Template talk:Start date and age/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Start date and age. 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.

This template links dates. Please look at:

• {{Birth date and age}}
• {{Death date and age}}
• {{Birth date}}
• {{Death date}}

and note that they have been updated so that they no longer force linking of dates. Please can this template be updated in the same way. Lightmouse (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit breaks many pages on Wikipedia. It was probably intended for the Icelandic Wikipedia, not the English-language one. I would revert it myself if it wasn't protected. -- 77.189.88.52 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is already fixed! SF007 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me - while looking at the revision history of the template that there is some disagreement about the way the date should be displayes.
I've looked at the Manual of Style and it says (and I'm citing): "...ISO 8601 dates (like 1976-05-13) are uncommon in English prose and are generally not used in Wikipedia."
So anyone removing the autoformatting, evidently does so without knowing or caring for Wikipedia's guideline. I'm just right now a bit spooked about the code of the template. Yet maybe I'll give it try later. JM.Beaubourg (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please hyperlink the dates. -- Frap (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to change it, make sure you're actually not breaking it. Q ^{T C} 13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, discuss changes to such widely used templates as this before implementing them. The template now doesn't recognize (previously documented) fmt parameter, and also (undocumented) parameters year, month and day. I added tracking category Category:Articles using old parameters in Start date and age to see whether they are actually used. Svick (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you concern, Svick. However, nothing whatsoever is broken, because:

1. The fmt parameter has long been ineffective, since the template used {{#dateformat:}} to render date.
2. In case of |year, |month and |day, I was confident that no article would use them anyway since they were never documented, not to mention that if there were any unorthodox usage, I'd have noticed before; even if I didn't, the damage reversal was extremely easy.

In any case, your tracking category seems to have come up with nothing, so I think there is nothing to worry about anyways. Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{{#dateformat}} undestands mdy parameter (or similar), so the parameter did work, but you are right, both fmt and named date parameters were unused, so nothing really broke.

I also changed the way df is handled. I think it is more user-friendly and consistent with {{start date}}. Svick (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Not really. {{#dateformat}} is quirky and pretty much depends on your Wikipedia Preferences. I made extensive testing, having switched between my Wikipedia Date Preferences multiple times.
2. OH, NO! DOING THIS LIMITS BOT FUNCTIONALITY. The way you changed it, df=no is treated equal to df=yes! Now that's a REAL breaking change, because I was about to write to Rich Farmbrough about bots changing Start Date and Age. Undoing now... Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why do you need df=no? And why isn't this problem in {{start date}}? Svick (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Date bots keep adding df parameters, that's why. And yes, I do need Start date to also behave like this, but I currently have no privileges to edit that. I'll contact Administrator Rich Farmbrough on that regard. (Oh, no! I forgot to write to him to yesterday! Doing it now...)

