Template talk:Birth date and age/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request

This is a very nice & useful template, but it displays as "Month day, year". Perhaps those in the know could program a "day month year" alternative version for those articles that use that format? Bolivian Unicyclist 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It displays the date however you have it set in your preferences. If you prefer the day-month-year order, just set your preferences to that. —Angr 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most Wikipedia readers don't have accounts, and therefore do not have date preferences set. While it is nice to have the age displayed in a template, for anything but U.S.-centric articles it displays the date in an incorrect format. I've been going through and removing it for articles on Australian, European and other leaders. --Pete 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kind of a mess because birth dates are usually in parentheses, so this template pretty much guarantees nested parentheses. Also, I'm not too comfortable with the notion that some people's articles should be tagged with their age; how does one decide which? - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want the extra formatting, just use Template:Age. I created the original "age calculation" template so that those people who should be tagged with their age, can be. Which people those are, I haven't got a clue. Good luck deciding! --Uncle Ed 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Adding the template to Owen Wilson, I put in { { birth date and age|1968|18|11 } }, for the 18th November, but it came up June 11th. I don't think this is a problem with my preferences, because I've not chosen one. CelebHeights 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it goes year|month|day in order from larger unit to smaller unit. Try { { birth date and age|1968|11|18 } } to get (1968-11-18) November 18, 1968.

Template "arguments" don't follow your preferences. --Uncle Ed 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, not to sound brash, but is that not a serious problem? Not everybody uses the American way of writing dates.CelebHeights 13:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You could do it like: {{Birth date and age|date=12|month=3|year=1990}} now, that Okay? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO standard way of displaying dates, not the "American way" (which is MM-DD-YYYY). And Matthew, I hope you updated all the pages using the template after you changed it, otherwise it's going to be broken on a whole lot of pages. —Angr 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be broke? Both ways work. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fall through

To make it international acceptable I've added fall through parameters (month=, day=, year=) - these can be called in any order during transclusion. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Use in infoboxes

This template has been approved for use in {{Infobox actor}}. See Template talk:Infobox actor for discussion. Dismas|^(talk) 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've a problem with using this in Template:Korean Go player in that it does not list the line (e.g. Cho Chikun) in the infobox. CanbekEsen 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've figured it out. CanbekEsen 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

British or U.S. order

I have no preference between British d/m or U.S. m/d order. In fact, the default order of paramaters follows the East Asian (or "computer" order) or y/m/d. The idea is that the largest unit comes first. This matches the hour/minute/second order used elsewhere.

We could easily create a variant like {brit bda} or {british birth date and age} that uses year/day/month, but how many people actually would use it?

It's only when the year comes last (4/5/1980) or is omitted (4/5) that there's any ambiguity. But this template requires the year. And if the year goes first, I don't know of anyone who'd want to put the day next. Anyway, Matthew's fall through parameters should suffice. --Uncle Ed 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In England we actually do <day>/<month>/<year>.. I thought it was U.S. that did <month>/<date>/<year>? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ed had it backwards. For some reason people in this country (the U.S.) put it in month/date/year order. I've never understood it and I've lived here all my life. Dismas|^(talk) 13:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was typing in a hurry and didn't proofread what I typed. Sorry for adding to the confusion. --Uncle Ed 14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the origin of the order (on my side of the pond) is usage like "August 10th". Then you might add the year as "August 10th, 1845". Note that the U.S. military chose to use d mmm yyyy order: 10 Aug 1845. I guess they felt the extra second or two it takes to write out the month abbrev. was worthwhile, to prevent confusion over whether 10/8 means 10th day of August or October 8th.

By the way, I learned a lot about dates and how they get entered into computers, stored and interpreted during in the two years leading up to the great "Y2K problem". --Uncle Ed 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Australia and we (except Newspapers) use the same date format (<day>/<month>/<year>) as that used in the UK. I believe only North America uses the <month>/<day>/<year> format, so a lot of people would actually use the British/International variant template, ranging from the British Isles and Europe to Africa, the Subcontinent and Oceania. But I would either call the template "International bda" or "Intl birth date and age". Another few suggestions is to either call the international variant "Birth date and age" and rename the North American variant as "NA birth date and age", or call the international variant "Intl birth date and age" and rename the North American variant "NA birth date and age". Marco 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that no one will be too offended, but I think that using anything other than the current format, which is the REAL international standard (ISO 8601), is foolish. It is both unambiguous (probably even to CelebHeights, upon reflection), and logical (larger to smaller, just like our numbering system, and, for other applications, a time can follow). Creating an alternate template will give more stuff for Wikipedians to support (including de-vandalizing), encourage people to use their provincial formats instead of the official standard, encourage variations between templates, and force editors to do research to find out what a particular template does... after which they'll replace with with the standard template. Like Uncle Ed, I too have gone through Y2k; much of Y2K occurred because people could not be bothered to PLAN AHEAd, often even as late as 1998. Also, the statement about the US military is obsolete; forms are being converted to request YYYY MM DD or YYYY MMM DD. --Scott McNay 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The ISO standard is for "data elements and interchange formats" it is not for narrative text, like an encyclopedia article. Most people in the English-speaking world write a date as "February 25, 1990" (North America) or "25 February 1990" (most of the rest of the English-speaking world). For those users who are signed on and have stated a date preference, they will see all dates in their preferred format, but those who are not signed in (which is a majority of those who are reading the articles and not editing), and those who haven't set their date preference, will see the date from this template in the North American format. I think we should have an alternative, perhaps having an optional 4th parm that has the format MDY, DMY or even YMD. This way we can have a default depending on what part of the world the subject of a bio is from. This 4th parm would have no effect on users who are signed in and have stated a preference. If this is not possible, then we should have a second template named "Intl birth date and age" as per above. --rogerd 04:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding a parameter to specify US usage is entirely possible, I should think. Of course, seeing as the majority of English-speakers use DMY, the template would default to that, and one'd have the specify {{bda|1982|6|21|NA}}. What do we think?

