Talk:SS Keno

What is wrong with “is currently”?

When used with the present tense of a verb, “currently” is almost always unnecessary since the present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.

In the case of this article, is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?"

• The SS Keno is currently berthed in a dry dock on the waterfront of the Yukon River"
• The SS Keno is berthed in a dry dock on the waterfront of the Yukon River"

User:Pyrope says that currently "implies that this is the present situation but has not always been thus". Are we sure that the reader will get the implication? First of all, it is a boat, so the reader is going to expect that at some time it was not berthed, but travelling. It is a mobile object. Secondly, it is better to be explicit that to imply. The next paragraph says "For most of its career it transported silver, zinc and lead ore from mines in the Mayo district to the confluence of the Yukon and Stewart rivers at Stewart City", which is clear and unambiguous, rather than implying.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the present tense the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently” or "presently" is not correct.

1. Stephen Harper is currently prime minister of Canada.
2. Stephen Harper is prime minister of Canada.

1. The Burj Khalifa is currently the tallest building in the world.
2. The Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world.

The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?

• I am sick.
• It is raining.
• He is naked.

No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Stephen Harper is not the eternal prime minister of Canada. – he is limited by the will of Parliament and his own mortality.

Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”? There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.

For example:

• The restaurant will be open tomorrow morning, but it is closed now.
• I was feeling sick this afternoon, but I’m all right now.

In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear. Sorry for the long rant, but it bugs me that verbs are not being left to do their jobs in peace without superfluous modifiers. Ground Zero | t 13:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This construction, used for emphatic purposes, is pretty common. Your overly-strict and proscriptive interpretation of English grammar really isn't helpful. Try Googling the phrase and you'll see what I mean. This is a difference of opinion and nothing more; neither form is a right or wrong way to arrange this sentence and if you believe one is you have been poorly educated. Pyrope 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for emphasis here, or redundancy. It is simply incorrect to assert that the present tense implies permanence, as I think I have explained pretty clearly above. There is also no excuse for making personal attacks, which violates Wikipedia policy. You can disagree with my arguments without disparaging my education. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty on both points. At what point did I say that unadorned present tense implies permanence? What I said was that the adjunct emphasises the change in circumstance; this does not imply that use of the simple present tense is limited to permanence. As for the second point, your belief that there is a right and wrong way to construct that sentence is plainly a deficiency in understanding or education. If you are thin-skinned enough to interpret that as a personal attack then that is your affair, but it isn't and was not intended as such. Pyrope 20:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment that is currently is an "idiomatic use, implies that this is the present situation but has not always been thus". Wikipedia aims to maintain a more standard of discourse than, for example, web forums (see WP:CIVIL), which is why the Wikipedia community has adopted its policy on no personal attacks. It is both more civil and more effective to challenge someone's argument on its own merits, and provide evidence to support your argument, than it is to say that someone is wrong because they "have been poorly educated". I have trouble seeing how you did not intend that as a personal attack, but I will take you at your word. You don't know how I've been educated, so you are not in any position to comment on it. Feel free to disagree with what I write, but making baseless attacks on another editor's education is not necessary or cool. Ground Zero | t 12:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With reference to your first point, repeating a fallacious argument doesn't suddenly make it meaningful. As for this persistence with the idea that I personally attacked you, you seem to have a limited range of understanding of more than just a few phrases in common use in English prose. When I say "poorly educated" think "misinformed" or "badly advised". Your argument was based solely on your own misplaced prejudice against the "is currently" formation, so it was that I was directly challenging. As for the tedious quoting of blue wikidogma links, try WP:AGF for size and make sure of your own position before you cast your own stones. Pyrope 05:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)