Anyway, just let it be, will you? Taking "yes" as the only affirmative answer is a logical outcome and won't hurt user-friendliness. Fleet Command (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the line break after first noticing that it causes odd formatting. For example, when listing the version of software and its release date and age, it gives the version, the release date, a line break, then the age. If the line break belongs anywhere, it seems like it belongs between the version and release date and age. I'm not completely against re-adding the line break, but I think we should discuss how best to alter the formatting of this template before the change is make. -- Schapel (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A named parameter could be used to specify which style to use. The default choice would be the backwards compatible ";", but a "newline" option (or whatever) could be used to make a new line. Any thoughts on the naming choice of parameter name and applicable values? +mt 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Could non-breaking spaces be used within "X days ago"? This would avoid "days ago" wrapping onto another line by itself. Alternatively, CSS "white-space: nowrap;". --81.178.31.210 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a named parameter that would add a line break. I don't like the idea of non-breaking spaces, because that could change formatting of tables (i.e. force some columns to become wider to accommodate the width of the age) and also force line breaks even when not desired if non-breaking spaces are always used and not turned on by a parameter. -- Schapel (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I added an nl option for a newline between the date and the age in the sandbox, and added some testcases. With this option, the semicolon is still always present. Should the semicolon be removed when there's a line break? -- Schapel (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think leaving it alone is better. Fleet Command (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the option should be called br instead of nl, because it adds a <br/> tag between the date and age? Does anyone have a preference for the option name? -- Schapel (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I should like to rename this template "Start date and age", in keeping with the existing {{Start date}}, and have it emit the same microformat classes, in the same way, as does the latter. That will make it more useful in other situations, and allow it to be used inside infoboxes which emit hCalendar microformats. Of course, the current name will still exist as a redirect. Any objections? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the template; can someone assist in adding the mark-up for the microformat, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• cough* ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in, Andy Mabbett. I'll just need to arrange a few things with Rich Farmbrough, who is operating date-related bots. Fleet Command (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just created a test case: Template:Start date and age/testcases. See if it works and if hCalendar format is properly emitted. The template requires further refinements. Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New template deployed. I take the issue is now resolved? Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That sees to be working well; thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the template says "0 day ago" instead of the AFAIK better "0 days ago". The template seems too scary for me to fix, though. Anssi (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree, and I fixed it so that "day" is only used if it is one, otherwise it uses "days" (for 0, 2, 3, etc. days). +mt 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It still emits "1 days ago". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Still does it: Ubuntu (operating system): "Latest stable release 10.04 / 29 April 2010; 1 days ago (2010-04-29)" --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more sensible to just say today? And what happends if the date is in the future?? i.e.January 1, 9999; 7973 years' time (9999-01-01) --Bill C (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited the documentation a bit (after seeing bot request) to make it easier for editors to read/copy the syntax and to quickly see which parameter produces which format. I think it was unnecessarily complicated, and though I agree that such style may be unambiguous and precise, majority of community is not programmers who enjoy full syntax explanation all in one go. Anyhow, comments welcome. (Note: I am neutral on the change discussed above, this was purely about documentation layout.) —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this edit was, but I think it broke the usage of the parameter |df= which used to be |df=yes and now is |df=us. I suggest to revert that edit.

Another minor quibble: as pointed out above: the template still emits "1 days ago" when invoked with yesterday's date. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever does "us" mean? "Not them"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"us" means the United States. As MD, Y is a predominantly US date format, I named the parameter "us". SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the order so that DMY would be the default according to WP:DATE. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the specific part of WP:DATE which you feel warrants such a change. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:STRONGNAT to be specific. "for most others it is day before month". SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The full paragraph reads:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

I fail to see how that justifies your edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in most countries (in all except the US and Canada) the standard format is DMY. That's why for most others it is day before month. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, sorry for the undiscussed edit. If editors explicitly state their objections to the new revision here, I will revert it. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much which order or default order is used, but changing the name of the parameter from "df" to "us" (without even changing the documentation) breaks thousands of invocations of this template. It must be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I see that the documentation has now been changed. Still, the change in the template leaves thousands of pages with an unintended date format. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to post a bot request to fix invocations right now. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Request posted. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any other issue, the string "us" has no obvious meaning and is inappropriate one the meaning is understood. The edit should be reverted ASAP and not reinstated until consesus is reached. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted that change, for now. No opinion on how it should be, but changing the meaning of the df parameter (which I thus far always interpreted as "day first", not "date format") without taking care that all articles continue to have consistent date formatting is not an improvement. Not to mention that there is no consensus for this change, and the "most others" fragment you quote is certainly not enough to require a change to this template.
Since you want to change the default behavior, it is hard to make that transition seamless by modifying this template. I recommend that you find consensus that this should be the recommended, default behavior, build a new template with the behavior you favor, get a bot to convert all transclusions of {{start date and age}} to the new template without causing visual change, and then have someone move the new template here.
However: For consistency, you will need to do the same thing at the same time too all other similar templates that are in use like {{Birth date}}, {{birth date and age}}, {{death date}}, ….
Amalthea 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Sorry for such a mess. :( By the way, where is the most appropriate place to start inter-template discussion? Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Centralized discussion might be best placed at WT:DATE, with pointers to it from the respective template talk pages. Amalthea 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that that all the articles using this template are displaying a forward-slash (/) before the date. For example, the Windows Mobile article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechFan (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That slash is produced by the Template:Infobox OS, not by this template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In an article that used this template, I saw this:

Stable release 2.5.8 (August 18, 2005; 5 years ago (2005-08-18)) [+/−]

