Template talk:Current

message: This template is currently used on Velika Ivanča shooting. While useful to demonstrate that reports are still coming in, describing the event as "current" is incorrect (the shooter has been apprehended) and the worst case scenario is that someone reads the top banner and assumes the shooting is ongoing.
Thus can we have a third flag to change text to "recent", i.e.:

--LukeSurl t c 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "very current" is an awkward formula and a distinction which it will be hard if not impossible to make. Just keep it the way it is. The event, including all the details that are in the article, is still current, after all. At least its aftermath, which is also part of the subject of the article. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. It is unreasonable for someone to believe that this template means that the shooting is ongoing (i.e. people are being shot as I type this).  The meaning of "current event" is well known and unambiguous.  ‑Scottywong| express _ 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested change - very recent events 

message: Technical thing, place alt=|link= to the icon (it's CC0) like in other notice templates. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  link alt 

message: * There is one view that desires to liberate  from its formative mission, by warning readers that articles may change frequently, and creating a more modest advisory threshold for use. I'll call this view the "use 'current' more" view.
* Another view is that the reader is previously informed of a topic's changing quality via the thoughtful article text, and that only the editor need be apprised of frequent change, especially since a topic may have anywhere from 100 to 10,000 times more readers than editors. I'll call this the "edit-notice" view.
I'm having trouble seeing how the expression of both views in the RfC will make for much progress in a consensus-generating way, via an RfC.
Can these views be reconciled here before the RfC? 
Calling upon various recent participants to discuss the nub of this difference and whether you might conceive of persuadability on point; if not, perhaps there is no avoiding the potential deadlock in the RfC as well. 
     Comments invited especially from --->    - User:Esszet - User:Debresser - User:David_Levy - User:Conti - User:Zzyzx11
-- (signed)  Yellowdesk (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask what happens if we can't establish a consensus in the general discussion.  My views on the desirability of  in its de facto function are outlined above; I can resume the debate with David Levy, but even if one of us wins that, there could still be a deadlock in the general discussion.  Is there a set policy for what to do when a consensus can't be reached?  If there isn't, I recommend either putting it to a vote of some sort or retaining  in its de facto function if and simply because a large part of the community favours it. Esszet (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are perennial topics that come up in the RfC world without new movement or consensus. Some topics after more than one effort do come to a new consequence. There was, for example a couple of times that the template "spoiler" (several years ago) came up for discussion in an effort called the "spoiler wars"  and after more than one round of conversation, the "spoiler" template and its kindred were deleted as contrary to the whole idea of an encyclopedia as an information resource ("If someone arrives at the article, interested in learning about a movie, game, or novel, what is the informational and graphical benefit  of warning the reader against the information provided further into the article?")  And then some topics for comment generate a new point of action. Taking a look at the history of the several  varieties of "Requests for Comment" sub-pages would be educational.  An exceedingly small  fraction of all editors visit those pages, which is its own separate fact.   -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'm discussing with David Levy what to do in the event of a failure to reach consensus (see above under Rfc proposal). Esszet (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the views be aligned? 

message: [edit to remove non-relevant incorporation of an article: 
See this page example: User:Damián80/sandbox  
[end of edit]
Hi would like to know if this is the right place?, Well I hope so. I created a template to add in articles and television soap operas, do not know if it is right or not, here it is, Two templates one for tv series in emission and one for series still unworn.--Damián (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles speak about telenovelas, for example this telenovela Yo no creo en los hombrs and even premieres not be nice to have a template warning, as I propose, in other wikipedia they are templates. And I speak not only of articles that are published all the time. I'm just saying it would be a good idea for items telenovela.--Damián (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a good idea, as it does in the wikipedia in English and Spanish articles for telenovelas. Here the use and  here also. Would not understand why so much trouble.--Damián (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to think about what you are trying to say, and to whom. If you want to tell readers that an article is not final and that it is subject to change, you are not telling them anything new: This is true for all articles, and this is what our general disclaimer already says, which is linked from every single page on Wikipedia. If you want to remind editors to edit responsibly (do not add speculation, unsourced material, etc.), then an editnotice might be more appropriate (which only shows up once you actually try to edit an article). But, again, that is a message that is true for every article, so it should only be used in very specific instances, like an article that constantly has bad information added to it. --Conti|✉ 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I see that we are interested in what I'm trying to propose, and I see they do not want to accept it, better leave it. Bye.--Damián (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add my template 

