This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Use ymd dates/doc#Multiple date format templates?. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Where on an article should this tag go? Top? Bottom? Somewhere inbetween? Lugnuts ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm altering the documentation as per that discussion. Top-placement has the potential to cause whitespace issues, and having a hard rule here is simply causing people to waste people's time with petty rules enforcement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
In this case I agree with Chris Cunningham , and disagree with Debresser. These templates are potentially useful, but I do not wish to clutter the top of the source with them, nor to scare new editors who are worried about their ability to edit to this guidance, or simply confused by additional top-cruft.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC).
{{
Use top-cruft}}
and {{
Use bottom-cruft}}
. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 10:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC).Is this tag adding a spurious newline to pages? Int21h ( talk) 19:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gigs has nominated this template for deletion here. As the instructions at wp:TFD#Listing a template say, I am using {{ editprotected}} here to request that this line be added to the beginning of the template:
<noinclude>{{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|Template:Use mdy dates}}</noinclude>
Thanks, Dynamic| cimanyD talk· edits 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You seemed to have accidentally added # Numbered list item
to the top of the page. Please remove.
Hazard-SJ
± 00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See Template:Dated maintenance category, {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} section. — Robert Greer ( talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:Dated maintenance category, {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} section. — Robert Greer ( talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The documentation should warn that {dmy} pertains to all dates in an article --or may pertain, as interpreted by some editors. Not only dates in prose, including prose in Notes; also for example dates within References, including Retrieved dates.
So {dmy} is dangerous where editors do not intend that all dates use such format.
(I don't know enough about "Feb" and "Feb." implementation of mmm to be sure, but I fear the templates may also bear on the spelling of abbreviations. I have read here at en:wikipedia that "Feb." and mdy are USAmerican where "Feb" and dmy are British.) -- P64 ( talk) 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Use of this template appears to set up a link to the year article (such as 2012 of the year used in the date of the template tag. This does not seem like a link that serves any purpose and may just be an error. Please check and fix. Hmains ( talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The doc page states, "It is visible only in edit mode." This is not true for me. If this is not true for everybody else (I use old browsers) could it please be fixed. When I look at the source I see no mechanism to do this, so perhaps only the doc page needs fixing. HairyWombat 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
When I edit a page containing the template, for example, Short Stack, I do not see a message requesting me to use dmy dates. (I do see that the article has been added to the hidden category Category:Use dmy dates from March 2011.) HairyWombat 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}
. And even that is not visible if you are not editing. That is what the words "visible only in edit mode" mean. I agree that it is a little confusing, perhaps.
Debresser (
talk) 05:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Well, it confused me. Also, if the template is added at the top of an article (as is typical), when you edit a section you will see nothing. I will see if I can clarify the doc page a little. I wish the template did work as I thought; I know it is meant for bots, but I feel it could have a lot more value if it was also aimed at humans. HairyWombat 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Later. I have updated the doc page. With regard to improving the template, what I have in mind is behaviour similar to biographies of living people. When I edit the article Tim LaHaye, for example, a banner is displayed above the Preview beginning with the text, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons." (Disappointingly, the banner is not displayed when I edit only a section.) What I don't see is how this is achieved. HairyWombat 16:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I wondered why certain editors update the date in this template - my assumption was that the longer ago it was dated, the more entrenched the format was, so updating it seemed counterproductive.
There is no suggestion, recommendation, explanation or reason in the documentation for this template, but I eventually found what I assume to be the reason in
Category:Use dmy dates i.e. that one day(!) a bot will use these dates, and look at dates inserted since then.
If this is the reason, could the suggestion and explanation be included in this template documentation, rather than having to be found by luck? If it is not the reason, could someone please explain what is.
