirects. Also, I bet regular people are "fixing" your redirects, which they would probably not do so much if this method were to be used instead. Good day- Eliyak T·C 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots fix double redirects but not single redirects which is what should be used in the as of technique. Have you seen double redirects for as of? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Deprecate links to [As of xxxx] and delete Wikipedia:As of

See discusion at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
Lightmouse (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Following deletion proposal...migration?

Closed as no consensus - but what about a way forward? Should we be looking to migrate to something better? If so, here's a suggested way forward:

1. amend the As Of page,and MoS to state 'As of' links are now discouraged, and to use {{update after}} instead.
2. write a bot/make a request at WP:Bot requests? I'd be interested in helping with this but have no bot experience as yet.
3. alternately in the absence of a suitable bot manually/semi-automatically move over using AWB or the like.
4. once migration is complete, redlink the [[As of xxxx]] pages to discourage future linking.

Am I jumping the gun here? From what I read on the deletion discussion, there is broad consensus to move away from this,somehow? Paulbrock (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. BTW, jumping the gun is encouraged (WP:BB). As my comments in the MFD indicated, I'm in favor of eliminating [[as of XXXX]] links. However, I think retaining the text "as of XXXX" is important (see WP:DATED). I would hate to see terms like "currently" be considered acceptable in article text just because they're paired with a {{update after}} template. Futher, my opinion is that the {{update after}} technique is insufficient for dealing with statements that date. I say this because {{update after}} relies on editors predicting when statements will need to be updated. And predicting the future is notoriously difficult. For example, Barack Obama begins with

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (born August 4, 1961) is ... a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

If one were to set an {{update after}} template, what date should one use? The date of the Democratic Convention? Perhaps. But that assumes no other deal is struck. For example, Obama might fold his nomination bid in exchange for the VP position on Clinton's ticket. In that case, an update may be required long before the convention. Being such a widely watched race, this is perhaps a weak example, but I think I've made my point: No editor can reliably predict when an article will need to be updated. That is why editors are encouraged to use specific language in the text (again, see WP:DATED.

One suggestion from Dank55 (talk · contribs) in the mfd was to create a template that would function like [[as of XXXX]] links, yet not be a link. The difference between this suggestion and {{update after}} is that the new template would simply flag "as of XXXX" text (presumably a bot would do this). That is, it wouldn't involve an editor's prediction of the future. I like this idea. Further, I don't see the new template and the {{update after}} template as being mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, I lack the template and/or bot knowledge to do this. Noca2plus (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a *slight* difference between "This info is valid as of x" and "This info will need to be checked after x". The later is much more useful though -one of the criticisms of 'As of' has been that there's no way to tell *if* the info is out of date e.g. census data is updated every 10 years in some countries whereas a sports team's record may need updating every year. I think it's much better to encourage editors to effectively note "check this after x",and it should cover most occasions shouldn't it? In the case of Obama, I'd probably put the Convention date(not really up on the intracies of the US political system),but even so,a tag such as this should really imply "part of this article may/will be out of date after x. Please check and update then,but if you find out something before then,feel free to update anyway!" Paulbrock (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems we both agree that [[as of XXXX]] links should be deprecated/discouraged/etc., so I'll stop talking about that. As I noted above, I'm not arguing for one solution ("as of XXXX" text or {{update after}}) over the other. I see them as complementary, in part, because I see {{update after}} as insufficient (as I mentioned). This is not to disparage {{update after}}, any more than it is to disparage the "as of XXXX" text technique (which I also see as insufficient for the reasons you noted).Noca2plus (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me also point out that we need to recognize what cues the reader will get about statements that date. If I understand it correctly, {{update after}} only shows [update needed] after the trigger date. Prior to the trigger date, nothing is shown in the article. This means that without information in the text, a reader cannot, for themselves, evaluate the the timeliness of a statement. In part, that is why I'm wary of changing the guidelines to advocate {{update after}} unless we simultaneously re-emphasize the importance of precise language such as "as of XXXX" in the text, consistent with WP:DATED. Noca2plus (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct - update after displays nothing until the indicated date. Note that precise language is already recommended, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Precise language. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for pointing that out. Noca2plus (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "as of" is precise language. Anything that is subject to change could be tagged "as of ...":

Mark Cuban (born July 31, 1958 in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania) is an American billionaire entrepreneur. As of 2008, he is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, an NBA team, and Chairman of HDNet, an HDTV cable network.

