Template talk:Update

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

Template merged from Template:Out of date; see old talk-page here.

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]

Because:

  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 [needs update]. 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. --85.5.154.155 (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]

{{help}}
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)
And who looks at Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating? C'mon people. This template can be put on almost every single article. For instance, many cities still have 2000 population statistics. Why don't people put this template on those cities before putting it on an amusement park, like Wild Adventures. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2015 (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)

Date[edit]

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. --79.207.190.53 (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)
 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)

 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)

TFD[edit]

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)

 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)
 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

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   |Parts of this article (those related to {{{1|}}}) are '''outdated'''
   |This article is '''outdated'''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

to

{{#if:{{{1|}}}
   |{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section
     |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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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=. --92.242.58.13 (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}} 86.135.248.16 (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. 86.135.248.16 (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 86.135.248.210 (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)

Reason should be mandatory[edit]

Editors adding this tag should be obliged to link to a talk page explanation or (when brief) include an explanation in the banner itself. This is especially true when the template is added at the top of an article. The text "This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information" is often useless. Why is the article outdated? Which parts are outdated? What needs to be fixed? If the editor cannot provide this information then they should not be adding the tag. 86.183.129.51 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

For the article version of the template please edit it to read "This article is outdated. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information, and update the references accordingly." or something else similar, making sure to include that the references should be updated. KieranTribe 11:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Seems like a reasonable change, but given that this template is widely used by Twinkle you should get consensus first. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 13:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks Ahecht. KieranTribe 14:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Improvements[edit]

I have two suggested improvements:

  1. Allow explanations when using the template as a section
  2. Add an alternate method for explanations to be incorporated into the article. The use of "(those relating to...)" in parentheses makes it difficult to phrase some explanations. In my case, two significant reports were released pertaining to the article subject. The way in which the article needs to be updated is a lot of small changes and the need to mention the reports in the body of the article (a lot of work, so I wanted to add this tag and update the article later). A simple solution is to allow a parameter to add an explanation as a sentence in the middle of the template:
Parts of this article are outdated. On 3 December 2015, [agency] released a report about [yada yada]. Please update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information and see the talk page for possible discussion on this.

AHeneen (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, keep it short. If a lengthy explanation is needed, put it on the article's talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The change isn't to allow long explanations, just that the wording "those related to" isn't appropriate for all explanations. AHeneen (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please fix text[edit]

Someone with access to the page, please fix the following:

To mark a section, use:
{{Update|section|date={{CURR[[File:Insert non-formatted text here]][[File:Example Jpg~~~~≈]]ENTMONTHNAME}} 2016}}

Thanks. --ob C. alias ALAROB 00:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alarob: Please give an example of a page where you see this problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: It's in the template documentation. The bold text needs to come out. --ob C. alias ALAROB 16:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong there. In any case, if it's in the documentation, "someone with access to the page" is you - doc pages are rarely protected, and this one is no exception.

Template-protected edit request on 28 July 2016[edit]

This template, as currently implemented does, not support saying that parts of section are outdated, which I wanted to say at Death of Freddie Gray (which has since been updated). I have coded such a change in this template's sandbox (Template:Update/sandbox), and the testcases (including some which I added) look identical. Thus, I am requesting that the sandbox be synced to add support for {{Update|section|what needs updating}}.