Thanks
Arjayay (
talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The template seems to create a spacing problem (extra vertical space), as seen here (removing it fixes the problem), but I have not been able to locate the cause of the problem. Can anyone check it out? — Ynhockey ( Talk) 10:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the placement of this template at the top of pages is not a good idea. It goes against our general placement of metadata templates (e.g. Template:Persondata). This is the only template of its kind to have been placed at the top of an article – the very place we should be keeping clear of clutter in order not to deter less experienced editors (as templates have been shown to do during the accessibility project).
I believe a much better default placement would be directly above the category listings. This would be an appropriate home, given the presence of similar technical templates here. The current presence of the template at the top of the article does not serve a real purpose, seeing as only experienced editors would be able to parse what it demands of them – the very same editor group who will likely be matching their dates style to the current text anyway. SFB 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As to the visibility, if we keep the template at the current location at the top of the page, I could cause another carriage return (or perhaps a line of visually-noticeable asterisks) to be inserted after the template. However, moving/ejecting the template to an editnotice would entail quite a lot of inconvenence, not to mention synchronising the tagging of articles for maintenance and monitoring changes. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was that these were expressly not meant as notices for human editors, but if people are using them for that purpose I suppose it makes sense to have them where they can be seen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
On another note, placing this and the mdy template at the absolute top of the page often causes an extra line of whitespace to be added. 8ty3hree ( talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
is not a template but a
behavior switch; but aside from that, the positioning of either {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
or {{
italic title}}
is immaterial, it can go anywhere that you like - neither of these elements are mentioned in
MOS:LEAD, and so neither is required to be in the lead section, let alone at the absolute top of the article. Their positioning is however subject to the proviso that some infoboxes (such as {{
infobox album}}
) do contain one of these, and the relative order is important: whichever comes last on the page is the one that affects the displayed title. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 
soft space) to "fix" {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
because (as I stated earlier), it is not a template but a
behavior switch. It does not add anything inline: it instructs the MediaWiki parser to alter the contents of the <h1>...</h1>
element. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with something that's said in this template's documentation (and everything I am about to say applies equally to the {{
Use mdy dates}} template, as well) – the passage in question states the following: "After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the Use dmy dates template." (emphasis mine)
My problem with this is the following: updating the ("visit") date parameter in the {{ Use dmy dates}} template will thus obscure when such a tag was originally added to an article! This has most recently come up at Lausanne Metro, where a {{ Use dmy dates}} tag was first placed on the article in August 2010 (almost five years ago!), but has now recently been "updated" by script to "March 2015". I think this is unhelpful because it definitely does obscure when a 'dmy' tag was originally placed at the article.
So, perhaps the best solution to this would be to add a parameter to this template – perhaps something like an adddate parameter to indicate when the template was first added to a page, along with the (visit) date parameter to indicate when a script (or etc.) most recently updated the dates on this page?... Any other ideas here? TIA. -- IJBall ( talk) 08:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There was never any intention nor a perceived need to have a multiplication of template parameters. If there are arguments about when exactly the date formats were aligned, this can be ascertained by doing a little bit of detective work using the article history. On average, most articles will only have been aligned one or twice by script in their entire history. AFAIK, such arguments are few and far between and I do not see much utility updating in excess of 500,000 articles to include the 'date added' parameter, or to manage additional new parameters going forwards. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates|date=June 2010|last-updated=March 2015}}
. Provided this isn't a massive coding headache (and, again, I'm not suggesting going back and "fixing" already-placed 'Use xxx dates' templates, simply adding the new 'last-updated' parameter on any new checks and updates, going forward), I can't figure out why anyone would be opposed to something like this... --
IJBall (