It's a 100% certainty that Mark Cuban will not be the owner of the Mavericks at some point in the future, so this usage of "as of" follows the guidelines laid out on this page. (Ironically, "quickly" is imprecise... what does it mean? 10 days? 6 months? a year? a lifetime?) Since "as of" can be used to indicate either beginning or end, its meaning is also unclear in many cases:

Burj Dubai (Arabic: برج دبي‎ "Dubai Tower") is a skyscraper under construction in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is the tallest man-made structure on Earth as of 2008.

Does that mean it became the world's tallest structure, or remained the world's tallest structure in 2008? The usage laid out by this page implies the latter, but the common meaning is the former. This is something that should be dealt with precise language, of course, but right now editors just tack on "as of" phrases lazily.

Finally, this use of "as of" basically amounts to a content disclaimer since it implies: "Disclaimer: if you are reading this after 2008, this statement may not be valid". It violates Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The prescribed usage of an "as of" phrase is to indicate a statement that is expected to be invalid in the "near" future. I think the "update after" mechanism is a much better way to do this, and is much closer to that meaning. If an editor expects a statement to become invalid "soon", that editor can mostly likely come up with a date to check on the validity of the statement. If not, there's no need to tag it ({{update after|Mark Cuban dies?}}). – flamurai (t) 09:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "As of" template under development

Following from the previous discussion and the MfD debate it is fairly obvious that some progress needs to be made with the [[As of xxxx]] wikilink issue. I also agree with various users that the {{Update after}} template is inadequate for dealing with all "As of..." situations. So, in an effort to be bold, I have began work in updating the old {{As of}} template, which was left in a somewhat unhelpful state (all it did was pipe the text "as of xxxx" to the article "xxxx", thus bypassing the 'what links here' list for the "as of xxxx" article). The main purpose of the modified template is to provide an invisible link to the appropriate "as of..." article without the Click To Be Disappointed blue text, however my hope is to migrate the listings over to hidden categories, which are easier to access and browse, and ultimately remove the [[As of xxxx]] redirects altogether. Currently the template has a few extra features to allow for some flexibility:

• Variation from full date to just a year for the main parameter(s)
• Use of the {{Start date}} template for added microdate formats
• An optional 'alt' parameter to allow the user to specify alternate text (currently defaults to "As of [date]")
• An optional 'df' parameter to allow use of the American date format (with any value except 'yes')

I have yet to write up any documentation for the template (next task) so you will need to look at the source code to see how it works. This is designed to be used when an {{Update after}} template is not appropriate. Any comments, suggestions or feature requests would be helpful, post them here or on the template's talk page – Ikara ^{talk →} 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this task, Ikara. I appreciate your work! Noca2plus (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added some documentation to the {{As of}} template to help explain how it works, and I've also started work on the categories that the template will use to track the template instances. Currently only CAT:ASOF is online, I'm working on a group template for all the month/year subcategories, and it should be running by tomorrow. Once that is finished I will update the template to use categories wherever possible, using the old style "As of..." links only when a category is not available (which will occur with deprecated instances of the template, thus allowing us to quickly track them down and update them). Currently I plan to use month-and-year cats from 2005 onwards, year-only cats for 1990 onwards, and two special cats: an "all articles..." cat. and a pre-1990 cat. This should keep things nicely organised, although we may need to update it as the template evolves. Does anyone have any reason to object to me not using old-style links once the categorisation is running? (The category pages will link to the appropriate "As of..." pages wherever possible, at least until we can red-link them). – Ikara ^{talk →} 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We now have {{Cat ASOF}} for creating new "As of..." categories quickly, please see the template page for usage instructions. I will update the {{As of}} template to start categorising articles wherever possible next. Feedback at this stage (before changes become too widespread) would be helpful. However, as I have received no objections so far, I will assume everyone is happy for me to go ahead. – Ikara ^{talk →} 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "As of" template ready for testing