{{bda|1982|6|21}} would produce 21 June 1982 (age 24)

and {{bda|1982|6|21|NA}} June 21 1982 (age 24)

Of course, all of us will see these exactly the same, per our preferences, but still... DBD 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the template be changed to use the ISO order of Year Month Day, which would be unambiguous to all English speakers, and follow the international standard, thus avoiding regional issues. This would of course still also follow user preferences for those that have them. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. That would mean that any user who isn't signed in (which is probably most readers of wikipedia) or hasn't stated a date preference would see the rather ungainly 1982-06-21 for instance, that is not meant for narrative text, but for "data elements and interchange formats". Just as most UK or international subjects have dates in the 21 June 1982 format and most US and Canada subjects have it in the June 21, 1982 format. So this template needs to be changed to allow editors to make the default formatting consistent with the customary date formatting of the subject's country. --rogerd 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I was not sugesting the exact ISO standard, just the ISO order, so today for example would read 2007 March 03 for anybody without a set preference. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was brief a discussion related to this at Template talk:Euro birth date#Suggested move. Following that I added an optional argument to this template. If you append "|df=yes" the default order of the day and month will be day first. This is the same as if you had typed [[24 February]] instead of [[February 24]]. This should address some of the issues raised in this thread. I added this to the following templates:

* Template:Birth date

* Template:Birth date and age

* Template:Death date

* Template:Death date and age

I when I did this I didn't realized this was being discussed here. I hope nobody minds my change. -- Patleahy 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. If there is a default, it should be to ddmmyyyy, which is what most of the world uses. However, it would be most efficient to have the template use the preferred order as a wikidate - all editors will understand how it works and will naturally use the appropriate order. --Pete 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please realise I believe that the day first order should be supported. I created some of the euro date templates for this reason. I proposed the df option and supported the deletion of the euro date templates because I believe that a single set of templates for all articles would actual make the day first option easer for editors to find.

Secondly, are you are aware the default is something only editors need to be deal with? Articles can be written so that readers can see the day month order that is appropriate for the article in question, e.g. in articles about Australians an editor can use these templates and have the day appear before the month for readers who are not logged in.

As I said when we discussed this below, changing the default would involve touching many articles just to change a default. This disruption to articles and editors habits is not justified in my opinion. However if the consensus opinion is that the default should be changed and people or a bot will update all the existing articles not to use the new default then go ahead and make the change.

I also said, I don’t think it is practical and perhaps not possible to implement these templates using wiki dates without string functions which are not installed in wikipedia. If you or someone else can contradict me with a proposed implementation that would be great. -- Patleahy 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Error?

the template page is reading:

“ [[ {{{3}}}]] [[{{{1}}}]] (age Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{") ”

...is this correct? --emerson7 | Talk 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just the rogue output from the template, in reality when called it won't spit out that error message to you :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Code question

The template has a few items that look like: {{{1|{{{year|{{{1}}}}}}}}} Is the repeated {{{1}}} necessary, or could it be {{{1|{{{year|}}}}}} ? Gimmetrow 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The extra {{{1}}} is for style reasons. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain further? What style reasons does this code advance? Gimmetrow 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the actual template and you will notice the numbers are outputted rather then day, year or month. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking how it works and why it's there. The code seems to say: use the value of {{{1}}}, but if that isn't defined, then use the value of {{{year}}}, but if that is also not defined, then use the value of {{{1}}}. But that won't be defined if the code ever gets there. Please explain? Gimmetrow 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

{{{1|{{{year|}}}}}} expands to "" (the empty string) if neither parameter number 1 nor parameter "year" are defined. {{{1|{{{year|{{{1}}}}}}}}} expands to "{{{1}}}" and reminds the callers that they must specify either parameter number 1 or year but not leave out both. You can test that yourself by copying {{{1|{{{year|{{{1}}}}}}}}} into Special:ExpandTemplates. --Ligulem 10:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

selfref

This template use {{selfref}}, but without real reason... Can an administrator remove it please. 16@r 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The syntax is so convoluted that I don't dare, but I'll ask at WP:AN. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ral315 wrote on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ([1]):

I believe it's so that mirrors don't take the age, which might be inaccurate should the person later die. Ral315 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