message: I believe that the Presidential primary pages should be included in pages eligible for the Current Election tag. Users have taken down the tag quoting the guidelines and specifically that not many users have edited in the past few hours. I don't see how primary pages, such as the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and the Democratic Party presidential primary, 2016, don't fit the guidelines because the primary elections are a major election process which takes place over a long period of time, thus making it current election over the entire period of the election. I see nothing saying that the tag has to be up for less than a day, just that it's unusual for a page to require the tag up for longer than a day. As well, I see no guidelines saying a certain number of users must edit the article in a specific amount of time to warrant the tag. I feel that at the very least the Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Green party primary pages should get the current election tag until the presidential nominee of said party is decided. Otherwise are we limited to only using the tag on days when a state holds its voting? Acidskater (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the tag is meant as a warning that the article is undergoing rapid editing and updating -- not as a persistent 24/7 general disclaimer that lasts on the page for several weeks or months. Otherwise, as the guideline says, "hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence (emphasis added). In the case of the United States presidential primaries, there are several days during the primaries when the is no electoral event occurring, and thus little updating to the articles. As you mentioned, I have seen the tag posted on days when there is a state holding a vote, either on those main pages or the detailed results pages when there is rapid editing, but generally only on those days. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Primaries

message: There remains a contradiction in the wording of this template. If there is a high volume of editing it is more likely to reflect current events. It would be more logical to put a template on pages that had not been edited lately to say they were likely to be out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is another point, correct, but not of this template. This template is for current events, which are still changing, and new information is becoming available constantly. Debresser (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is about this template. See the discussion of 2014.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be so kind to explain the issue in more detail here in this section then. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious. The contradiction is connecting a high volume of edits with the unreliability of the page. In fact, a high volume of edits is the best way to insure the page is up-to-date. As  said in 2014, "If an article about a recently deceased person has received few recent edits, it's among the most likely to lack up-to-date information." Time and again, these templates are removed when the volume of edits is low, as if the problem is with the volume of edits. But why? Why does a large number of edits create unreliability? You can say that the unreliability is caused by the current events. But there are many pages that should be current, such as those about living people, organisations, and countries. However, if they haven't been edited since 2014 they are likely to be out of date. So why single out current events with a high volume of edits? It's a logical contradiction.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to completely miss the point. The template says nothing about the volume of editing, inly about the likelihood of information being incorrect and outdated because the event is still unfolding and/or the news coverage is still incomplete. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the guidelines.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you be so kind to point me to the precise problem? Debresser (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just repeating the same line like a parrot.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The statement "Learn how and when to remove this template message" is meant to apply to maintenance templates. Template:Current is not a maintenance template, so the statement should not be included in the template text. The only condition for the removal of Template:Current is the cessation of heavy editing. WWGB (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly sentence 

message: I noticed that  has slightly different wording that reflects what should be the proper usage of this template; when an ongoing event generates a large number of edits. I would like to propose that the wording of this message be changed to "This article is experiencing high levels of activity because it documents a current event". This makes the intent more clear, as some editors seem to think it's used on any ongoing event. ViperSnake151  Talk   05:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in the post above, we could instead alter the purpose of these tags altogether so they are treated more like a specialized maintenance template. This could clear up confusion. What do these articles on current events typically rely on? WP:RSBREAKING sources. What is the problem with such breaking news sources? They tend to be unreliable. What happens when an article primarily relies on UNreliable sources? The article's factual accuracy is usually compromised and fails WP:VERIFY. What happens when such current event articles attract the attention to scores of editors? A higher chance of editing disputes and POV edits, and several discussions on the talk page on trying to improve the article. In many cases, we could probably replace  or  with . Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of these tags is confusing. Is it because the event is still unfolding? Then it could be used in many articles. Has this really got any bearing on reliability? Is it because of the high levels of editing? Well, really high levels of editing in an ongoing event are a better guarantee of reliability than an article about an ongoing event when there is little editing. Really, articles that have no activity for years should be tagged. Is it because breaking news sources are unreliable? That's true, but wouldn't it be better to deal with that in the text? Say, for example, that Jeff Goldblum has been reported dead, but there is no confirmation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change wording 

message: I'm thinking of adding a  parameter to Template:current election. This will replace the old syntax of  with . The changes can be found at Template:current election/sandbox (diff) Any thoughts? --Danski454 (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've changed the syntax to  (diff) --Danski454 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Update 2: I've made the edit --Danski454 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a parameter to [[Template:current election]] 

message: Change the logo with  so it would be consistent with all logo and size in Wikipedia:Current event templates. Hddty. (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . Ping me with any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2018 