talk) 17:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This template's documentation says "Place this template near the top of articles", though I note that an editor of the "mdy" template has asked for it to be placed nearer the bottom. It isn't mentioned in the list of "Order of article elements" at WP:ORDER. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_article_elements:_what_about_Italic_title.2C_Use_DMY_dates.2C_etc_.3F: do join in there if you have views. Thanks. Pam D 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I added this cat to Ferial Haffajee but it is not hidden with date of January 2016 so I changed it to December 2015. The template may need a code tweak. Helen Online 12:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to propose a general principle, that {{ use dmy dates}} and {{ use mdy dates}} not be used on articles that contain no months and days to be ordered. That is, if the article contains only bare years as dates then these templates should not be used. In those cases, there is no history of one date format or another to retain, it is just pointless cruft. This comes up in the history of Θ10, where several editors have been reverting my attempt to keep this cruft out. Would it be possible to get some suitable language (like the sentence "If the article contains only bare years as dates then this templates should not be used.") added to the template documentation, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
: coming from my late arrival and different thinking routine, where would you have an article that did not have a ref with a source and an accessdate that needed to be ordered one way or the other ? Dave Rave ( talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Is adding this template considered "cosmetic" or "non-substantial"? I don't believe that it has any effect on the rendered page, but does it add the page to some sort of hidden tracking category? Basically, I was wondering if it was considered appropriate to add this template to a page without making any other changes. Thanks, Gluons12 ☢| ☕ 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Without getting into a war over the respective rights and wrongs of dmy or mdy, I am more interested as to why this is hidden from readers. All articles should regard WP:RF as fundamental, and what is more confusing to a reader than not knowing how dates are used? It is all well and good saying "an English article uses dmy", but would a Michigan high school student realise that the 5/11/1605 gunpowder plot occurred in November, not May? Likewise would a Yorkshire high school student automatically realise that the the first battle of Fort Sumter occurred in April and not December if faced with 4/12/1861? Personally I would like to see the month spelled out explicitly or else ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD) used. However, may I suggest that the two templates dmy and mdy ought to automatically produce a hatnote informing the reader of the convention in use.. The template is fully protected so there is nothing I can do. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Should there be a parameter for the reason for choosing the specific date format? It could specify ( relatively obvious) association with a national usage, or the history of consensus decision or whatever. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.Of course, that's strong national ties, not just any connection to a country whatsoever. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the instructions states the following:
In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates.
With emphasis on the "do not alter archive and access dates".
But this is in contradiction to MOS:DATEUNIFY which says:
When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred.
Which says it's fine to alter archive and access dates and consistency is king. I'm proposing a straight copy and paste of the MoS text to replace the paragraph in the template documentation. - X201 ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made the change, I checked to see who added it so I could get their input and it was added by an IP user four years ago, they only made four edits in total, two of which were adding the text above to the DMY and MDY template instructions, one was a revert complaining of an edit that unified dates and one was asking for Ohconfucius to change the MOSNUM date script so that it had a mode where it didn't change archive and access dates. I'm assuming good faith, but it does give the appearance of someone having an axe to grind. - X201 ( talk) 08:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I accessed this page to propose a {{
Use ymd dates}}
template. There probably a more correct place but I did not look long enough to find it. I have encountered several articles (mostly technical) were ymd dates are the majority. This includes publication dates.
I found the using YYYY-MM-DD section interesting. I happen to agree that using YYYY-MM-DD for access and archive dates while using {{
Use dmy dates}}
or {{
Use mdy dates}}
for article and publication dates. The argument that a Bot script cannot do something very weak. As far as consistency, I do not consider "5 Oct 2000" and "5 October 2000" to be consistent. Especially since the template documentation implies "5 Oct 2000" is preferred but the scripts tend to generate "5 October 2000". I know both of these are really the preference of the author.
User-duck (
talk) 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates}}
and {{
Use mdy dates}}
were to aid the editors. But I am having second thoughts and that maybe they are for the Bots.|df=
documented,
Help:CS1 errors? I guess I can add |df=ymd
to the citations.