--Ligulem 10:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{age}} template called by this one is also used extensively itself and doesn't 'selfref' the value so we're inconsistent there. Mirrors which copy the templates would be fine. If some mirrors just copy the final value they would have the age off by a year between the person's birthdate and the next update. Thus, only mirrors which do not update regularly might have a serious impact from this... but they'd also be failing to include things like the fact that the person had died at all - making the un-updated age seem like a relatively minor concern. As such I think it should be ok to remove this and will do so. --CBD 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I made the change I noticed that parameter 2 of the selfref template was set to blank... which would actually prevent the selfreference class from being set and effectively caused the selfref template to do nothing except display the contents of parameter 1... which is exactly what happens when we remove the selfref entirely. --CBD 13:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about <small> tags after the date of birth?

It would look like this:

December 25, 1984 (age 22)

---Majestic- 08:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. Just remove the 'small' tags if there is a consensus in favor of the larger text. --CBD 13:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:noprint}}

The "age" section should be wrapped in "noprint," so that we don't produce dated paper versions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an opposite to noprint, such as printonly? If so, could change to add "as of yyyy mmm dd", so that "flattened" material is always correct. --Scott McNay 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Current, IncludeOnly

May I suggest adding the word "current" in front? I was looking at a bio page, and saw "age nn" under the picture, and wasn't sure if that meant the age as of when the picture was taken. Adding the word "current" should help.

Also, I'd like to suggest that <includeonly> and </includeonly> be added to suppress the error message that appears on the template page, and add "See Template_Talk:Birth date and age for discussion about this template" in the <noinclude> section. --Scott McNay 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Small?

Any chance we could get rid of the <small/> tags around the age. It makes it more difficult to read for people with visual difficulties (like myself). For the number of characters an age will ever be (three at most), it's not like it's saving any space… — OwenBlacker 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering most people can view the small text I don't see this change as necessary, you can add some CSS to Monobook.css to set small font-text to 100%.

small { font-size: 100%; }

Hope this helps. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this template is used with the infobox templates (ex. Ang Lee which uses {{Infobox actor}}). The infobox uses "font-size:90%;" so the "small" is in addition to that. I don't see OwenBlacker's request as unreasonable as that is getting pretty small for a significant portion of the population. -- JLaTondre 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the <small> tags only make the numbers smaller, but not the word "age" or the brackets. It was originally intended that it would make both "(age" and ##) smaller. Example: (age 30). Currently it reads: (age 30) which looks kinda weird. Can you fix this? ---Majestic- 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this request. Can we pick one or the other? Fethers 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to grant this one, since the majority of people with opinions want it, and everybody seems reasonable. Only questions before I go for it: (a) is there anybody who strongly disagrees, at this time? (b) What about italics, instead of small font? Luna Santin 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to propose this change, but see that someone's beaten me to it. Please do remove the <small> tags as it makes the text look strange, and doesn't really add any value. Thanks. robwingfield ^«T•C» 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Righto, done. I've put it in italics, as well -- somebody let me know if you think that's just as bad. :p Luna Santin 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh.. please remove the italics :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, if someone else agrees they should go. I guess I figure there should be some text decoration (to mark it as transient information subject to change?), but if I'm the only one, no problem. Luna Santin 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that request. I'm not a fan of the <small> script, but I can live with that. But italics... yeech! I'm sorry, but it looks really bad imo. --Badmotorfinger 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I appreciate your candor, actually. Removed 'em. Luna Santin 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The </small> tag needs to be removed. --PhantomS 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could've sworn I got that. Perhaps this'll go down in history as my most bungled protected edit ever? :p Luna Santin 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Add category: [year] births

It would be useful if this could be used to automatically categorize the bio into the category of whatever year of birth it is. For example if {{birth date and age|1971|04|09}} automatically sorted that biography (Peter Canavan) into [[Category:1971 births]] --Macca7174 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I don't think it would work. There could easily be birth dates for people who are not the main subject of an article, and there could be articles whose subjects might include a birth date, but should not appear in the [[Category:nnnn births]]. --Ccady 04:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But if another birth date was used within an article about a different person, there is no need to use this template, surely? Could you show me an example of where it is neccessary. I assumed the usage of the template was restricted to Infoboxes?--Macca7174 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Ccady, far too problematic; it would vastly miscategorize articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a category for teenagers? That is, people whose Current Age is between 13 and 19? --Uncle Ed 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thing like that have been CfD'd with extreme prejudice in the past.

