This template is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
Adding and removing Template:Current by a robot using Wiki Statistics
Hi, I propose to add and remove this template automatically by a robot which uses Wiki statistics, without human intervention.
When a sharp increase in trend of views is seen ==> Add
When a sharp decrease in trend of views is seen ==> Remove
Significantly, this robot should have instant access (for example hourly or minutely) to Wiki statistics to do so (and not merely a daily access). Please discuss. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of implementation details to work out and potential pitfalls to consider (e.g. a popular artist releasing a new album isn't cause for {{Current}}). The first step would be defining "sharp increase/decrease" and generating a sample report of articles you'd want the bot to edit. Then see how many false positives/negatives there are. A database of articles that humans could review might ultimately be a better solution if the bot generates too many bad suggestions. Sdkbtalk19:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I really think that the purpose of this "current template" is that authors become somehow aware and ready for high views. So, if we add "current template" to Emperor penguin article which is not a real attentional cause but is adopted from another article, it is acceptable. I think it causes no problem. We can add "current template" to Emperor penguin too. This is my idea.
I would like to suggest removing the second parameter from the template. Presently, the template states, "This article documents a current event", with "current event" linked to Portal:Current events. The second parameter changes the link text "current event". The problem is that changing this text makes the link less intuitive, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Intuitiveness.
I understand the original purpose was to convert variant templates (weather, sports, elections, etc.), of which there used to be many, into transclusions of this template. Many of those variants are now gone, since changing "current event" to "current election" or "current sporting event" is irrelevant to the purpose of the template. Now the parameter seems only to be used for cosmetic purposes. If it's indeed true that labeling something a current [blank] as opposed to a current event is purely cosmetic, do we need that functionality, given how it obscures the link destination? Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revision for concision
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to make some wording changes to make this long template more concise. I have not removed any links or significantly changed the meaning of the notice. This is my proposed version:
| text = '''This {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|article}} documents {{#switch:{{lc:{{str left|{{{2|current event}}}|1}}}}|a|e|i|o|u=an|#default=a}} [[Portal:Current events|{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|current event}}]].''' Information may change rapidly and initial news reports may be [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Breaking news|unreliable]]. The [[Special:History/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|latest updates]] to this {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|article}} [[Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer|may not reflect]] the most current information.
| removalnotice = yes
| fix = You may [[Special:EditPage/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|improve]] or [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|discuss changes]] to this {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|article}}, but updates without [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable references]] will be removed.
I see, thanks. If I were a template editor, I would boldly implement my changes now (since they don't remove anything significant) and then start an RfC to use your version. Your proposal is a much bigger improvement but probably requires some kind of consensus. Toadspike[Talk]07:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over some of the earlier discussion. It seems this template's purpose has been unclear for a long time. My summary is that it has two purposes: 1. inform readers that the article may change rapidly and may be wrong. 2. inform editors that they might face edit conflicts and remind them to use up-to-date, reliable sources.
In my view, the latter purpose can be accomplished using an edit notice. Is it possible for a template to automatically add an edit notice to a page?
The former is what this template really should be for. I think Sdkb's sandbox link fulfills purpose 1 very well – the invitation to improve the article doubles as a warning to readers that the article may need improving. My only suggestion would be to link "reliable sources" to WP:RS, as the template currently does.
Back in 2014 there was talk an RfC to change the scope of this template would have to be listed on CENT, but that seems like overkill to me. We're just making a template that nobody really reads a little shorter. Toadspike[Talk]11:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Condense Template:Current
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Yes to all 5 changes (as delineated below). I appreciate you bringing this up again, Toadspike. The first thing to consider is that we have {{Current events editnotice}} in addition to this template. (I'm not sure if we've figured out yet how to get it to appear automatically whenever {{Current}} is used, but from an eventualist perspective we should proceed as if we have.) All information that is only important for editors rather than readers should appear only there. Second, as Toadspike mentions, banner blindness is a huge concern. When weighing whether to include a particular piece of info, we too often think about it in terms of "would it be helpful for someone to read this?" But since more info is almost always better than less, this leads us to bloated notices that no one reads (and that have to scream ever loader to try to shout over other notices). The way we should be thinking about any potential piece of info is, "Is this so essential that including it is worth the cost of it causing some people to skip reading the banner entirely?" With those things in mind, let's look at the specific changes between the current version and the streamlined version:
1: Change Information may change rapidly to It may change rapidly. The previous sentence is This article documents a current event, so it's clear what it refers to.
2: Remove and initial news reports may be unreliable. This is quintessential WP:NODISCLAIMERS. If we really wanted to keep the info, we could add it more concisely by making the next sentence of the streamlined version Please update outdated, incomplete, or incorrect information.
3: Change The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article to Please update outdated or incomplete information. This is more disclaimers, but even setting that aside, the invitation to update outdated info in the streamlined version directly implies that some info may be outdated, so the same info is imparted more concisely.
4: Remove or discuss changes on the talk page. We should consider that this template is specifically for current events, so the info in it should be particular to or particularly salient for current events. Every article has a talk page, and I don't see why it'd be more important to call it out for articles with this banner than others. I'm open to having more prominent invitations to talk pages, but such invitations should appear universally as part of the interface.
5: Change [Feel free to improve this article], but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed to [Please update outdated or incomplete information] with citations to reliable sources. The streamlined version retains the ask to use reliable sources but makes it more concise. It's also worth noting that {{Current events editnotice}} also has a reminder to use reliable sources. (Don't see it? That's because you don't need the reminder. It's tailored to only appear for non-extended confirmed users.)
There are probably a few things I'd do slightly differently if redesigning the template today, but on the whole it's a major improvement that'll give us a good base for any further tweaks.
One last ask of !voters (and apologies this is getting rather long): Please try to break down your !votes to specify which elements of the streamlining you support or oppose. There are really several changes bundled within this RfC, which I've numbered above if you want to refer to them, and the closer will be (or at least ought to be) looking to see if there is consensus for some but not others. Sdkbtalk15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read "it" as clearly referring to "this article". However, (mis)reading "it" as the "current event" still produces an accurate interpretation. Toadspike[Talk]17:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider an alternative approach. I understand the distaste for a banner that takes up a lot of vertical height, but there is important information to be considered which I am reticent to do away with. In the case of templates, there are ways of eating your cake and having it, too. Consider the {{expand language}} series of templates, which have only a brief intro visible, along with a collapsed section with voluminous, but important detail that could not easily be shortened further without leaving out something essential:
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in French. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 1,247 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of the French article]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated page|fr|Exact name of French article}} to the talk page.
As for the exact wording, I think a good deal was lost in the attempt to make it briefer. Perhaps a compromise approach would work here as well. As you can see, there is precedent for it. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot What, specifically, that was removed would you like to keep? I am open to using a collapsible box, but I would first have to be convinced that we have useful information to put into one. Toadspike[Talk]09:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) I find Sdkb's rationale compelling and support shortening the template's wording, though perhaps changing it to "This article documents a current event and may change rapidly" would remove any awkwardness around "it". - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Next steps
Unfortunately the RfC above had too little participation to reach consensus for a change. The feedback was very vague: two editors expressed opposition to removing "important information", but neither specified what information is "important", leaving me unclear about what to do. This template is still a mess with no clear purpose; I am thinking of making another edit request to implement Sdkb's proposal anyways, or at least select the changes that fix the WP:NODISCLAIMERS violations and request those first. Toadspike[Talk]08:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