User-duck (
talk) 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates}}
and {{
Use mdy dates}}
is that they describe the general date format in an article, they don't deal with specifics such as citations. So if a {{
Use ymd dates}}
template were to be created, people would assume that it has the same application as the other two - to describe the general situation, and not be specific to citations. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)It would seem that to fully support
MOS:DATEUNIFY there needs to be three distinct date format choices supported, one for dates in the body text, another for citation publication dates, and a third for citation archive&access dates. One possible implementation might look something along the lines of {{use dates|body=mdy|refs=dmy|access=ymd}}
Comments?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Can you update the date? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
At
Help talk:Citation Style 1#auto date formatting it is proposed that {{
use dmy dates}}
and {{
use mdy dates}}
be read by
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to determine the dmy/mdy form used by the article and automatically conform the dates in cs1|2 citations to that form. Additionally, it is proposed to add a non-functioning parameter, |access=ymd
, to instances of the {{use xxx dates}}
templates that will direct the cs1|2 module to render access-/archive-dates in ymd format as permitted by
MOS:DATEUNIFY. Questions and comments at the linked discussion please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please explain what this change sets out to do, and why? -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
And what would constitute an unknown parameter, and will happen when these are detected? -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
|cs1dates=dmy
(missing the hyphen) will throw an error in preview mode. Try it. This is a very commonly used error detection mechanism.|date=
or a valid keyword for |cs1-dates=
. When repairs are made check for duplicate parameters. This one for example, might result in:
{{Use dmy dates|15=March 1986|date=November 2019}}
→{{Use dmy dates|date=March 1986|date=November 2019}}
|date=
parameters only one is meaningful so the other must be deleted. When a determination can't be made, do nothing or delete the offending parameter and its value.|date=
. --
Ohc
¡digame! 14:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
|cs1-dates=
so that editors can customize, per
MOS:DATEUNIFY, how archive and access dates are rendered in cs1|2 citation templates.@
Jonesey95: This script used to be able to be used with subst: to quietly include the |date=
parameter. It still does that, but adds a bunch of unintelligible (to most editors) stuff starting with {{#invoke
after it. Is this needed, or can it be included in some kind of non-subst block so that the module invocation only happens inside the template, not inserted in articles after it? Thanks. --
Scott Davis
Talk 13:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Use ymd dates/doc#Multiple date format templates?. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Where on an article should this tag go? Top? Bottom? Somewhere inbetween? Lugnuts ( talk) 09:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm altering the documentation as per that discussion. Top-placement has the potential to cause whitespace issues, and having a hard rule here is simply causing people to waste people's time with petty rules enforcement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
In this case I agree with Chris Cunningham , and disagree with Debresser. These templates are potentially useful, but I do not wish to clutter the top of the source with them, nor to scare new editors who are worried about their ability to edit to this guidance, or simply confused by additional top-cruft.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC).
{{
Use top-cruft}}
and {{
Use bottom-cruft}}
. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 10:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC).Is this tag adding a spurious newline to pages? Int21h ( talk) 19:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gigs has nominated this template for deletion here. As the instructions at wp:TFD#Listing a template say, I am using {{ editprotected}} here to request that this line be added to the beginning of the template:
<noinclude>{{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|Template:Use mdy dates}}</noinclude>
Thanks, Dynamic| cimanyD talk· edits 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You seemed to have accidentally added # Numbered list item
to the top of the page. Please remove.
Hazard-SJ
± 00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See Template:Dated maintenance category, {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} section. — Robert Greer ( talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:Dated maintenance category, {{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}} section. — Robert Greer ( talk) 20:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The documentation should warn that {dmy} pertains to all dates in an article --or may pertain, as interpreted by some editors. Not only dates in prose, including prose in Notes; also for example dates within References, including Retrieved dates.
So {dmy} is dangerous where editors do not intend that all dates use such format.