Rename template

With the introduction of a similar template providing output in International Dating format, I intend renaming this template to "US birth date and age" in order to maintain consistency and reduce confusion. As it stands, many editors are using this template for articles where the subject is not a U.S. or Phillipines citizen, and of course this produces a date format which is inconsistent with the remainder of the article. --Pete 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. This template already outputs the date in European format if the user's preferences are set for that format. Why do we need seperate templates? Dismas|^(talk) 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell: The preferences would cover it all, or even the majority of users signed up and properly set the prefs. This is to address the issue of casual/annom users. A casual user in London should get an article a bout a British celeb in a "proper" and consistent formatting. — J Greb 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia users aren't editors and don't have accounts. This goes to the issue of quality and professionalism, to have all dates in an article in the correct standard. We should label the two templates appropriately, not leave one as an implicit default. --Pete 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not add an optional field for Euro dates, in order to merge the two? --PhantomS 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the U.S. and the Philippines are about the only two nations using American Dating format, why not have an optional field for U.S. dates? I'd prefer to have one template that takes the input as a standard wikidate in either format, and outputs the same format, adding the calculated age. --Pete 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem now. I would rather have the template changed than have two templates. I think it would lessen the confusion for editors. Dismas|^(talk) 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the template name not change, but that the template itself be changed to use the ISO order of Year Month Day, which would be unambiguous to all English speakers, and follow the international standard, thus avoiding regional issues. This would of course still also follow user preferences for those that have them. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A neat solution, but unfortunately it goes dead against the Manual of Style. We write out dates with the full month, and we format them in the order relevant to the country. --Pete 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The ISO format is not for narrative text, but for computer interchange. Why can't this template have an optional 4th parameter for the default formatting for "no date preference" users? And by the way Canada usually uses the Mmmm DD, YYYY format, too. --rogerd 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada uses both, but the month-day-year format remains a minority usage globally. Using ISO as an input parameter might seem straightforward to you, but it's confusing to the average editor. What is needed is wikidate input, just like every other date in Wikipedia text, and have the template just spit it out as input, after working out the age. The idea is to keep it simple so people will use it effectively. --Pete 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I just added in another section above, I had not meant to sugest the exact ISO standard, just the ISO order, so that today would read as 2007 March 03 to anyone without a preference set. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can get this through WP:DATE, fine. Otherwise, it's not worth talking about anywhere else. In the meantime, let's stick to what the Manual of Style says, hmmm? --Pete 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the ISO date formats section of WP:DATE, “ISO 8601 dates may sometimes be useful elsewhere; for example, they are useful in lists, tables, for dates of birth/death” —MJBurrage • TALK • 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"...birth/death, for conciseness and ease of comparison." Finishing the quote for you. It may be that the points of contention become: 1) is use in an infobox a form of list or table, and 2) does the information need to be more concise for comparison against other articles. — J Greb 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that this template is intended to be used primarily in Info-boxes, and not as part of a sentence in flowing text, I do not see that it would be a problem for it to use an order that might be different than the order used for dates in the narrative text of the article.
So whether an article’s dates are in American order (March 4, 2007), or Commonwealth order (4 March 2007) having this one date in ISO order (1997 March 4 (age 10) for example) does not seem to me to be a problem. Furthermore it solves the whole order/multi-template debates with out favouring American vs. Commonwealth, and it does not, in my humble opinion, violate the spirit of WP:DATE. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I make the point that it isn't American vs Commonwealth. It's American vs International, as day-month-year format is in wide use throughout Europe, Africa, South America and much of Asia. I see your point about the template being a table, and yes, using ISO format would solve the problem. I can't say that I love it, however. --Pete 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this template?

Why can I only "view source", there's no edit button. Gronky 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The template is protected to avoid vandalism. Templates, like this one, that are widely used are favorite targets for vandalism as it will show up on many, many pages. I have added the appropriate template to the top of this page to explain that. -- JLaTondre 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

born aged 42 - ouch!

This template currently says says that people were born at a certain age. Surely it should say "currently aged 42". Can someone fix this? I can't, the page has no edit button for some unexplained reason. Gronky 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not positive I understand your request. The template shows up as "(age #)". For an example, look at Arthur C. Clarke which shows its typical usage in an infobox: "Born: December 16, 1917 (age 89)". I think that's pretty clear that the date is when he's born and his current age is 89. As it's normally used in an infobox, adding "currently" will cause it to wrap which won't look as nice. -- JLaTondre 14:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Chinglish, I know what is meant, but it looks strange: "Age 89 at birth". If a linebreak was added before the parenthesis, it would wrap nicely, or better yet, if   was used instead of spaces, it would only wrap when necessary, and in those cases would wrap nicely. Then "currently aged" could be used, or something equally proper. Gronky 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you change "(Age ##)" to "(## years old)" or "(now aged ##)". Examples - Born: December 16, 1917 (89 years old), or Born: December 16, 1917 (now aged 89).