In many cases if I see +/− in an article I replace it with ±. I began to think about whether that should be done in this case, but how to edit this template is anything but clear to me. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That link is not produced by this template, but by {{Infobox software}} (and some similar infoboxes like {{Infobox OS}}). You should take this discussion to its talk page. Svick (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here so I'm not familiar with everything, but I used "Start date and age" with December 20, 1999 on November 26, 2010 (today or yesterday depending on your time zone) and it said "10 years ago." I suppose it is closer to ten years than 11, but another editor saw "10," assumed it was my mistake in subtracting 99 from 110, and swiftly undid my change. It looks like this: December 20, 1999; 25 years ago (1999-12-20) thanks haplo (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This template will round down to the nearest year. To have it round up in some cases, would not be the best idea, since it would require an arbitrary decision to when to round up. Basically the same way we say someone is 17 years old, until we reach his/her 18th birthday. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if rounding up in some cases is an arbitrary decision, then rounding down is too and is therefore equally as bad. :-) It is, though, a quite normal and not arbitrary convention to round numbers to the closest whole number, and round up if the distance is the same. 1.4999 -> 1, 1.5 -> 2. I think it would be quite appropriate to do the same here. Rounding down is a special thing we do when we talk about human age. It is correct to say that a 17 year-old just about to turn 18 was born 18 years ago, and not 17 years ago. So I firmly believe that we should round to the nearest year (as well as nearest month, when we talk about months). Rounding down gives more error and confusion, as it is not customary to do that when talking about "x years/months ago". If something happened 29 days ago, would you say it happened 0 months ago? Personally, I would say a month ago. Jhertel (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If what Plastikspork says is true, then there should be no ± at all, but instead it should say "plus up to a year". However, as far as I know, the convention of rounding years down is applied to few things besides birthdays. Maolmhuire (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, a tilde (~) prefix should probably be used instead, seeing as a plus/minus (±) is supposed to have a number after it to indicate the margin of error. Maolmhuire (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Under which circumstances do you see this template produce "±"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the [+/-] such as in the Infobox at Microsoft Visual Studio, it's not mean to say that the value is inexact. It's a link to change the value, which can't be done by editing the article. User<Svick>.Talk(); 14:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is june 25th 2011 On the Android (operating system) page this template is used in the infobox and it lists about android 2.3.4

2.3.4 (Gingerbread) / 24 February 2011; 3 months ago.

Should that not have been 4 months ago? 86.83.239.142 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As in

{{Start date and age|2011|2|24|df=yes}}

producing

24 February 2011; 14 years ago (2011-02-24)

This is a known problem, but is not in this template: it's in {{time ago}}:

{{time ago|2011-2-24|min_magnitude=days}}

produces

14 years ago

The documentation for {{time ago}} does state '"Month" is defined as 31 days', so it'll not tick over to "4 months ago" until 124 (4 * 31) days have passed. Since February has 28 days this year, and April has 30, this'll be (124 - (28-24) - 31 - 30 - 31) = 28, ie 28 June 2011. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just changed this page but before I editted it, the ages were not correct. For example, the first line in the table said that 16 September was 29 days ago. When I made some changes it corrected it to 47 days. The previous edit was 17 September so I can't see where the 29 came from. Last template change applied perhaps? MikesPlant (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you were served a cached version of the page, see WP:PURGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ta for this. I revisited the same page today (one day later) and it still showed yesterday's count. I did a null edit which sorted it but surely this can't be appropriate. I had a brief look for other pages using this template but all the ones I selected resulted in years and looked OK. Can and should the template include an autoPURGE? (I'm no wikipedia expert!) MikesPlant (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that an autopurge exists. If it did, it would be in widespread use. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that if the date is Feb. 29th, (in this case 2012-02-29), the date difference is 0 days. This only happens in the "real" page, no the "preview".

See these images for better understanding: http://imgur.com/z8bdv,LD8ZJ.

Please delete the images when no longer needed: http://imgur.com/delete/c9JnKspFIF6ABML http://imgur.com/delete/nIlHptlLSlDBXXI 88.162.19.44 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not with this template, but one of the subtemplates which treats all months as being 31 days. This is because the maths is much quicker than if an extra chunk of code was added that was essentially "if the month is 4, 6, 9 or 11, count 30 days; if the month is 2, count 28 days except in leap years when you count 29; for all other months, count 31". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that future dates are off by one day. For example, if I input tomorrow's date, the output will read, "0 days' time", whereas it should read, "1 day's time". Here is my proposed fix in unified diff format. This change has been implemented in the sandbox and in testcases.

