Template talk:Update

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Time sensitive statements[edit]

The phrase "It may also contain language that is unnecessarily time sensitive." was added to the template by User:Esprit15d. I believe this makes the template too big, and is a statement that will not be relevant to enough pages on which it is used. Richard Taylor 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This should have a distracting red sign, we want to notify people that we're aware that there's a problem with the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New version for Wikipedia stats[edit]

What do you think about Template talk:Historical#Template:Historical-stats-update ?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This template needs a talk page link, and some other things[edit]


  1. the template is not specific on what in the article is time dependent and changing,
  2. it would be proper to move the template near to the text that is time dependent,
  3. it would also be proper to replace by a template similar to {{fact}} that looks like [obsolete].

The text of the template should urge the reader to do something like this, like the template: Cleanup See Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements! Said: Rursus 08:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I happenstance happened to make [dated info]. Said: Rursus 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"section or article" code and date= code needs to be included to conform with other cleanup templates[edit]

The code of this template should be changed so that the first parameter when present replaces the default section or article text with either one. Also the standardized "date=" code should be used instead of the non-standard solution which is currently implemented. However, since the template is being applied in more than 2,000 articles presently, someone with the appropriate tools available should check existing usage and make modifications as needed when the template code is changed in these respects that I have mentioned. __meco (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"article" should be "article or section"?[edit]

Would make the template more useful for tagging specific parts of articles. -- (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You can tag sections by using the 'type' parameter, e.g. {{update|type=section}} Rami R 10:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Use {{update section}} instead. Senator2029 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason Section[edit]

I think there should be a section to add the reason to update and/or the information that is oudated. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (TalkContributions) Leading Innovations >>> 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your {{helpme}} template, because the template is intended as a solution for questions that new users have, rather than a request to get help making an edit to a page. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's why the template says "see the talk page for more information". Whoever puts the template, should leave at least a short message on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does this template exist?[edit]

The whole point of having a wiki-based encyclopedia is that it's continually updated. Why would we treat our readers and editors as if they were too dense to realise that when they read information from any source that information may be out of date?

I've got a couple of single volume encyclopedias on my bookshelf and without looking I can tell you they contain descriptions of the World Trade Center in New York as a contemporary building, and have absolutely nothing about Presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama, or Al Qaeda. Yet somehow I manage to cope with these "out-of-date" works. This doesn't mean I'm unique, it's what humans do.

Wikipedia's a step up from those encyclopedias in terms of currency, but of course it's always in need of update. That's what the edit links are for.

Why on earth do we need this insulting, pointless template? --TS 07:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That question can be asked for a lot of templates, actually. In this case, the point of this template is (I think) to notify our readers of non-obvious or blatant cases of out-of-date-ness. For instance, articles that state that something will be released "soon", even though said article hasn't been updated in 3 years. Of course, templates like these are being used way, way, way too often. --Conti| 08:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The template also adds the article to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating, which I'd guess increases the odds of the article being updated promptly. W.stanovsky (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why this template is useful...

A belated reply: the template is good for articles about TV series, e.g. lists of characters, often go out of date when a new season starts. As of today, some the entries in List of characters in The Killing only reflect the first (2011) season, which is why I looked up this template. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


I believe this template needs to go with a date WHEN it was put into an article. That would make it easier to find out whether significant new information was included into the respective article after the template was added. -- (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Already supported: try |date=. I've updated the documentation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Design updates[edit]

{{edit protected}}

Please replace with the sandbox.

  1. I've updated the default for parameter "type" to Template:SUBJECTSPACE formatted, so the template can be used in multiple namespaces without necessarily having to add the "type" parameter.
  2. I've removed what I think to be a contradiction in the template. The template says that the page "may" need to be updated, and then invites removal of the template once it's done. "May" seems to imply may or may not, which seems to indicate that the template would be retained. Either that or it allows that the user placing the template is unsure whether the page needs to be updated. If it's the former, removing may means it becomes obvious that the template should be removed after updating, so the template is made more concise. If it's the latter, in my view, a person shouldn't template an article unless a problem actually exists. The alternative is always discussing a merely possible concern on the talk page. So I've removed "may" and the request to remove the template.
  3. I've changed the image to the one used on the majority of "current" templates. I think this design consistency will promote recognition of the template and its connection with the other "current" templates.