Or just make a new infobox field: "Current age", if the current system is so confusing. ---Majestic- 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can prevent wrapping by adding &nbsp ; codes to this template in between the words, numbers etc., wherever there is a space (punctuation) between them. Actually there is already &nbsp ; between "age" and the numbers so it can't wrap. ---Majestic- 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with JLaTondre; it's physically impossible to be born at age 89, and literally everyone knows this, so the entire issue is both silly and moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Use in hCard microformat

This template has (positive!) implications for the deployment of the hCard microformat. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats/hcard. Andy Mabbett 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-19 01:47Z

Thank you. I now need to update the documentation, accordingly. I suggest it be moved to a separate /doc page. Andy Mabbett 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. The documentation is in Template:Birth date and age/doc and is not protected. It is shared between {{birth date}} and {{birth date and age}}, so please update it accordingly. CMummert · talk 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Andy Mabbett 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Bug style="bday" should be class="bday". Andy Mabbett 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 09:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Someone wrote Template:Hcard-bday a while ago to create an inline microformat to be used in cases where the given birth date isn't for the subject of the article, but for someone related. Microformats need a name parameter for it, so the template was created to add one, but otherwise works the same as this template. It's not a good idea to make many different templates to produce the exact same text for the reader, so I did the job properly and extended the current template. Could someone please do the modification from my sandbox? It adds support for a name parameter, and adds the microformat if the parameter is given. A test is visible here. --Para 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this change also need to be made to {{Birth date}}? -- Patleahy 17:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't notice that one was being wrapped too. Yes, the change would be just as useful there. --Para 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to this change as proposed, because the name, if present, is not displayed. This does not reproduce the superior functionality of {{Hcard-bday}} Andy Mabbett 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In what sense are the respective names in here displayed/not displayed? -- roundhouse0 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I now see that the name in the {{Hcard-bday}} implementation displays whether I want it or not - how is this an advantage? (I can type in the name in the other if I want it.) -- roundhouse0 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

screenshot showing PoV name from first template, but not third

In this sense. Andy Mabbett 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of a person is linked strongly enough to a birth date for us to put the two together semantically, but actually displaying the name with something that is for formatting dates does not make sense. Especially since the existing name display format makes the name more important by putting the date and age in parentheses. If such a template really is necessary, feel free to make a new one called name and birth date and age or something similar, or propose a new parameter to these templates. As far as microformats are concerned, everything is already included. --Para 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Take an actual example, Phil Jagielka. Philip "Phil" Jagielka (born August 17 1982 in Manchester). I can use Para's modification to leave everything looking much the same. How could I use AM's version? -- roundhouse0 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you view Para's modification with CSS disabled. Andy Mabbett 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense; so much so that you nominated {{Hcard-bday}} for deletion on the grounds that the same thing could be done with this template, to which I agreed. You now appear to be moving the goalposts. It's disingenuous to suggest that I should make a new template, when we already have one, which you have tried to remove. The microformats specifications specifically prohibit hidden metadata. Andy Mabbett 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If AM could provide a implementation to apply to Philip "Phil" Jagielka (born August 17 1982 in Manchester), I will view both with and without CSS. (Remind me how to switch off CSS in Firefox.) -- roundhouse0 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

AM: The data from this template after the proposed modification isn't hidden; the date is always displayed, and I can't think of any uses where a birth date is mentioned without a name for it somewhere in the same article, usually very close to the date. It's only a microformat and their template implementation weakness that the content for microformats needs to be given in one set, instead of pulling any set of tagged data through some software interface. hcard-bday was nominated for deletion because words like that have no place in articles, except maybe when talking of technical topics related to the words. No text in article space should ever be surrounded with hcard-anything, as the additional output format is just a side effect of it having been annotated as certain type of information. --Para 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The name in your template modification is hidden, as shown in your sandbox example and my screen-shot of that. Your template would allow a page on Tony Blair with the hidden metadata Mickey Mouse. And why should editors have to enter the same data twice? If you wish to rename {{hcard-bday}}, say to "name-bday", I'm sure you know the procedures to make such a proposal. Your comments about what you perceive to be a weakness of microformats are again misfounded; you describe limitations of wiki software, not microformats. Andy Mabbett 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors already write names many times, whenever they refer to someone. When you go for semantic markup, you have to find a way to link the information together so that it doesn't all need to be given at once. A name being used as an identifier to link the birth date to its subject and not showing that particular instance of the name is not hiding information, provided that the name is mentioned somewhere else in the article. The same could be done with anything else about a secondary topic of an article to display it using an additional format, and it would also need the identifier to make the association, but hardly anyone would agree to actually displaying the name every time. Vandalism is vandalism, be it in article text or any other markup here, and Wikipedia has the means to combat it. --Para 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

With Para's method I can get
Philip "Phil" Jagielka (born August 17 1982 (Phil Jagielka Para, 1982-08-17) in Manchester).

