Template:When/doc
 | This is a documentation subpage for Template:When. It may contain usage information, categories and other content that is not part of the original template page. |
Usage
Add {{When}} after a time period to indicate that the time period is vague or ambiguous and would be clearer by being reworded more precisely. Do not use for disputes: If the date in question is disputed (controversial, unlikely, impossible or otherwise more problematic than simply needing clarification), use {{citation needed}}, {{dubious}}, {{disputed-inline}} or some other dispute template.
After placing the template in the article, it is a good idea to create a new When heading on that page's talk page, so as to provide a forum to discuss the unclear time reference.
Examples
The following are some examples of unclear time references.
References tied to the present
Wikipedia pages will exist for decades, and any reference to the present "now" will be incorrect or misleading in a year or two. In fact, since Wikipedia readers cannot easily determine when a particular statement was written, any use of the present is immediately unclear as to when exactly is meant.
Sentences tied to the present that are likely to grow out-of-date may revealed by:
- Words such as "presently", "currently", "now" or "today";
- References to "this year", "this decade" or "this century";
- Phrases such as "is in talks", "is planning", or "to this day".
- Statements that use the word "still" in a context such as, "The statue is still standing in its original location."
Forward- and backward-looking statements may also be unintentionally anchored in the present:
- Sentences about future intentions ("will acquire Saab")
- The present perfect progressive ("has been recording a new single")
- The immediate past ("for the past 10 years")
- Relative time references ("last year", "10 years ago", "in 10 years", "within a decade", etc)
One way to correct such usage is with an introductory phrase such as "In April 2007" or "As of 2007" (best used with the {{As of}} template). Another way is to omit the present reference altogether (e.g. replace "He has worked there for the past 10 years and still works there today" with "He first began work there in 1995".)
Imprecise time specifiers
Other time references may also be vague or ambiguous. Words like "recent", "lately" or similar may need clarification. Is "recent" used to mean last week, last month, last year, last century? Such wording may not be obvious to the reader unless it is clarified or reworded.
There are many such words or phrases that may imply a certain amount of time had passed without exactly indicating how long or when. Some further examples include:
- "for some time"
- "for a while"
- "often"
- "frequently"
- "previously"
- "formerly"
- "the other day"
- "at one point"
- "at a certain point"
- "during one period" (or "stage" or "phase")
Another example is the phrase "used to" when applied in a context such as, "He used to go there every day."
International ambiguity
A date written in the format nn/nn/2009 may mean different things in different countries. To some, 1/4/2009 means "1 April 2009", to others, "4 January 2009".
Seasons used as times
Seasons are local phenomena and their usage as a substitute for dates, month names and the like is an example of systemic bias.
This usage often manifests itself in phrasing like the following:
- (some event happened) in the (season) of (year).
- (something was completed) by [the] (season) [of (year)].
Most commonly, such phrasing uses Northern Hemisphere temperate zone seasons interchangeably with month names or other times, and this can be the source of confusion for people in the tropics or in the opposite hemisphere.
Google can be used to find some examples of such references efficiently, and this suggests that a bot can be written to work in a similar manner. A Google search like "the spring of" site:en.wikipedia.org typically returns several thousand hits, of which maybe half are phrases like "the spring of [year]". This suggests that tens of thousands of pages in the English-language Wikipedia may be in need of attention to remove this ambiguous phrasing.
Exceptions
In direct quotations, do not change any of the above. Instead give an explanation in square brackets:
- The statue is inscribed "1/4/2009" [1 April 2009]
See also