@@ -23,7 +23,10 @@
         -->{{{2|{{CURRENTMONTH}}}}}<!--
         -->-<!--
         -->{{{3|{{CURRENTDAY}}}}}<!--
-       -->|min_magnitude=days<!--
+       -->{{#ifexpr: {{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{{1}}}-{{{2|{{CURRENTMONTH}}}}}-{{{3|{{CURRENTDAY}}}}} }}<!--
+         -->|<!--
+         -->| 23:59:59<!--
+       -->}}|min_magnitude=days<!--
      -->}}<!--
    --></span><!--
   -->|'''{{color|red|Error: No parameters}}'''<!--

Cpetty-wiki (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is some sort of expression error when I try to use the template with the month omitted or the day omitted. According to the documentation, this is a valid use of the template. -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I try it, I get:

• {{Start date and age|2002|03|5}} → March 5, 2002; 23 years ago (2002-03-05)
• {{Start date and age|2002|03}} → March 2002; 23 years ago (2002-03)
• {{Start date and age|2002}} → 2002; 23 years ago (2002)

What parameters are you using? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to do {{Start date and years ago|1978}} in the infobox of Society of General Internal Medicine. Which I guess is a defferent template that doesn't work.-- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it a different template, but its documentation states

The template requires "YYYY|MM|DD" parameters. Do not use for "YYYY" nor "YYYY|MM" dates.

If you need to omit day, or month and day, I suggest that you propose an enhancement at Template talk:Start date and years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't understand the reason for the two different templates which appear to do essentially the same thing. The {{Start date and years ago}} template was added as part of the copy-paste blank example at {{Infobox organization}}. I've asked on Template talk:Infobox organization if it might be an idea to change it to use {{Start date and age}} -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it's already been brought up above, but I think it bears repeating: wouldn't it be nicer if the template, given today's date, displayed "today" rather than "0 days ago"? Maybe one of the resident wizards can change it accordingly without breaking anything in the process. :) 82.82.141.243 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just wish to clarify an issue I noticed a page that I have created. I have some Start date and age markup in an infobox for software. What happen is that the "# days ago" does not update. I noticed it still shows 0 day ago. But it gets updated when I save the article again without making edits. Am I supposed to save the page every other day or is there something that I missed?

This is normal for anything which uses variables like {{CURRENTDAY}} and {{CURRENTMONTH}}. The {{Start date and age}} template uses both of these. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please make it possible to show year only, by specified month at Template:Start_date_and_age#Examples --David Hedlund (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@David Hedlund: Surely those examples demonstrate that it already is possible? Where are you having trouble? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be replaced by a comma. X was born on Y date, Z years ago: the date and number of years are in apposition, so a comma is correct. Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, can someone change the semicolon to a comma? Semicolons are for separating two connecting phrases that could be complete sentences. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 15:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello guys. I am afraid I disagree. This argument is akin to arguing that colon (:) in clock representation (e.g. 12:17:43 PM) must be changed to comma because minute and second are not explanatory clauses. This template does not generate a sentence, a clause, or even a phrase so no, your grammatical point does not apply here.

Per MOS:STABILITY, this is a matter of optional style and the style of whoever came up with it first must be kept unless there is a reason beyond arbitrary preferences.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The colon in clock times is not akin to a normal colon: it is not followed by a space, and can be replaced, and often was in older style, by a dot which is also not akin to a full stop (period). In the case of "born 15 April 1914, a hundred years ago" we have a sentence fragment, and normal rules of grammar should apply; so comma, not semicolon. Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this template saying that GMO Answers launched 1 year ago when I entered 2013 as the start date? What's up with that? SarrCat ∑;3 21:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Because its launch date, July 2013, is not yet 2 years ago. Maybe {{Age in years and months}} would do want you want. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been noted on Talk:Wikipedia that on the 15th anniversary of the website, the Wikipedia article gives the site a launch date of 15 January 2001, but {{start date and age}} thinks (on the 15 January 2016) that this was 14 years ago, not 15. Testing a range of similar dates, I get the following:

• January 15, 1999; 17 years ago
• January 15, 2000; 16 years ago
• January 15, 2001; 14 years ago
• January 15, 2002; 14 years ago
• January 15, 2003; 13 years ago
• January 15, 1900; 115 years ago
• January 15, 1901; 114 years ago
• January 15, 1902; 114 years ago

Is there a blind spot regarding years ending with '01? --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if the calculation is off for every fourth year. Running {{start date and age}} for 15 January for the years 2001 through 2014, I get "years ago" of 14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10, 9, 8, 6, 6, 5, 4, 2 and 2. Trying it through the {{age}} template, though, it's fine, I get 15 down through to 1. Are they doing something differently? (Is it maybe a leap year issue that's been introduced since 2013 and not previously noticed?) --McGeddon (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC it's a known problem and always happens for dates in January and February of leap years. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Some editors have been reverting instances of this template in articles about companies on the grounds that the article is not about a person. Is this justified? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No: on the contrary, it's provided specifically for articles that are not about a person. Articles about a person - a.k.a. "biographies" - should use {{birth date and age}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The "and age" segment does NOT belong in the "Start date" template. It really belongs in the "Birth date" template. That's why it can only be used on people with biographies, and not on companies or cable channels like Discovery Family. The "and age" segment does NOT belong on the Discovery Family page! The segment should be used on articles like Eva Longoria, James Denton, etc.. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: 1) The template documentation does not specify what articles it should be used on. 2) If you think the "and age" segment should only be used on people with biographies, I strongly advise that you start a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the date was presented in the format "September 22, 2008" rather than the not-very-readable "2008-09-22"? -Paul1337 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. Whoever removed date autoformatting from the template got the guideline wrong: ISO 8601 is not an acceptable date format, so exposing it is not a good idea. GregorB (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. One disadvantage with this format is readability for non-English people. Although it must be rare that a latin doesn't remember what an English month name represents, this must be more common for other language groups. Otherwise, one would need to prevent line feeds to happen in the date.--Chealer (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with ISO 8601, but WP:DATE advises against using it, so ultimately this is a matter of consistency. Line breaks are easily handled with {{Nowrap}}. GregorB (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked WP:DATE and cannot confirm that it advises against using ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD), at all. It even lists it explicitly as acceptable "where brevity is helpful (refs, tables, infoboxes, etc.)"! So please bring back the ISO 8601 format, it has tremendeous advantages, such as the ability to be sorted and international readability! --176.92.74.87 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

"September 22, 2008" will be more readable only to people in USA, in some tiny countries and partially Canada, see date format. WP:DATE advises only against use of years outside range 1583 - 9999 years, whose are not much used anyway (especially with this template). It might make more sense to use dd.mm.yyyy - it is more popular in the world. --Alvin-cs ✉ 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Among other advantages, the yyyy-mm-dd format means that alphabetical order = chronological order. This is very handy in sorting tables. I'd like to see it brought back. 75.15.116.107 (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For table sorting, it would be even better to add something like {{dts}}, which creates a hidden sort string, which doesn't change to rendered format. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, YYYY-MM-DD has significant advantages. You can use it in sortable tables and it is an international standard (ISO 8601). The standard represents the most intelligent way of displaying dates and times for the whole planet. The dates (and times) noted in ISO 8601 are sortable up to the day, or - when time is added - up to the second, no matter if used in wikipedias sort tables, in the file system or elsewhere. Furthermore - being a standard - it brings an end to the mass of different, confusing and error prone date and time notations around the globe, which - frankly - in times of globalization and global collaboration should come to and end finally. Many persons and entities around the globe, who have to deal internationally, have been switching to ISO 8601 in their daily use during the last couple of years, for the obvious reasons of being unmistakably in their communication. So it would be really beneficial if wikipedia would jump on this bandwagon and switch to ISO 8601, which would further boost this trend and bring an end to the patchwork of date and time notations. So please: Make ISO 8601 to be wikipedia's standard and add it to all templates! --176.92.74.87 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

ISO 8601 requires mutual agreement among those exchanging information before using years outside the range 1583–9999 CE. We have {{start date}} and related templates all over Wikipedia being used for dates outside that range and emitting microformats, however.