(I don't know enough about "Feb" and "Feb." implementation of mmm to be sure, but I fear the templates may also bear on the spelling of abbreviations. I have read here at en:wikipedia that "Feb." and mdy are USAmerican where "Feb" and dmy are British.) -- P64 ( talk) 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Use of this template appears to set up a link to the year article (such as 2012 of the year used in the date of the template tag. This does not seem like a link that serves any purpose and may just be an error. Please check and fix. Hmains ( talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The doc page states, "It is visible only in edit mode." This is not true for me. If this is not true for everybody else (I use old browsers) could it please be fixed. When I look at the source I see no mechanism to do this, so perhaps only the doc page needs fixing. HairyWombat 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
When I edit a page containing the template, for example, Short Stack, I do not see a message requesting me to use dmy dates. (I do see that the article has been added to the hidden category Category:Use dmy dates from March 2011.) HairyWombat 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}
. And even that is not visible if you are not editing. That is what the words "visible only in edit mode" mean. I agree that it is a little confusing, perhaps.
Debresser (
talk) 05:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Well, it confused me. Also, if the template is added at the top of an article (as is typical), when you edit a section you will see nothing. I will see if I can clarify the doc page a little. I wish the template did work as I thought; I know it is meant for bots, but I feel it could have a lot more value if it was also aimed at humans. HairyWombat 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Later. I have updated the doc page. With regard to improving the template, what I have in mind is behaviour similar to biographies of living people. When I edit the article Tim LaHaye, for example, a banner is displayed above the Preview beginning with the text, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons." (Disappointingly, the banner is not displayed when I edit only a section.) What I don't see is how this is achieved. HairyWombat 16:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I wondered why certain editors update the date in this template - my assumption was that the longer ago it was dated, the more entrenched the format was, so updating it seemed counterproductive.
There is no suggestion, recommendation, explanation or reason in the documentation for this template, but I eventually found what I assume to be the reason in
Category:Use dmy dates i.e. that one day(!) a bot will use these dates, and look at dates inserted since then.
If this is the reason, could the suggestion and explanation be included in this template documentation, rather than having to be found by luck? If it is not the reason, could someone please explain what is.
Thanks
Arjayay (
talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The template seems to create a spacing problem (extra vertical space), as seen here (removing it fixes the problem), but I have not been able to locate the cause of the problem. Can anyone check it out? — Ynhockey ( Talk) 10:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the placement of this template at the top of pages is not a good idea. It goes against our general placement of metadata templates (e.g. Template:Persondata). This is the only template of its kind to have been placed at the top of an article – the very place we should be keeping clear of clutter in order not to deter less experienced editors (as templates have been shown to do during the accessibility project).
I believe a much better default placement would be directly above the category listings. This would be an appropriate home, given the presence of similar technical templates here. The current presence of the template at the top of the article does not serve a real purpose, seeing as only experienced editors would be able to parse what it demands of them – the very same editor group who will likely be matching their dates style to the current text anyway. SFB 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As to the visibility, if we keep the template at the current location at the top of the page, I could cause another carriage return (or perhaps a line of visually-noticeable asterisks) to be inserted after the template. However, moving/ejecting the template to an editnotice would entail quite a lot of inconvenence, not to mention synchronising the tagging of articles for maintenance and monitoring changes. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was that these were expressly not meant as notices for human editors, but if people are using them for that purpose I suppose it makes sense to have them where they can be seen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 13:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
On another note, placing this and the mdy template at the absolute top of the page often causes an extra line of whitespace to be added. 8ty3hree ( talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
is not a template but a
behavior switch; but aside from that, the positioning of either {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
or {{
italic title}}
is immaterial, it can go anywhere that you like - neither of these elements are mentioned in
MOS:LEAD, and so neither is required to be in the lead section, let alone at the absolute top of the article. Their positioning is however subject to the proviso that some infoboxes (such as {{
infobox album}}
) do contain one of these, and the relative order is important: whichever comes last on the page is the one that affects the displayed title. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 
soft space) to "fix" {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
because (as I stated earlier), it is not a template but a
behavior switch. It does not add anything inline: it instructs the MediaWiki parser to alter the contents of the <h1>...</h1>
element. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with something that's said in this template's documentation (and everything I am about to say applies equally to the {{
Use mdy dates}} template, as well) – the passage in question states the following: "After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the Use dmy dates template." (emphasis mine)
My problem with this is the following: updating the ("visit") date parameter in the {{ Use dmy dates}} template will thus obscure when such a tag was originally added to an article! This has most recently come up at Lausanne Metro, where a {{ Use dmy dates}} tag was first placed on the article in August 2010 (almost five years ago!), but has now recently been "updated" by script to "March 2015". I think this is unhelpful because it definitely does obscure when a 'dmy' tag was originally placed at the article.