Pppery (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Several things: is Template:Update/testcases#Content/Part param broken?
Was the intention only to change mainspace behavior? The current sandbox does not include changes to non-mainspace pages (i.e. the second ambox).
Unless I'm mistaken, I think {{CURRENTYEAR}} (or something similar?) is preferable to the hard-coding of the year 2016.
Suggestion: to avoid support for a third unnamed param, and to avoid collision between a date and a section in the second param, I suggest a named param to avoid the convoluted logic involving {{#iferror:{{#time:, etc. Can the editor specify "28 July 2016" to be the section to be discussed rather than a date, for example?
For all these uncertainties and questions, I'm making this not done for now. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: To answer all your questions:
  1. I did intend to change only the behavior in mainspace, as the non-mainspace code does not support sections in the first place
  2. The hard-coded 2016 is not actually used anywhere. Its only purpose is to be a valid time that doesn't trigger an error when passed to the #time parser function. Perhaps some HTML comments would clarify that.
  3. Yes, that testcase you linked to was broken. I just fixed it in the sandbox.
  4. I think that the template syntax will be very inconsistent if {{Update|section|part needing to be updated}} doesn't work, but {{Update|part needing to be updated}} does (the latter example works today and thus shouldn't be broken). However, it might make sense to add some named parameter aliases.
Pppery (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pppery: Ahh, thanks. I have a long-term proposal: we can avoid "checking the type" of param 2 to find if the user meant "last updated" or "part needing update" (parser functions can be costly in performance). It's probably more efficient if "last update" is controlled by a new |update= or |lastupdate=, and |2= is repurposed to function like you intend here. Though it's best if we keep params to a minimum (I think a lot of folks here don't like param growth / over-aliasing). The transition would need a (temporary) tracking category (something like this), and a WP:BRFA perhaps to fix instances among the 14K transclusions to be responsible.
But in the meantime, the sandbox could potentially go live first...? Reopened the request, perhaps another can take a look or offer feedback. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 17:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, I don't see why the need? There is facility to point to a talk-page section where editors can be specific about needed updates to a section. So explanations can be just one click away. This makes it hard to agree that any modification to this template is needed.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  19:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case, the template falsely suggests that the entire section needs updating, when actually only a small part of it does. Pppery (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
"This section is outdated. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2016)" No. This says to me that "the section is outdated", which to me means that parts of the section need to be updated (it could be argued that if a part of a section is outdated, then yes, the entire section is outdated). There is a way to link to a talk-page section to give details on exactly what needs to be updated. And all this is based upon the premise that the tagging editor would go to all this trouble of tagging and detailing on the talk page rather than just to go ahead and update the section.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  19:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do not understand the purpose of the last sentence of your reply ("And all this is based upon the premise that the tagging editor would go to all this trouble of tagging and detailing on the talk page rather than just to go ahead and update the section"). This edit request is trying to make that step easier by allowing editors to explain what part needs to be updated on the article rather than forcing the extra level of indirection of a talk page post. Also, my previous reply is still valid if you replace "needs updating" with "is outdated". ("In that case, the template falsely suggests that the entire section is outdated, when actually only a small part of it is.") Thirdly, the feature of specifying which parts of the article are out of date already exists when one is not using the |section feature of the template. Pppery (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

To Pppery: This is to explain the purpose of my last sentence, with apologies for taking so long (I'm on a mission of late). "And all this is based upon the premise that the tagging editor would go to all this trouble of tagging and detailing on the talk page rather than just to go ahead and update the section." This happens to be one of my internal sorenesses when it comes to maintenance tags like this one. I've never been wild about such tags; however, I have recognized many of them as necessary evils. My absolutely off-topic sentence above simply refers to the fact that most editors who are into using these tags just tag the article or section and go on to something else. They really don't take the time to explain on the talk page or even to use a parameter to tell why they think the tag is justified and needed. My sentence was just a sort of blowing off of steam that was not valid to this discussion. And I would agree with you that "needs updating" is superior to "is outdated".  Temporal Sunshine Paine  16:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. It's already possible. Paste the following into an article and preview:
{{update|date=July 2016}}
{{update|inaccurate=yes|date=July 2016}}
{{update|section|date=July 2016}}
{{update|section|inaccurate=yes|date=July 2016}}
{{update|the list of services|date=July 2016}}
{{update|the list of services|inaccurate=yes|date=July 2016}}
compare them and observe the last two in particular. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: You seem to be missing the point of this edit request. The feature I am trying to add is to let you say "Parts of this section (those related to foo) need to be updated", which is not happening in any of your examples. Pppery (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Put {{update|foo|date=July 2016}} at the top of whichever section "foo" is in. This position makes it clear that it doesn't necessarily mean the whole article. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Which makes the template incorrectly say ("Parts of this article ...") (emphasis mine). Also, what if the section in question is the lead? Pppery (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
But this wasn't put in the lead section, and it reads just fine, so your question is hypothetical. Unless you were wondering why |section was ignored? That's easy: |part= is an alias for |1=, so |section (which is shorthand for |1=section) works exactly like |part=section. Similarly, |part=future trial dates of officers may be written as |1=future trial dates of officers or just |future trial dates of officers. When both are used, |part= has higher precedence, so when |part= is present, |1= is ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see your point - what I was previously saying about the template saying false statements was overly harsh. However, I still believe that not letting me say "parts of this section ..." is forcing me to omit information. In any case, it is clear that this is not going to happen. Pppery (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want; you can put |parts of this section if you like, or |part=parts of this section - it comes to the same thing. The point is that there is only one parameter for this, and that is in common with all the other cleanup banners such as {{refimprove}}. If we made this one accept two, some people would expect that all the others accepted two as well, and would complain that only one was respected. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
{{refimprove}} does not support specifying that only part of an article needs better sources. {{update}} does. Pppery (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you think {{refimprove|section}} does then? Or {{refimprove|table of film roles}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I was confused when I made the previous comment (though I was talking about {{refimprove|table of film roles}}, which in fact is supported) Pppery (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 October 2016[edit]

Please make it so that this template will support the use of both the "section" parameter and the "those related to" parameter will not conflict. Currently, the template can use one or the other, but never both. I realize this may require an update to Twinkle.