AM gives me
Philip "Phil" Jagielka (born Phil Jagielka, b. (1982-08-17) August 17, 1982 in Manchester) [AM Method].
Can the obvious flaws in the latter be circumvented? -- roundhouse0 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're using a can opener to tighten a screw. {{hcard-bday}} is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Take a look at the pages on which it is already used, and stop using straw men. Andy Mabbett 10:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So the AM method is of no use on a typical page, then. This seems like a drawback. Please cite a page where it is in use. -- roundhouse0 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know to which "AM method" your refer (not least since you seem to prefer rhetoric to simple discussion), but the method employed by {{hcard-bday}} is amply suited to the pages and uses for which it was created. You may use "What links here" on that template, as on any other. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I did use "What links here" and was directed to various sandboxes - perhaps you could assist by pointing me to an exemplar. I refer to the AM method above, which I have now annotated as such; if you have other relevant methods, pray elucidate. -- roundhouse0 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not my method; but an abuse of the template, as I've already made clear. Of the eleven links under "what links here" for that template, only three are sandboxes. Of the rest, one is an article, I'm sure you can find it, if you try. Andy Mabbett 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it would be quicker for all if you just said try Delirious?. How bizarre. -- roundhouse0 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I could not find anything in RFC 2426 ("vCard MIME Directory Profile") which prohibits this use.[2]. From reading [3] it appears the not including hidden data is a guideline of the hCard Microformat project and not a rule. The first example on their page of hCard examples includes hidden data which is repeated elsewhere: [4] I believe this allows what roundhouse0 is proposing. -- Patleahy 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The vCard spec is irrelevant in this context; vCard s a data exchange format and has nothing to say about HTML display. the example you cite is the first step in a series of four; and is shown as an example of bad practise, remedied in subsequent steps. Andy Mabbett 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere at microformats.org this is prohibited, only recommended against. Since roundhouse0 has a pragmatic reason for adding the name to the template why we don't do it? -- Patleahy 02:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am told microformats are a good thing; I am told that some benefit will arise from adding a microformat to a person's birthday or contact details for a viaduct. I can see that this can be done via an infobox; I can see that it could be done via a table. It seems to me that microformattists are hamstringing themselves if they insist on adding anything at all to a given article to carry out their task. The awkwardly forced construction Phil Jagielka, b. (1982-08-17) August 17, 1982 will not sit easily in any well-written piece of prose (it appears to be lacking a few explanatory words). In contrast I can use Para's modification in any pre-existing article with a date of birth without changing a symbol in the text. It involves some hidden metadata: so what? -- roundhouse0 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any occasion where "microformats" (nor anyone advocating them, have "insist on adding anything at all to a given article to carry out their task". Perhaps you could give an example? Andy Mabbett 11:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. -- roundhouse0 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps you could give an example?". That would be "no", then.

Yes, there is one in this very section - see if you can spot it. There are 2 more just below. -- roundhouse0 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no such examples. If you believe I'm mistaken, feel free to prove me wrong by citing them explicitly. Andy Mabbett 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the name in the proposed template was hidden metadata, the specifications don't say that such data is prohibited. The microformats community failed to give a reference when Andy Mabbett requested for one, and (in his own words), "I've still seen no citation for any *prohibition* of hidden data in microformats". The single objection above is thus null and void. --Para 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no further opposition, I have reinstated the editprotected request. --Para 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as initially stated and discussed above. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the editprotected template for now, please re-add it once there is consensus for a specific edit. Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is only a single voice of opposition, self-contradictory at that, against all others. The specific edit is mentioned in the original request. I'll leave it to someone else to readd the editprotected template. --Para 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not anyone else has pointed it out; your implementation is broken. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has. If you feel it's broken, please explain how, so that it could be fixed. --Para 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have. It can't be fixed, because its premise is false. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to arrive at concensus here if we simply tell each other "you're wrong". If the problems are enumerated, clearly and without invective, they may be soluble. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I agree with merging {{Hcard-bday}} into this template. {{Hcard-bday}} exists to do a subset of what this template is intended to do. {{Hcard-bday}} has a name which is meaningless to most editors. User:Pigsonthewing's (Andy Mabbett) objection would force the wording of sentences in order to avoid editors entering the name twice, this is too restrictive for the benefit. -- Patleahy (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

2 Examples

Without changing any of the visible text, microformat the d.o.b. of Marc Blume (new article) to your satisfaction. Ditto for coord in Puerto Baquerizo Moreno (no tables allowed, no infoboxes). -- roundhouse0 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<Yawn> Done, with no hidden metadata. Do I win a prize? Andy Mabbett 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your prize is that you get to undo your edit to Marc Blume. This article now contains a obscurely named template which has no documentation. Examples such as this should be done in userspace. -- Patleahy 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(Ans to previous section) AM has just created a new template to address Marc Blume (which passes the first hurdle and deserves a brownie point, herewith awarded) ... OK, E. W. Bastard then. What about Hicks Building? This diff introduces duplicated coords (entered once but appearing both in the title and the infobox) and is immediately reverted because of duplication. My point is that if the change had copied the previous format (without duplication) then a would-be reverter has to think harder. -- roundhouse0 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Description

{{editprotected}} Add description how it works , copied from {{Death date and age}} :

[[ {{{3}}}]] [[{{{1}}}]] (aged )

Returns a person's date of birth and his/her age .

Syntax: {{Birth date and age|year of birth|month of birth|day of birth}}

Example:

{{Birth date and age|1993|2|24}}
returns ( (1993-02-24) February 24, 1993 )

Note: The template will appear broken when the parameters are left blank (as seen above).