So, perhaps the best solution to this would be to add a parameter to this template – perhaps something like an adddate parameter to indicate when the template was first added to a page, along with the (visit) date parameter to indicate when a script (or etc.) most recently updated the dates on this page?... Any other ideas here? TIA. -- IJBall ( talk) 08:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There was never any intention nor a perceived need to have a multiplication of template parameters. If there are arguments about when exactly the date formats were aligned, this can be ascertained by doing a little bit of detective work using the article history. On average, most articles will only have been aligned one or twice by script in their entire history. AFAIK, such arguments are few and far between and I do not see much utility updating in excess of 500,000 articles to include the 'date added' parameter, or to manage additional new parameters going forwards. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates|date=June 2010|last-updated=March 2015}}
. Provided this isn't a massive coding headache (and, again, I'm not suggesting going back and "fixing" already-placed 'Use xxx dates' templates, simply adding the new 'last-updated' parameter on any new checks and updates, going forward), I can't figure out why anyone would be opposed to something like this... --
IJBall (
talk) 17:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This template's documentation says "Place this template near the top of articles", though I note that an editor of the "mdy" template has asked for it to be placed nearer the bottom. It isn't mentioned in the list of "Order of article elements" at WP:ORDER. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_article_elements:_what_about_Italic_title.2C_Use_DMY_dates.2C_etc_.3F: do join in there if you have views. Thanks. Pam D 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I added this cat to Ferial Haffajee but it is not hidden with date of January 2016 so I changed it to December 2015. The template may need a code tweak. Helen Online 12:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to propose a general principle, that {{ use dmy dates}} and {{ use mdy dates}} not be used on articles that contain no months and days to be ordered. That is, if the article contains only bare years as dates then these templates should not be used. In those cases, there is no history of one date format or another to retain, it is just pointless cruft. This comes up in the history of Θ10, where several editors have been reverting my attempt to keep this cruft out. Would it be possible to get some suitable language (like the sentence "If the article contains only bare years as dates then this templates should not be used.") added to the template documentation, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
: coming from my late arrival and different thinking routine, where would you have an article that did not have a ref with a source and an accessdate that needed to be ordered one way or the other ? Dave Rave ( talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Is adding this template considered "cosmetic" or "non-substantial"? I don't believe that it has any effect on the rendered page, but does it add the page to some sort of hidden tracking category? Basically, I was wondering if it was considered appropriate to add this template to a page without making any other changes. Thanks, Gluons12 ☢| ☕ 22:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Without getting into a war over the respective rights and wrongs of dmy or mdy, I am more interested as to why this is hidden from readers. All articles should regard WP:RF as fundamental, and what is more confusing to a reader than not knowing how dates are used? It is all well and good saying "an English article uses dmy", but would a Michigan high school student realise that the 5/11/1605 gunpowder plot occurred in November, not May? Likewise would a Yorkshire high school student automatically realise that the the first battle of Fort Sumter occurred in April and not December if faced with 4/12/1861? Personally I would like to see the month spelled out explicitly or else ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD) used. However, may I suggest that the two templates dmy and mdy ought to automatically produce a hatnote informing the reader of the convention in use.. The template is fully protected so there is nothing I can do. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Should there be a parameter for the reason for choosing the specific date format? It could specify ( relatively obvious) association with a national usage, or the history of consensus decision or whatever. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.Of course, that's strong national ties, not just any connection to a country whatsoever. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the instructions states the following:
In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates.