Gestrid (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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. There is no {{{those related to}}} parameter, or anything similar. What parts of the code are you wanting to change? Primefac (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: Unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with template code. What I was wanting was the ability to use the "section" parameter and the parameter that shows what parts of the article need updating at the same time. Currently, the way the template works is it's either one or the other. If you use both, it ignores the first one and uses the latter one. For example, {{Update|section|update this}} would appear in the article as if I'd only used {{Update|update this}} and {{Update|update this|section}} would appear as if I'd only used {{Update|section}}. I was asking for the ability to use both at the same time. Gestrid (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
When is using |update this useful? It displays "Parts of this article (those related to update this) need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information." which isn't very helpful. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: |update this was just example text I used. When it's actually being used, you would replace that with whatever needs updating. Gestrid (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking for is necessary. If you place {{update|the parts about monkeys}} you get
If this is placed in a section, it's fairly clear that it's the section that needs updating, right? Personally, if I saw this in a section I wouldn't go to the section above it and try to update those bits. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: If you use |type=section it would show which is, I believe, exactly what you're looking for. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I didn't realize I could do that. I didn't see it in the template documentation. Gestrid (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not in the documentation, but I can change that ;) Primefac (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
No, Primefac and Gestrid, the solution you are using does not work in mainspace (and |type= is a somewhat misleading parameter name). See (which is the same example used in mainspace). I made this very same edit request in late July, which got rejected due to insufficient consensus, and my proposed code is still in the sandbox. Pinging participants in the above discussion: @Paine Ellsworth, Andy M. Wang, and Redrose64:. Pppery 17:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Taking a cue from various other templates, I enabled display of the invisible |reason= parameter, to serve this and similar purposes (see, e.g., the usage at LG G Pad 10.1). Due to the way |section is coded (it's actually a specially detected case of |1=section a.k.a. |part=section), it would be "painful" to enable simultaneous display of |part= and the output generated presently by |section. It would require re-coding for a |section=yes, while still retaining detection of the "historical" |section, and a whole lot of redundant code. This template already has too much of that. @Gestrid, Primefac, Paine Ellsworth, Andy M. Wang, Redrose64, and Pppery: pinging everyone mentioned, I think. I didn't realize anyone was paying much attention to this template, or I would have discussed the changes first, but I believe they're all productive and useful (e.g. enabling some parameter aliases, making the output more consistent between page types, and fixing bugs like the one reported below and some stray subst-related code that was just plain broken, but rarely triggered).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this template was ancient in its code and ironically needed to be updated itself.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: I disagree with the addition of |reason=, as completely redundant to |part=/|1=, except with slightly different wording. It should be possible to say {{update|section|...}} without using unnecessary named parameters or forcing a different syntax. Pppery 13:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not redundant; the parameters serve different purposes: |part= identifie one or more locations (typically sections, but it could be the infobox or the lead) with the identified problem; |reason= actually identifies the problem. A long-standing issue with this template has been that it is vague and unhelpful without |reason= (though of course some of us have been using |reason= as a non-displayed parameter in the code). If anything were to go away, it would be the dubiously useful, over-specific, and non-standard |part=. We've been using |reason= in both visible and non-displayed form on thousands of templates for over a decade; it's familiar and people know what it means. If the template is redeveloped in detail, it should be to remove that parameter, to support |section=y, and to also detect |section=, without doing anything else for any other value of |1=. We've been moving away, for years now, from using |section in any template and instead doing it as |section=y (though often supporting both, especially if the template originated with |section= syntax, which is rarely added to new templates). We sometimes also have Template:Templatename-section wrappers, though we seem to be moving away from that, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 November 2016[edit]

Resolved

The |inaccurate=yes parameter does not appear to work outside of article space. For example, see Wikipedia:Pending changes caveats and compare it to Category:Articles with obsolete information from November 2016. The former is not listed in the latter, but it should be. Gestrid (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I already fixed this in the course of making other improvements and updating the documentation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
This wasn't done and is working as intended. Wikipedia:Pending changes caveats is not an article, so it is not categorized. — JJMC89(T·C) 09:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Sorry, I misunderstood (skimming too fast). I thought the issue was that the output of the template wasn't consistent, that the |inaccurate=yes parameter was not working at all outside mainspace. It certainly is now, and there were display inconsistencies that I reconciled earlier today. But, yes, the category in question should clearly only contain articles, and that behavior was not changed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 February 2017[edit]