{{As of}} is now ready for full testing. The template is fully working now and has already begun categorising "potentially dated statements" at CAT:ASOF. You can view the complete list of live instances in Category:All articles containing potentially dated statements. Some of these need adapting to the new template format, however excluding these all instances no longer link to the "As of..." pages (although this is only noticeable after a null-edit, unlike categories). We can now work through the old "As of..." pages converting them to the new template (if someone has a bot that could do that it would help a lot!). At this stage it may be worth changing this page to give the new location for "As of" listings and encourage editors to use the new system. When creating new subcategories of CAT:ASOF use the {{Cat ASOF}} template, a category will appear red-linked in a page's category list after you edit it if it requires creating. – Ikara ^{talk →} 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for new project page

Since there appears to be no objection to the new template being implemented in place of the old system, I have begun work on a new project page to reflect this. I invite anyone who's interested to help construct it, please leave comments, suggestions or complaints here. Assuming there are no objections before then, I will move the page over once it is finished. All the best – Ikara ^{talk →} 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that my proposal for the new project page is complete. If anyone wants to check over it and change anything they should do so now. Also please raise any objections to the change soon. Assuming I don't receive any I should be able to move the page over tomorrow. Just so I'm clear, my intention is to empty all the "As of" pages, redirecting them to the appropriate section of the new project page as they are emptied, so that if they get used again we'll know. Once that is complete I will nominate all of them for deletion to discourage further use of the old links. If we ever get that far, we should have resolved all aforementioned issues with the "as of" method! If anyone could help me with any of these task I would be very grateful. Thanks – Ikara ^{talk →} 01:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The new page is now up and running, including the new policy and quick access to all the old pages. Anyone who has any problems with it can make changes there now, or if they feel a revert is in order I would suggest discussing it here first to prevent too much confusion. Hopefully everyone will be happy with the new page. I'm still looking for help with the conversion of links to tags. – Ikara ^{talk →} 18:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you bring this up anywhere other than the project page? This will affect content throughout the site, so it probably deserves at least a mention at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) before going forward. Superm401 - Talk 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently it has only been mentioned here and (indirectly) on the various templates and categories to be used with the proposed system. Apologies for going ahead without support, I am still unfamiliar with the Wikipedia system and assumed anyone who was interested would be watching the talk page. I will place a proposal at the Village Pump and put all further work here on hold until I have some consensus. In the meantime feel free to revert the project page if you feel that it was out of process. – Ikara ^{talk →} 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal now at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to change WP:As of policy. Please discuss there. – Ikara ^{talk →} 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of "as of" in FAC discussion

cross-post from Template talk:As of

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Beth Elohim where the "as of" feature has been discussed and (I think) misunderstood. See also my comments here, here, and here. If those maintaining this feature could comment, that might help clarify things. Carcharoth (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Precise language section

It has been proposed and agreed that WP:DATED be merged, although the target is still undecided. Currently, this project and WP:MOSNUM are the proposed targets. I have added a new section containing the information previously contained in WP:DATED to WP:As of#Precise language to help replace the project. I have also removed links to the soon-to-be-merged project. I deem this fairly uncontroversial, but if anyone has any objections please voice them. Feedback on the target would also be appreciated. Thanks – Ikara ^talk → 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about updating talk page As Of links?

Should talk pages/user pages/archived talk pages be updated to the new As Of template like any article? Because if so, that may mess a few things up, but if not, that'll leave pages in the automatic lists (Special:WhatLinksHere/whatever).

I'm looking in particular at Talk:Canada/Archive 2. -- Web-Crawling Stickler (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving them be, just worry about changing mainspace pages. User pages should be updated by the user in question, and archives should retain the page as it was without subsequent changes. In cases where the list contains only these items, mark it as empty anyway and it will be removed – Ikara ^talk → 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] As of template usage without year displayed option

Would it be possible to add an option to allow no year display? The year would be redundant in articles such as 2009 California wildfires which have the year in the title. thanks Petersam (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)