With emphasis on the "do not alter archive and access dates".
But this is in contradiction to MOS:DATEUNIFY which says:
When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred.
Which says it's fine to alter archive and access dates and consistency is king. I'm proposing a straight copy and paste of the MoS text to replace the paragraph in the template documentation. - X201 ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made the change, I checked to see who added it so I could get their input and it was added by an IP user four years ago, they only made four edits in total, two of which were adding the text above to the DMY and MDY template instructions, one was a revert complaining of an edit that unified dates and one was asking for Ohconfucius to change the MOSNUM date script so that it had a mode where it didn't change archive and access dates. I'm assuming good faith, but it does give the appearance of someone having an axe to grind. - X201 ( talk) 08:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I accessed this page to propose a {{
Use ymd dates}}
template. There probably a more correct place but I did not look long enough to find it. I have encountered several articles (mostly technical) were ymd dates are the majority. This includes publication dates.
I found the using YYYY-MM-DD section interesting. I happen to agree that using YYYY-MM-DD for access and archive dates while using {{
Use dmy dates}}
or {{
Use mdy dates}}
for article and publication dates. The argument that a Bot script cannot do something very weak. As far as consistency, I do not consider "5 Oct 2000" and "5 October 2000" to be consistent. Especially since the template documentation implies "5 Oct 2000" is preferred but the scripts tend to generate "5 October 2000". I know both of these are really the preference of the author.
User-duck (
talk) 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates}}
and {{
Use mdy dates}}
were to aid the editors. But I am having second thoughts and that maybe they are for the Bots.|df=
documented,
Help:CS1 errors? I guess I can add |df=ymd
to the citations.
User-duck (
talk) 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
Use dmy dates}}
and {{
Use mdy dates}}
is that they describe the general date format in an article, they don't deal with specifics such as citations. So if a {{
Use ymd dates}}
template were to be created, people would assume that it has the same application as the other two - to describe the general situation, and not be specific to citations. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)It would seem that to fully support
MOS:DATEUNIFY there needs to be three distinct date format choices supported, one for dates in the body text, another for citation publication dates, and a third for citation archive&access dates. One possible implementation might look something along the lines of {{use dates|body=mdy|refs=dmy|access=ymd}}
Comments?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Can you update the date? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
At
Help talk:Citation Style 1#auto date formatting it is proposed that {{
use dmy dates}}
and {{
use mdy dates}}
be read by
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to determine the dmy/mdy form used by the article and automatically conform the dates in cs1|2 citations to that form. Additionally, it is proposed to add a non-functioning parameter, |access=ymd
, to instances of the {{use xxx dates}}
templates that will direct the cs1|2 module to render access-/archive-dates in ymd format as permitted by
MOS:DATEUNIFY. Questions and comments at the linked discussion please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please explain what this change sets out to do, and why? -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
And what would constitute an unknown parameter, and will happen when these are detected? -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
|cs1dates=dmy
(missing the hyphen) will throw an error in preview mode. Try it. This is a very commonly used error detection mechanism.|date=
or a valid keyword for |cs1-dates=
. When repairs are made check for duplicate parameters. This one for example, might result in:
{{Use dmy dates|15=March 1986|date=November 2019}}
→{{Use dmy dates|date=March 1986|date=November 2019}}
|date=
parameters only one is meaningful so the other must be deleted. When a determination can't be made, do nothing or delete the offending parameter and its value.|date=
. --
Ohc
¡digame! 14:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
|cs1-dates=
so that editors can customize, per
MOS:DATEUNIFY, how archive and access dates are rendered in cs1|2 citation templates.@
Jonesey95: This script used to be able to be used with subst: to quietly include the |date=
parameter. It still does that, but adds a bunch of unintelligible (to most editors) stuff starting with {{#invoke
after it. Is this needed, or can it be included in some kind of non-subst block so that the module invocation only happens inside the template, not inserted in articles after it? Thanks. --
Scott Davis
Talk 13:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)