It would be easy enough to suppress the emission of microformat classes for years outside this range; surely that's a relatively simple solution to this problem? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

How would I use this with BC dates? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't; see Template:Start date and age/doc#Limitation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This issue has been touched on before. I propose that a 'rounding' parameter be added that, when specified, would make the age round properly. For example, "four years ago" would be displayed when the age (in years) is in the [3.5, 4.5[ range. Urhixidur (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In the example at Westminster Abbey, it says "1057 years ago"... is there any way to alter this so that it says "1,057"? Aside from being the appropriate format, it also helps differentiate the amount of years ago from the Gregorian year of foundation itself, 960, since inserting "AD" is also not possible — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This will do it: |founded date=960 ({{formatnum:{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}} - 960}}}} years ago) gives |founded=960 (1,065 years ago). This is preferrable anyway because {{start date}} et al should only be used for Gregorian dates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to create a template at Template:Date and age that omits the microformat information, for use in infobox fields where it isn't appropriate. See Template:Infobox software for an example: it has three fields which commonly display dates and ages, and all of which could be filled in at one time. It's incorrectly suggested in that documentation to use {{start date and age}} for each field, when the start date template should appear only once in an infobox to meaningfully provide hCalendar information regarding the start of an event. (In the case of the software infobox, that field would probably be the released field.) I've seen this in numerous infoboxes, and it seems at least partly due to there being no appropriate template to use for displaying a date and age which isn't the start or end of something.

I propose we introduce a parameter that can disable the output of microformat information, which we can then call from convenience templates in the same manner that Template:End date and age currently calls this template. If that sounds like a good idea, I'd also suggest moving the main template code from here to Template:Date and age, and have Template:Start date and age made into a similar convenience template. – Quoth (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I was seeking documentation for {{End date and age}} and was confused to discover that the template page actually provides documentation (as it redirects) for {{Start date and age}}. Realizing a merge occurred, I looked at the code and saw that {{End date and age}} now calls {{Start date and age}} using a new |end= parameter which simply swaps microdata tags. And indeed, {{Start date and age}} provides no documentation for this new "end" parameter. Further, the merged template does not function similarly to its prior function. Rather than supplying a start and end date and calculating a duration (as {{Death date and age}} does for lifespan), it only accepts one date and calculates the "years ago" from that date to today.

I suspect this is not the intended or desirable result, and in either case, there's no documentation. Should this be fixed in this template, {{End date and age}} reverted, or the strange behavior accepted but documentated? djr13 (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Djr13: These changes were made by Zyxw (talk · contribs) more than five years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, I went to the template talk page, as I wasn't expecting Zyxw themself to necessarily be looking at the issue this long after. But I was wrong! I see they've begun editing some related templates. (Also I realize I should've mentioned that I'd posted here about their merge on their talk page, but I'm happy to see they noticed anyway.) Thanks for noticing and working on this, Zyxw! djr13 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Djr13: There was an incorrect assumption here, because {{End date and age}} has never accepted more than one date and has always calculated the age based on the current date. As per this diff, it was created on 3 September 2012 by User:IngagedRedBird as a copy of {{Start date and age}} with the only difference being {{Time ago}} replaced by {{Time agoed}} (that change made no difference in the output because of how the same user implemented {{Time agoed}}, as shown in this diff). When I came across this on 4 October 2013‎, {{End date and age}} was only used in 7 articles, so I made it a redirect to {{Start date and age}}. A few days later, I changed the redirect into a wrapper template so it would use class="dtend", similar to {{End date}} (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats § hCalendar). Based on your comments, I added documentation for the "end" parameter in {{Start date and age}} and created a separate documention page for {{End date and age}}. That template could be updated to calculate the age based on a second date, but it should default to the current output when only one date is provided because it is now used on over 1,300 pages. -- Zyxw (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh, well thanks for the clarification here and in the documentation. I'm not currently prepared to look at all those pages to assess their usage and modify the template appropriately, but might eventually if nobody else does. If nothing else the name "end date and age" seems to imply behavior similar to "death date and age", and I seem to be misremembering such functionality. djr13 (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Djr13: Perhaps you looked at this Old revision of Template:End date and age/doc which indicated that the template supported two dates and calculated the age between those dates. Apparently that was the intention of the template's creator, even though it was never actually implemented. -- Zyxw (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Over at 2017 Washington train derailment I tried {{Start date and age|2017|12|18}} and got December 18, 2017; 11 months ago. Since today is December 21, 2018, I'd like to see 1 year ago, the same as you'd get with {{age|2017|12|18}}, plus the correct "year/years ago". At the very least, "368 days ago", or "12 months ago" are more correct than "11 months ago", which is definitely off by a full month.