Also {{Death date and age}} should be protected (Gnevin 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)) (Gnevin 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Done. I moved the docs, categories, etc. to a subpage which is not (currently) protected, so you can tweak it yourself. CMummert · talk 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There's just {{Birth date and age}} as a syntax. You should add year,month and day, example: {{Birth date and age|year|month|day}} ---Majestic- 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Space

This is going to sound really anal retentive, but could somebody reduce the space in between the date and the age (ex. February 18, 1996 (age 11). See what I mean, there's two spaces there when there should only be one. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 75pickup 04:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an additional blank between the date and whatever comes after it, see the example section I just modified. This looks really bad and should go. --87.189.91.236

As I think I said elsewhere here, I believe this is caused by using the vertical, multi-line instead of horizontal, one-line version of the template usage, and that vertical usage should be not only removed from the documentation but specifically warned against. It happens because the linebreak between the opening and closing "|"'s of the parameter are turned by the software into a space character, when the value is echoed back out; vertical template formatting can only be used, as in {{WPBiography}}, when the values in the parameters are treated as conditions to test for, rather than literals to regurgitate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Death

I think this template should add a death part to it, so that it removes the age part, or died on day. Eg.

{{birth date and age|1900|1|1}} = (1900-01-01) January 1, 1900

But this is my proposal

{{birth date and age|1900|1|1|dead}} = January 1, 1900

or someting like this

{{birth date and age|1900|1|1|died|2000|1|1}} = January 1, 1900 (died age 100)

Thats my thoughts anyway. SpecialWindler 10:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have {{birth date}} and {{birth date and age}}. Andy Mabbett 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you looking for {{death date and age}} —MJBurrage • TALK • 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We could consider a "lived" template, which would incorporate places of birth and death as well. Rich Farmbrough, 08:29 8 May 2007 (GMT).

Day parameter - add a text to number conv

If you add a leading zero to the day it shows the leading zero in the results like {{Birth date and age|1993|02|01}} (1993-02-01) February 1, 1993

Adding a #expr (see Help:Calculation#Numbers_as_input) around the day statement will convert it to a number: {{ #expr: {{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}}}}

See an example on the Norwegian Wiki: no:Mal:Birth date and age. Nsaa 15:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Day first option

{{editprotected}} Please update the first line of template with the code which follows. The purpose of this change is to allow writers have the same control over the default day month order when using these templates as they have when using raw dates. This will make the following template redundant: Template:Euro birth date and age

There was a brief discussion on the rational for making this change here: Template talk:Euro birth date#Suggested move.

{{#ifeq:{{{df}}}|yes|[[{{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}} {{MONTHNAME|{{{2|{{{month|{{{2}}}}}}}}}}}]]|[[{{MONTHNAME|{{{2|{{{month|{{{2}}}}}}}}}}} {{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}}]]}} [[{{{1|{{{year|{{{1}}}}}}}}}]]<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday">{{{1|{{{year|}}}}}}-{{padleft:{{{2|{{{month|}}}}}}|2|0}}-{{pad2digit|{{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}}}}</span>)</span>{{selfref|1=<span class="noprint"> (age {{age | {{{1|{{{year|{{{1}}}}}}}}} | {{{2|{{{month|{{{2}}}}}}}}} | {{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}} }})</span>|2=}}<noinclude>

I made a similar request at Template talk:Death date and age#Day first option.

-- Patleahy 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you give a brief outline of how this is supposed to work, please? --Pete 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also, the usage (/doc) is fully editable on both templates now. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you append |df=yes the default order of the day and month will be day first. This is the same as if you had typed a raw date as [[24 February]] instead of [[February 24]] e.g. {{Birth date and age|1993|2|24|df=yes}} will appear as "24 February, 1993 (age 14)" if you are not logged in or do not have a date preference set. -- Patleahy 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll update the documentation for the templates when it is clear that the implementation won’t be changing. -- Patleahy 08:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While this is an acceptable technical solution, from the point of view of usability and wikiness, it is deeply flawed. There should be NO default condition for this template, because as it stands it is being used to insert dates in American format into articles which should have them as International format. If you look at the discussion pages at WP:DATE you will see that there is no concensus for having American Dating or International Dating as a default format. The template should merely take the input format and output it in the same format. --Pete 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I considered having no default, or making day first the default, however these templates are already in use in many existing articles. I considered this approach the best compromise between the option on one hand of disrupting many existing articles and on the other hand giving equal importance to both formats. -- Patleahy 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's creating a mess, that's what is happening. I suggest renaming this template to "USA birth date and age" and doing a global search and replace. It is far too useful to lose, but the longer it remains in use, the more inconsistencies are caused. --Pete 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an opposing view that having two sets of templates is the wrong thing to do, see: Template talk:Euro birth date#Suggested move. I can see arguments for both approaches. If you have one set you can tell everyone to use it. With two sets it is easer to determine which articles use which format. What other advantages and disadvantages does each approach have?

What to people think do having one set of templates and they have no default, i.e. you would always have to specify the day first or month first is some way?

