This template was considered for deletion on 2006 November 25. The result of the discussion was "keep".

—Bromskloss 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see Night Gyr agreed. —Bromskloss 13:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does this template not add the article it's used in to the category Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements along with the specified date? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That feature simply was never added. Moreover, this template does not have a date parameter, which means retroactive dating is going to be a bitch. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that sounds useful... Should a proper date parameter added? This template if any should make us of a date parameter. It wouldn't have to date things retroactively, we'd just leave them as text and deprecate the use of the current text parameter. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mistake. This template does have a date parameter, just that it is called "1". So changing this template to output a category and a dated category is not a problem. I asked one specific editor for his input to see if this is a good idea, but with hundreds of transclusions, I think it probably is. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. I thought the present parameter treated input as just text, as it accepts any argument. My idea was (and is) to add a new parameter that properly treats dates as dates, and call the old one 'alt text' or something. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just use Template:Fix. That is the standard template used for maintenance templates, and has all the necessary functions on board. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should interpret the as a Month Year date. If the conversion fails it can go in the parent cat, and I suspect be dealt with manually. Alternatively there are so few that the whole thing could be done manually or semi-manually.

It's not clear, for example, if "2014" should be interpreted as January or December, and indeed a list published in 2014 might contain data up to, for example, July 2012. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have added support for a "date" parameter,as suggested above. Note: This should not be added by the existing automatic methods. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Two questions. 1. Why not use ((Fix))? 2. Shouldn't the "includeonly" tag be closed as well? Debresser (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. I didn't use ((Fix)) because I wasn't sure if it would put an M-box or similar (which we don't want).
2. Yes, not closing it hid the documentation. I suspect the noinclude would have been fine without a close though.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I wonder if a new set of categories might be better.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I don't think so. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with it "not be[ing] added by the existing automatic methods" is that AnomieBOT is now complaining at me because it doesn't know what to do with all these pages now in Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. Please fix (you could manually date all the existing instances before adding the template to WP:AWB/DT, or change it to use a category that isn't in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month). Anomie⚔ 12:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those articles are all dated, just that the date format is Month Date, Year instead of Month Year. See e.g. this edit fixing one article. A bot could easily fix this. Anything that remains, I am willing to fix. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted the edit for now. Feel free to reinstate once Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements will no longer be polluted. Anomie⚔ 02:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted that. Polluting a maintenance category is reason to start fixing the date parameters, not to undo a good and consensus edit to a template. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh. It's sad that we can't have things working well because of a poorly-planned change to a template. Anomie⚔ 14:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed all of them. Although I really think that that is what bots are for. In any case, please add this template now to your bot, with redirect, dateformat fixes etc. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No the bot should not attend to them. I will sort this out when I get in, in a few hours. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

What is there to sort out, and why not let the bot add this template to its regular workings? Please notice that I changed all instances of a day parameter, some 450 of them, e.g. this edit. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some lists need the day level granularity. That is the reason that I didn't initially code (({date|(({1|)))))). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Why would they need to be precise up to the day? Debresser (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, your edit could be used on any and all maintenance templates, and would allow to add day parameters to all maintenance templates. Is that really something we want? I don't like the idea of creating a precedent. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, trying to parse times in |date= is a bad precedent and generally a recipe for trouble. If you want day-level resolution you should use |1=. The logic for the categorization could be (({date|((#if:(({1|))}|((#iferror:((#time:F Y|(({1|)))))))))))) if you're wanting to parse it out of |1=—the #if is necessary to avoid the category changing monthly when |1= is empty, and the #iferror is needed to avoid breaking poorly if #time fails to parse the value. Anomie⚔ 12:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that smarter logic could be used. This is a very different type of template than a clean-up template, although it shares some functionality.

Lets look at an example: Nobel prizes are awarded on 10 December. A current list is therefore

• complete up to 10 December 2015
• does not need routine updating until 10 December 2016

It should perhaps be tagged ((Complete list|2015|=date=December 2016))

Alternatively lists such as List of Places of Scenic Beauty of Japan (Hokkaido) or Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (C) can change at any time.

They are, quite correctly listed as (for example):

• Complete up to August 2, 2014
• Might need updating from August 2014

The person doing the updating needs to know which day, since they only need consider accessions and deletions on or after 2 August 2014.

It correctly tagged ((Complete list|August 2, 2014|date=August 2014))

Thus the day-by-day granularity is important to preserve, and should be used, where needed, in (({1))} - indeed (({1))} should be used even if it is redundant to (({date))}. But it won't be. And I am inclined to make life easier for our editors not harder.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You are saying it is like ((As of)), just something like ((Complete list as of)), and using normal date format, unlike "As of"? Debresser (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, syntactically, potentially we could support annual categories just as ((As of)) has, but I am not concerned about that right now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

If you're wanting ((update after))-like functionality, you should probably just use ((update after)). Anomie⚔ 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is more ((Updated)). Debresser (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should use this template, because it has the functionality we need. The fact that it is a different class should not present a problem, unlike the cosmetic differences between clean up templates that took much wiki-drama for myself and Debresser to resolve over many months, to build the uniform structure that (among other things) the bots thrive on, this is a difference based on the genuine needs of the project and should therefore be accommodated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'd hate to undo some 450 AWB edits. :) Also, not convinced that this is necessary. Debresser (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say that you want functionality like ((as of)) and/or ((update after)). But instead of using the logic of those two templates (if not the templates themselves), you want to try to get away with a freeform text field and then forbid bots from trying to maintain the categories that will be polluted when someone inevitably screws up the freeform text field. This seems like a poor design. Anomie⚔ 16:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template puts articles in a category listing potentially dated statements. What about historic lists that, once complete, will never become dated? For example, I've just added all election results for an electorate that was abolished in 1996. Could we add a parameter that identifies historic lists, i.e. those that will not become dated? Such a parameter should thus suppress the article being in the category of potentially dated lists. Schwede66 21:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]