Wikipedia talk:As of

message: 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)
thread_title:  "As of" in discussion 

message: 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 . This template transcludes another template, . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rise of the bots 

message: See discusion at:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). 
Lightmouse (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Deprecate links to [As of xxxx] and delete [[Wikipedia:As of]] 

message: 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  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  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  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  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)
replies: text: Thanks for taking up this task, Ikara.  I appreciate your work! Noca2plus (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some documentation to the  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)
replies: text: We now have  for creating new "As of..." categories quickly, please see the template page for usage instructions. I will update the  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)
thread_title:  "As of" template under development 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  "As of" template ready for testing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal for new project page 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Mention of "as of" in FAC discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Precise language section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What to do about updating talk page As Of links? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is possible, but not necessarily wise.  The above article might include "As of December 2010 regrowth was minimal" for example. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rich's objection. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: As of template usage without year displayed option

message: I tried to use the as-of template in the middle of a sentence, but it defaults to capital A. Is there any way to get a lower-case option? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: lc=y is documented at . PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower-case option? 

message: Hello. I have nominated NK Maribor players for FL and I have a small problem. One of the reviewers expressed his concernes about the capitalization of "As" in the middle of a sentence. The problem is that the capitalization seems to occur automatically when using the Wikipedia:As of method. Below is the sentence I used in the article, with the use of the As of method. Is there a way for the use of the method without the "As" being capitalized?
*The table that follows is accurate .
Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was solved using lc=y. Lep pozdrav, Ratipok (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small help with the As of method needed in the FLC nomination 

message: Readers of this page may have interest in the discussion about the use of the phrase "as of" taking place here. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "as of" 

message: I think the "Usage guidelines" section should be updated to discourage the use of "As of" when describing a current state.  Here's an example, from the current version of the Megyn Kelly article: "As of 2014, Kelly hosts The Kelly File on weekdays from the network's New York City headquarters."  In a case like this, it would be better to leave off the "As of".  The article should just say that she hosts the TV show, and when at some future point that's no longer the case, the article can be updated.  This is in contrast to the proper usage in conjunction with facts expected to change soon, as in the example given, "the population of Toledo as of the 2010 Census was 287,208".  I'll be happy to update the page myself but I'm posting here first to solicit the opinions of other editors. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble thinking of a television schedule detail as a current state somehow guaranteed not to change soon. That seems like an arguably appropriate use of "as of". You seem to agree that we shouldn't consider her permanently installed in that timeslot and studio. Right now the guidance is that "As of" is a tool for when editors judge that something will change. I could see how  would be unhelpful, but there are still scores of other "current state" situations where editors find "as of" helpful. The current guidance puts it to editor discretion, and it's better to use "as of" in many of those cases than have stale and obviously outdated articles a couple of years from now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, a wikipedia page can be updated, but we don't live in a perfect world. Calling it "unnecessary"  ignores its usefulness in all the articles that aren't updated minute-by-minute. It seems to assume that editors update more conscientiously and frequently than they currently do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 2014, I still think the phrase can be a distraction that detracts from the prose.  ;-)  And many facts in many articles may become out of date, some sooner than others.  That's a given.  Another example, this one hypothetical:  We shouldn't say, "As of 2014, Dan Reynolds is the lead vocalist for the band Imagine Dragons," we should leave off "As of", even though bands change personnel or break up somewhat frequently. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a huge number of articles with obsolete undated claims. Let's not add to that by telling editors to not date claims likely to change. Let editors use discretion. Notable people tend to be in a lot more tv shows than bands in their career. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. Obsolete undated claims discredit Wikipedia in whatever topic area they occur. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Peter coxhead completely. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage guidelines: current state 

message: In my articles, using precise language generally means that the asof template ends up in the middle of a sentence. How do I get it to render as "as of" instead of "As of"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You do it like this:  → . Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Youch. Ok I'll start using that. But maybe we can make this easier? Is there any reason {{Asof and {{asof couldn't be two different templates? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Wikimedia software capitalizes the first letter of wikilinks automatically, this wouldn't be a good idea. I suppose there could be a template called something like "Asoflc" if it's really thought that typing "|lc=yes" is too troublesome. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it does that for links, but not template code surely? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  → .  means find Template:as of (hover over this link and you'll see it automatically capitalized) and then substitute its contents. So the automatic capitalization is applied. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  would have "lc" as the value of the third unnamed parameter which is supposed to be a day. It would be technically possible to check whether any of the date parameters are "lc" and then interpret it as a lowercase request instead of part of the date, but parameters with two possible functions would be messy and confusing. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my thought is to use , which I consider greatly superior.  It allows, for instance, the next parameter to be a day, as well as "in place edits" of the date potions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It would still have the confusion about what each unnamed parameter means.  could be year or "lc",  could be year or month,  could be month or day,  could be day. I don't know whether a version of Template:As of#TemplateData could be made to work with VisualEditor, and other tools may also have problems. Let's stick to each parameter having one meaning. The recommended value is lc=y but any value works, including blank as in  if you want to save a character, and a named parameter can be placed anywhere so you can also write . PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  lower case? 

message: By analogy to :MOS:PUNCTFOOT and in accordance with stylistic good sense, I believe the commas following "as of" should occur before "[update]," not afterwards; this:
: As of January 2017, the the head of the congregation has been Rev. Ann O. Nymous.
Not this:
: As of January 2017, the the head of the congregation has been Rev. Ann O. Nymous.
In this edit, I attempted to effect this change but was reverted by  because he didn't like my edit summary and appears to think using the template in accordance with its documentation is inappropriate for a help page. Rebbing 17:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see what you mean. Agree. Will self-revert. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas before "as of" notes? 

message: I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#%22Currently%22 does not belong on Wikipedia regarding the continual use of "currently".  Interested editors are invited to contribute there.  Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued use (and misuse) of "currently". 

message: Regarding as at, this source:
*
indicates: 
*
The same source has this for as of: 
As an example, I submit that the phrase  fits this usage as described by Garner, as the phrasing could be rewritten  & still would mean the same thing. Peaceray (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A US style guide being considered by a US editor to defend a US term is the wrong set up to determine whether a phrase is correctly used (or not) in a British English article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:D933:8A2C:3F8A:39A4 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of "as of" versus "as at"

message: There is currently a discussion regarding the application of ASOF to Rotten Tomatoes scores in film and TV articles that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF. Comments from any editors watching this page would be greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotten Tomatoes