--Bsherr (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As this is quite a significant change there would be no harm in discussing it before placing the {{editprotected}} and I would ask you to consider this next time. However this is a low-traffic talk page and the changes seem reasonable so I am happy to apply WP:BOLD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. This may be reverted on request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. I welcome and encourage WP:BRD on this and any of my template edits. --Bsherr (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please add the parameter demospace = {{{demospace|}}} to mbox, to enable the table in the documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template[edit]

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)(background check) 20:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Inline version created[edit]

I've created {{Update-small}} (the name {{Update-inline}} being taken), as an inline version of this template, for articles (hence no context detection). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Recursion alert: Template seems to be saying itself is out of date[edit]

The template's self-display at the top of the page makes it look like the template itself needs to be updated, since the template is auto-detecting the fact that it is in a template namespace. We may need something like a "<nowiki>" operator to prevent that kind of thing from happening. (Hope that makes sense... please let me know if not) --Middle 8 (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the examples in the documentation, it's supposed to reflect the namespace of the page upon which it's placed. This is controlled by |demospace=.
As a side issue: why does the {{main other}} have |demospace={{{demospace|}}} twice? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This template is out of date. -- πϵρήλιο 11:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


The template {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|Out of date}} needs to be added. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger with "Out of date"[edit]

I closed the 2012 August 13 discussion as merge with the addition of "inaccurate=yes" to provide the stronger language and categories in Template:Out of date. Please discuss any implementation details here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Added to the sandbox the |inaccurate= switch that categorizes with Category:Articles with obsolete information instead of Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. Should the parent category stay as Category:All Wikipedia articles in need of updating with both versions? Also, does the text of the message need to change as well? There was some talk of "stronger language" at the TfD, but toward the end it looked like the only concern was over a "higher priority" category for inaccurate information. — Bility (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox code can be synced with main template, examples are on the testcases. Category and text have been changed when the |inaccurate= flag is used, per the TfD. — Bility (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about that, I missed the talk page parameter. Added it to the sandbox, it's a very small edit. Please sync again when you get the chance. Thanks! — Bility (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please update the documentation on Template:Out of date/doc and Template:Update/doc? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Out of date's doc will be deleted, no need to update it. — Bility (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for updating Template:Update/doc. Shouldn't there be some note added to Template:Out of date/doc to explain that the template shouldn't be used anymore? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013[edit]

to complete the merger (see here) we need to change

   |Parts of this article (those related to {{{1|}}}) are '''outdated'''
   |This article is '''outdated'''


     |This section is '''outdated'''
     |Parts of this article (those related to {{{1|}}}) are '''outdated'''
   |This article is '''outdated'''

a bot has already changed all the {{update section}} links to {{update|section}}, so this change will make {{update|section}} work properly without breaking the old functionality. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean like this? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
yes, we can deal with an optional {{{2}}} later. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Done although the indenting might be a little off. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── X mark.svg Broken @Frietjes: This appears to have stopped working at some point ... can you figure out how to fix it? —SamB (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@SamB: I fixed your example, it's only not working in non-articles. I can make it work in non-articles if there is a need for it. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

update section with explanation?[edit]

Is there a way to use {{update}} with both an explanation of what needs to be updated and the section parameter? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best to put your explanation/description of the problem on the talk page; you can also use the |talk= parameter - when that is non-blank, the banner has additional text "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.", where the words "talk page" are linked to the section specified by |talk=. For example, you might create a talk page discussion headed "Outdated information", so you would put {{update|section|date=April 2013|talk=Outdated information}} --Redrose64 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2013[edit]

Change "Please update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information." to "Please update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information, and see the talk page for more information about this."

This improves the flow of the text and adds a link to edit the page. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 12:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. IIRC there was a sweep a couple of years back with the aim of removing all action=edit links from cleanup banners. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the change of grammar require consensus? Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 15:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It's more than a simple change of grammar; it's an alteration to the template's structure. Please put your proposal into [Template:Update/sandbox|the sandbox]] so that it can be tested and compared directly with the current version, per WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Will do, once I get back on my computer (doing something like that on a 4.7 inch screen is going to be fiddly). Insulam Simia (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Has been modified ever so slightly from what I requested above. Insulam Simia (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I adjusted it slightly, since if there was no talk page, there would not be a period. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay. When will this update be applied to the main template? Insulam Simia (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Insulam Simia (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Icon update[edit]

