Template talk:CurrMY

About rewriting statements "as of YYYY-MM-DD" into "as of currMY"

I'm not sure I feel comfortable with the idea of changing phrases like "as of year/month/day" into "as of {{currMY}}". Before the change, it seems to be a specific statement, which is either true (and will remain true) or false (and will remain false). After the change, it is not a specific statement anymore -- rather, it becomes a whole sequence of different statements, some of which might be true and others might be false. I think it might be better to have in the wiki (sometimes) an obsolete information with specific date, rather than true statements (sometimes) automatically becoming false statements. Confocal (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. HotdogPi (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

ditto Book (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

For a statement "as of {{currMY}}, no pattern with such property exists", it will remain true as long as no such pattern exists, and it is more up-to-date than using "as of year/month/day" when somebody just happened to think of checking the status. When a pattern with such property is found, it is expected for editors to delete in time the statement that has just shortly become false and add a description for the fresh discovery. What is the point of keeping a misleading (by virture of being outdated, not reflecting recent situation) statement of non-existence of something if nobody intends to update it? (Note: on the other hand I am fine with an existential statement like "as of year/month/day, one or more pattern with such property exists"; even if outdated it is verifiable and less misleading than the contrary.) GUYTU6J (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• A statement with a specific fixed date is not misleading, and does not cause any harm, even if outdated. There's nothing wrong with having a statement "As of 2012, ..." even today in 2023. What is misleading is the idea of putting in statements that automagically become false in the midnight, and expecting that other editors will be particularly happy about this and agree to make them true again and again. TL, DR: do not create more work for other editors. Confocal (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am only concerned about statements of non-existence, which automatically becomes false once an existence is found and thus should be edited out. "As of [an outdated] year/month/day, no existence of something is known" has a implication, which is misleading: that this "something" was, but is no longer of interest of anyone, such that no one has attempted to find/build this "something", let alone updating this statement, since the outdated date. And there was a discussion on your talk page that opposed claims of "no longer considered important/interesting".

I would say that a simpler way "not [to] create more work for other editors" is to eliminate a direct statement of non-existence. GUYTU6J (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• I do not see any such implication. A statement "As of 2012, no existence of X is known" does not seem to imply anything about whether or not X was/is of interest to anyone -- let alone any further attempts to find/build X. Confocal (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The template {{currMY}} currently fails to give any answer to the question "What are the intended contexts where this template is designed to be used?" Existing transclusions are apparently problematic, precisely because they do not have a fixed date where a fixed date is expected. Statements "As of (date), ..." are supposed to have fixed dates, not something updated dynamically. As it stands, I think the template should be deleted and transclusions should be (by default) reverted to the last version before the edit which added the transclusion. Confocal (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That you do not see the implication does not ensure that no LifeWiki reader would think that way and then ask questions like "what is the current status, and why is LifeWiki not updated".

The template {{currMY}} is to update statements of non-existence automatically so as to reduce workload for editors (no need to manually update like this). Statements of existence backed by construction/proof has a fixed date (that of publication), while statements of non-existence not backed by any rigorous proof do not because they are (to different possibilities) prone to be ruled out in a future date. GUYTU6J (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• For "why is LifeWiki not updated", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer which seems to apply here as well. Editors are volunteers. The most reasonable thing to expect here seems to be that sometimes some statements will be outdated. If a reader sees an outdated statement, and the reader knows enough to update it, then the reader is welcome to boldly update it. Confocal (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• What is unreasonable is expecting wiki editors to track every instance of "currMY" and update them, regardless of their area of expertise. I believe this template is harmful. There is no need to hide outdated-ness of statements from people -- there should be a fixed date after "as of", not something that changes automatically. Confocal (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It is also unreasonable to expect wiki editors to (more frequently) track every instance of "as of year/month/date" and update them. On the contrary, only one edit is needed given a currMY statement of non-existence: when the subject is found/built, replace "as of currMY there is no this thing" with a description of the new discovery. Am I not clear enough that there is a distinction between statements of existence and non-existence? GUYTU6J (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to "track every instance" at all (let alone more frequently). If a statement "As of January 2012, there are no known examples of X" is observed in LifeWiki in 2023, that's perfectly fine. Confocal (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Why cannot we just have "Currently there are no known examples of X" if there has been no actual updates since then? GUYTU6J (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"Since then" -- since when, exactly? A statement of the form "As of (date), (something)" remains true, even if/when it becomes obsolete. In comparison, a statement of the form "Currently (something)" easily breaks in pieces as soon as it becomes outdated. The preferred constructions are those retaining their meaning as time passes. Confocal (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

When either "Currently, (something)" or "As of (date), (something)" is outdated and breaks in pieces, it takes one edit to fix. Before that, though, "Currently" needs no date-updating but "As of (date)" needs. So "Currently" takes fewer edits to maintain. GUYTU6J (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

An "as of" construction with a fixed static date does not break. It remains true, even if the existing knowledge changes. Consequently, there is no necessity to update it whenever knowledge changes -- in other words, zero edits needed for an "as of (fixed date), ..." wording, and zero is less than one. Are you going to argue over that? However, the real issue is not the number of edits needed -- rather, the real issue is whether or not the statement is time-dependent. The wording "Currently, ..." is time-dependent. The wording "As of (fixed date), ..." is not. Confocal (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That may be the case for a stable media, but in the context of a wiki, edits are time-dependent for they reflecting the understanding of the editor at the time of editing. This applies to an "as of (fixed date)" statement too. I am not convinced that a very outdated "as of (fixed date)" statement takes zero edit. GUYTU6J (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am answering specifically in the context of a wiki. The "understanding of the editor" is irrelevant. The wording "As of (fixed date), ..." is time-independent. Time-independent wording is preferred -- if the claim was true, it remains true in the future. Besides, I think there are few "very outdated" statements in LifeWiki -- and even those do not need any "quick action". If a statement does not become false with new knowledge, there is no need to watch and update it. Confocal (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the "distinction between statements of existence and non-existence" is irrelevant. If a statement "As of January 2012, there are 138 known examples of X" is observed in LifeWiki in 2023, that's fine too. Confocal (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If you know enough about some subject, go ahead and update the stuff. Otherwise, leave it to Someone Else. No harm in leaving it outdated for another five years or so. Confocal (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This template misses the whole point of writing "as of [date]". In the best case, this is equivalent to not writing "as of [date]" at all; in the worst case it is worse because it implies that the statement is not outdated even when it is.
Example: Say there's a statement "As of April 2023, there is no known period-19 oscillator". Now imagine a period-19 oscillator gets discovered later this year. With the template, next year the statement would read "As of January 2024, there is no known period-19 oscillator", which is false. --Galoomba (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)