message: This relates to Current Election template only not current template.
Shouldn't the template contain a warming to editors that publishing something political during polling may be illegal and while online sites do not have to remove archived reports, anything new being published should be restricted to "uncontroversial factual" matters? eg see . Decided to be bold and edited something in. crandles (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it, that warning is far too long. If necessary, campaigning can be reverted, and protection/blocks/edit notices can be used. Danski454 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that apply to Wikipedia in any case?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of editing during election polling 

message: There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Feature request: exclude Current event from multiple issues where I raised the question of whether  could be called a maintenance template and if it should be included in Twinkle's article tagging along with other maintenance templates.  A 2017 TfD is worth looking at, but I'd appreciate folks' thoughts. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 20:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou User:Amorymeltzer for posting the link to the discussion here. I have commented there, indicating that Twinkle should not have  embedded in it, and also that in 2011, Template Current was taken out of Twinkle, at my request.  This template is not a maintenance template, it is a notice template, actually intended for editors.         
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update on the location of the archive of the conversation: Feature request: exclude  from  (via Twinkle Talk Archive 41)Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_41Yellowdesk (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a maintenance template? 

message: Update successor to vacant as no source is cited for the same. 42.106.216.30 (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#When_should_articles_have_the_Current_template%3F.  Sdkb (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a follow up conversation, archived here, during the process of removing  from the Corona Virus pages. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_6#Removal_of_current_disaster_templates   Yellowdesk (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The latest iteration of the debate over how long this template should stay on ongoing current events (this time re: COVID-19)

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Template:Current COVID.   talk 22:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#Template:Current COVID]]

message: I just came across documentation for a bot, User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot, that apparently used to remove this template on any article that hadn't been edited in over two hours. I imagine that helped a lot with preventing inappropriate uses, and once it stopped functioning, I'm guessing the slide toward our current overuse began. Two hours seems like perhaps an overly strict limit, but I do like the general idea. Would there be support for bringing this back with something of a longer window?  talk 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've made a BOTREQ to revive the prunebot.  talk 08:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Two hours is appropriate, as the template was designed for those rare occasions that many editors are editing at the same time. Rarly is it appropriate for the template to be on an article for more than a day.  Yellowdesk (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old bot for policing inappropriate uses of this template 

message: This template has become bloated over the years, and now includes a mixture of inappropriate WP:NODISCLAIMERS violations, excessive editing advice, and overall wordiness. I propose it be streamlined to the sandbox version:
What do you all think?  talk 20:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed change is inappropriate, and contrary to the actual use of the template, as indicated in the guidelines above. The template is not intended to mark an article as a current event, nor for updating, but has served throughout its a life as an advisory to editors to take care that their sources may conflict, and that their edits may conflict with each other, because of the extreme number of edits occuring on the article, and rapidity of edits occurring.  There are other ways to signify that an article is a current event, such as putting it in the category for current events, and putting it on the current events page of Wikipedia.   Yellowdesk (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The de facto actual usage of the template has long since shifted from being a notice to editors about conflicts to being a notice for readers about potential reliability issues. I think we hopefully agree that it's very regularly misused in cases where an article is not changing rapidly enough for those issues to be a problem (thus the botreq above). If the only purpose of the template is to warn editors about potential edit conflicts, though, I think it would be better just deprecated. When an edit conflict comes up, it explains what's going on, and most editors to highly-trafficked pages know to expect them, so it's not worth the real estate to alert editors of the potential for them.  talk 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to streamline template 

message: .--Jack Upland (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To Jack Upland,    You had asked on the linked item above, At the village pump,  Template: Current etc, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_167#Template:_Current_etc  generally, on May 17, and on May 18 2020, particularly: "But Mandruss, what is the purpose it was designed for?  Back in 2004, the foundational event for the  was the 2004 Madrid train bombings which had some 800 edits in about three days.        The templates would benefit from being converted to a , which is their primary function. In 2006, the situation was re-described here: Template_talk:Current/archive2#Policy_for_using_Template:CurrentYellowdesk (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the purpose of alerting editors of potential conflicts, I could definitely get on board with turning this into an edit notice. For the other purposes it's frequently de facto (mis)used for, there might be opposition.  talk 01:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The total population of use for  is often less than five articles, and often zero. The metaphysics of defacto use, as argued in your comment in the further above section, is a slim argument.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, I tried... 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:Flux. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 16#Template:Flux until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   talk 04:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:Flux" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]