I think File:Ambox current red.svg can replace old icon, like in other templates. Ambox icon set is widely used in Wikipedia, that's why I propose this small cosmetic change. --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for consensus. --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've made the change. If anyone disagrees we can revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Case of completely outdated articles[edit]

For completely outdated articles, {{update||December 2006}} gives quite useful message:

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
Last update: December 2006

I would nornmally expect that when you add an explicit |date= parameter, as in {{update|date=December 2013|December 2006}}, the message should only change to reflect the date on which the article was tagged, something like

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (December 2013)
Last update: December 2006

However the whole message actually changes completely to read

Parts of this article (those related to December 2006) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (December 2013)

It seems like the second unnamed parameter is now treated as a text parameter describing the subject of outdated information.

I thereby suggest to introduce a new named parameter for the date of the last update, something like |lastupdate=. -- (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In {{update||December 2006}}, December 2006 is in the second positional parameter, the first being empty (but present). In {{update|date=December 2013|December 2006}}, December 2006 is in the first positional parameter, the second now being absent: |date=December 2013 is not a positional parameter, but a named parameter, and these do not count towards the numbering of positional parameters. You can achieve what you desire using {{update||December 2006|date=December 2013}} which yields
This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
Last update: December 2006 (December 2013)
Therefore, I don't think that any change is needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support for giving reasons[edit]

Hi please add support for adding for example {{update|Page haven't been updated recently please update this page}} (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for there to be some space for users to indicate what in particular they feel makes the article outdated. Someone the Person (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to Module:Update[edit]

Hi could we move this template to lua scripting at Module:Update please. I have adding the code for going to the page of Module:update in sandbox but I doint know how to code but I see lua seems to be better then do it in a template because you can do more with lua then the template. (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Add category for templates[edit]

Please add category for template so that it is easer to find templates that needs updating like articles and pages please. Paladox2017 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are asking for, but this template populates (adds articles to) Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating, per its template documentation. Does this template itself "need updating"? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
yes what if it need a big update or needs a minor update do to changes in Mediawiki and the template it's self hasent been updated in while and you put the update template in the template it only show the template it dos not put it into a category like the article one does. Please add one for template or keep the same one but add it to the section for template (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs updating does not necessarily imply "outdated"[edit]

Please change references to "outdated" in this template with "needs updating". It can be quite misleading to label an article as a whole as "outdated" when it merely needs updating on some particular point. If a template is needed for articles that, taken as whole are "outdated" then there should be a separate template, {{outdated}}. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Delaying update, let's have a day or two for more feedback on this one. I think 'needs updating' is a little to vague for a casual editor, 'lacks currency' seems more in line, but I really don't like that phrasing either. Note this template is currently on ~12,000 pages. — xaosflux Talk 02:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – xaosflux' motion seconded. From a dictionary here are some alternatives:
  • outdated
adjective – old-fashioned, dated, obsolete, out of date, passé, antique, archaic, unfashionable, antiquated, outmoded, behind the times, out of style, obsolescent, unhip (slang), démodé (French), out of the ark (informal), oldfangled
I lean toward "out of date" myself. That is used in one version of the template, but the dictionary reflects that hyphens, as in "out-of-date", are not correct. That needs to be altered. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Turns out that I am wrong about the hyphens; to use the phrase "out of date" by itself, e.g., "This article is out of date," then no hyphens are used. In this template, however, the phrase is used in its adjective form, and whenever such a phrase is used like that, e.g., "This article contains out-of-date information," then the hyphens should be used. Mybad. Face-smile.svg – Paine  00:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to add optional project-specific category param[edit]

This week I created Category:Rail transport articles in need of updating and started populating it with articles within WP:WikiProject Trains scope that were marked with {{update}}, {{update inline}} and {{update after}}. While update after includes a parameter for an additional category (the fourth unnamed parameter), neither update nor update inline have such a parameter. Another editor suggested that we create a wrapper template that would call update and update inline as well as including the category. I don't see other projects creating wrapper templates like that, and I think the better solution would be to include an optional category= parameter that would work like the category parameter in update after. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 16:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Slambo and Magioladitis, would this work? Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's what is needed for project management. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Slambo and Magioladitis, done, an additional category can be added with |cat=. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)