Please add |link= to the two use cases of File:Ambox current red.svg as this icon licensed under CC0 and doesn't require a link to its page. All code should look like this:

[[File:Ambox current red.svg|42px|link=]]
Thanks! RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2017[edit]

Currently, the reason parameter makes the template say "This [article/ section] needs to be updated. In particular: X. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information." (emphasis mine) with X being whatever is put in for |reason=. It should say something like "This [article/ section] needs to be updated. In particular, X should be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information." (emphasis mine again) This is grammatically correct and makes a complete sentence. Gestrid (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done. Please establish consensus before using {{edit template-protected}}. I'm worried that editors might already be working around this by using {{update|reason=X should be updated}}, in which case the template would now output X should be updated should be updated. However, if there's consensus to make this change, I'd be happy to do it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to ping @Gestrid:. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Ok. I didn't think it would need consensus since I didn't believe it would break any implementation currently used. The |reason= parameter isn't used very often, as far as I know. I'll go ahead and request consensus, though. Really, though, based on a previous discussion on this page, this template should probably be rewritten, anyway. Gestrid (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the section in "Update|section|date=November 2017"?[edit]

It would be convenient if a reader could click on the section in the hatnote to go to the section that needs updating, e.g. see Daylight saving time in the United States. Facts707 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Facts707: By default, the template applies to the whole article. If only one section needs update, put the template in the appropriate section and make sure that the |section parameter is present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This template is used to justify recentism[edit]

Hi, referring to this template shows up as an argument to delete information from the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s from articles by a user. This template is repeatedly referred to. Is this template intended to preclude having a History of subjects? Statistics clearly labelled "Number was NNNN in 2006" is not outdated, it's simply a historical statistic. An update would mean that 2017 statistics are added, not that 2017 should be used to the exclusion of everything else in prose. AadaamS (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: What do you think? Is the Update template meant to exclude older statistics & information to be used in articles? AadaamS (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
No, see WP:RECENTISM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Redrose64. Ping @Soupforone: please feel free to contribute. AadaamS (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Older statistics in themselves are not the problem. It was just determined on Village Pump that WP:NOTNEWS is essentially a rehash of WP:Recentism, so up-to-date figures are not an example of recentism unless those figures are derived from news outlets rather than from official outlets/government [1]. The actual crux of the issue is therefore (1) trying to substitute up-to-date figures with older figures, contrary to Template:Update and WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available"); (2) putting undue weight on the older figures relative to the up-to-date figures, which is also against those policies; and (3) the actual quality of those older figures relative to the up-to-date figures (i.e. news-derived, unofficial, partisan or red-flag figures vs. official figures). Soupforone (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I see it this way: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a description of the world as it stands at this moment. Consider an article about a sports team: it shows their current standing in whichever major competitions thay are participating in, but it also shows how they did in previous major competitions, right back to when the team was formed. Those years or seasons where they performed particularly well will get more coverage than those where their performance was less than mediocre, but we do not exclude years entirely, unless for some reason the team was inactive (for example, Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. between 1974 and 1987). Thus, the {{update}} template may be used on the article about a sports team where the most recent season or year hasn't yet been described, but when adding the description for the most recent year and removing the {{update}}, we do not expunge the previous season. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Simply adding older WP:RS figures or information to an article is not placing undue weight on them, as these kinds of figures on many occasions have been rejected or deleted for no other reason than simply being old. See for instance Talk:Somalis in Sweden, where this template was referred to in many instances. If figures were released for the 1990s and they haven't been revised since, then they aren't "outdated", they are simply "old", like the wheel. Also, competition with alternative theories, or controversial must be proven by WP:RS sources, figures can't be deleted because an ENWP editor thinks they are controversial. How is the WP:AUDIENCE to find out, say, the population of the United Kingdom in the 1970s if the population has grown since and this template is misused this way? AadaamS (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write that older figures in themselves were a problem. I wrote that trying to substitute up-to-date figures with older figures is the problem, as are putting undue weight on the older figures relative to the up-to-date figures, and the actual quality of those older figures relative to the up-to-date figures. Soupforone (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Quality problems with older official figures must be addressed by WP:RS, deleting them because you prefer figures from last year (as many Soupforone edits do) is not the way. This issue should be settled now: both current and older figures belong in ENWP. It was completely obvious to nearly everyone. AadaamS (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A straw man fallacy as well. No matter - Template:Update is clear that "factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information." That is the actual policy. Soupforone (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)