{{Start date and age|2016|12|18}} gives December 18, 2016; 2 years ago, but it appears to be taking "1 year, 11 months" and rounding up to 2, rather yielding "2 years, 3 days", and rounding down to 2.

I think this used to work but somehow it changed in the last year or two? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose for this template to be merged with {{start date}}. The latter could then have the option of having the age displayed or not. This template can still be retained but I suggest it to be made deprecated. Zulfadli51 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would like to extend this suggestion to other similar templates:

• merge {{end date and age}} to {{end date}}
• merge {{birth date and age}} to {{birth date}}
• merge {{death date and age}} to {{death date}}

Zulfadli51 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we please have a display option according to the ISO 8601. For example "2008 December 1st" would also be nice. Sauer202 (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No. That would be against MOS:DATE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, "2008 December 1st" would be unacceptable because it contravenes points 2 (avoid ordinal marks) and 3 (avoid YYYY MonthName DD) in the table of unacceptable date formats. Actual ISO format YYYY-MM-DD is specifically permitted for tabulations as item 5 in the table of acceptable date formats. Martin Kealey (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me like it somehow got out of sync. Noticed that October 29th is showing that it was "2 days ago" on macOS. Not sure if its a bug or if cache needs to be cleared or something. GeekInParadise (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@GeekInParadise: in such cases, the first thing to try is a WP:PURGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• {{Start date and age|2020|Jul|31}} produces correctly 1 day ago
• {{Start date and age|2020|July|31}} produces 30 days ago

—Dexxor (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Partially expanded template:

• July 31, 2020; 4 years ago (2020-07-31)
• July 31, 2020; 5 years ago (2020-07-31)

The first part is fine; but the second is not:

• {{time ago|2020-Jul-31|min_magnitude=days}} → 4 years ago
• {{time ago|2020-July-31|min_magnitude=days}} → 5 years ago

which in turn means that the problem is in Module:Time ago. I can go no further. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is not possible - please mention in documentation. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

When I view Mountain Dew, it says 82 years ago instead of 81–82 years ago. Please change this so it could work more like Template:Birth year and age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiHunter12 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@KaiHunter12: I think that the problem is in {{years or months ago|1940}} → 85 years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Years or months ago should also be updated to correctly show 81–82 years. KaiHunter12 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying - the problem is in that template, not this one. If you can get Template:Years or months ago amended, you'll find that {{Start date and age|1940}} then behaves as you want. But you also need to ensure that such a change does not compromise the other places that {{Years or months ago}} is used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wbm1058, to answer the question in Special:Diff/1099411584 – the problem is visible on every page that uses it. Please take a look at Template:Start date and age/testcases. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks andrybak. Sorry I did not check the test cases. My bad. wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Doh. I removed {{error but neglected to remove the closing }} – wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a change ready in the sandbox which will just return blank when parameters 1, 2, and 3 are all missing. Editors are pulling Wikidata to use for this template's parameters and often there is no date in Wikidata. This is considered "normal" so returning an error has been problematic. For example in the Python (programming language) infobox. I was reverted after I removed Wikidata-filled parameters where Wikidata was not returning any "latest preview date". See the relevant test cases. The new behavior is to only show the error when parameter 1 is missing and parameter 2 and/or 3 are not missing. If there are no timely objections I will make the sandbox code go live. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Start date and age has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think we need prehistoric years (0BC and before) to be included. 50.39.178.57 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also: (i) there is no such year as 0BC - the year before AD 1 is 1 BC; (ii) that is not the meaning of "prehistoric". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's possible to use a negative year:

-2833; 4858 years ago (-2833)

But "2833 BC" as output would be better. --Kallichore (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. This is a documented limitation of the template, for reasons outside of the template's control. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)