Regarding the names of these templates I think names like "USA birth date and age" and "Euro birth date and age" are poor as in both cases they exclude locations which use the particular format. I originally proposed renaming "Euro birth date and age" to "Birth date and age (day first)". Template talk:Euro birth date#Suggested move has more on the reason for the change. The complementary template could be names "Birth date and age (month first)" -- Patleahy 04:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from the Philippines and half of Canada, it's pretty much the USA using MDY. However, some Asian nations don't use either MDY or DMY. My preference is to have one template containing an input date in either format 1 February 2003 or January 2, 2003 outputting a wikidate in the same format. Easy to use, no instructions needed, naturally follows the format of the article. Otherwise have two templates: "Birth date and age (DMY)" or ""Birth date and age (MDY)" --Pete 04:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think it would be possible to implement a template where the date is a single parameter. -- Patleahy 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of this whole lame issue. Just make the thing output in the ISO format (e.g. 2007-05-28) and make people actually set up their user preferences for a change!—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think we should make people register before they can read Wikipedia? I doubt this will be a popular move. --Pete 05:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a requirement to register, just one more good reason we could add to the list. :-)—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many reasons to register, but realistically, we're not going to have the vast continent of unregistered readers suddenly join the small village of registered editors. For our casual users we need to output dates in a format that works in narrative text, and is appropriate to the subject. --Pete 06:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I too am tired of the issue. Unregistered users unless they are retarded will understand the ISO date format, even if it is not their personal preference. That date format is becoming so common in so many contexts that the issue just strikes me as moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you see the point being made. While the ISO date format is easily understood and widely used, it doesn't intuitively lend itself to outputting wikidates in the correct format for an article. Instead we have a default which is incorrect for most nations, and a flag which is only explained in the template page. Few editors will bother looking it up. Of course, if one detests internationalisation of Wikipedia, there is no problem. --Pete 20:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sarcasm unnecessary. PS: Where else could the parameter be explained, but in the template's documentation? :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? If the input is ISO, there must either be multiple templates, or a parameter to transform the default output into the correct format (as is currently the case). If the input is a wikidate in the correct format, then the template works intuitively, regardless of date format. --Pete 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to get upset. I was just responding to "and a flag which is only explained in the template page", which seemed to imply that it should be documented...elsewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Funny man. Time to move on. --Pete 21:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping/non-breaking space

Resolved

 – Needed edits were performed

is it at all possible to add non-breaking space to prevent the unsightly linebreaks as illustrated below?

From this:
25 January 1980 (age
27)

To this:
25 January 1980 
(age 27)

--emerson7 | Talk 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} could someone please add an "&nbsp;" to the template to address the above concern...thanks. --emerson7 | Talk 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of birthdays

Given WP:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays, is there an alternative template that works on just the birth year? Ian Cairns 14:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Interlang

Please add ja:Template:生年月日と年齢. Thank you.--Ko-ta 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Documentation fix

{{editprotected}}

Please replace {{Template:Birth date and age/doc}} with {{template doc}}. Andy Mabbett 10:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

\Thank you.Andy Mabbett 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Age noprint

Resolved

 – Needed edits were performed, within limits of consensus.

Why is this noprinting?:

<span class="noprint"> (age {{age | {{{1|{{{year|{{{1}}}}}}}}} | {{{2|{{{month|{{{2}}}}}}}}} | {{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}} }})</span>

What is the point of adding calculated age-as-of-now to an article and not letting people print that information as part of their hardcopy of the article? The fact that it disappears when printed is very likely to severely confuse most users, who do not understand CSS display capabilities. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Please remove the <span class="noprint"> and </span>, per three days of waiting for a justification for it being there. Also, the font HTML element is deprecated anyway. Sloppy, 1997-style coding. Conforming edit probably needed at {{Death date and age}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand, the idea was to avoid having printed versions that would rapidly go out of date -- while a living person's current age is a variable, their age at the time of their death is a constant, so that's not wrapped in noprint. Although regardless, this should be converted into a span or removed, depending on consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I switched to a span tag. The noprint class has been used in the template for six months and it makes sense (at least, to me) to keep it, so consensus will be needed to remove it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the noprint should come out but that should be a separate discussion with an editprotected at the end of it if consensus is to remove it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Useless parentheses?

Resolved

 – Good reason, explained.

The parentheses inside the display:none span appear to be misplaced and useless:

<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday">{{{1|{{{year|}}}}}}-{{padleft:{{{2|{{{month|}}}}}}|2|0}}-{{pad2digit|{{{3|{{{day|{{{3}}}}}}}}}}}</span>)</span>

The evident point of the display:none span is to "make room" for the hCard "bday" span, which must have a bare ISO date format, while not actually displaying this, since we are using prior code to [[...]] wikiformat the date for display. Thus, it appears to me that we are generating parentheses as useless data/dead code. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you viewed an instance of this template in use, with your CSS disabled? The parentheses are visible and essential, then. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I can imagine that. I'm not sure why I'd ever disable CSS for other than web coding bug testing reasons, but I see the point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You may not, but other people have it disabled by default. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Flagging arbitration proceedings

Changing formats or styles to favour one over the other without a good reason is wiki-illegal under an ArbCom ruling based around describing years as AD or CE. This template favours American Dating over International Dating, and the removal of the "Euro" template has seen many articles where International Dating format is appropriate, now showing American Dating format for birthdates.

I propose to present a case aimed at removing the current bias. Wikipedia is supposed to have a strong commitment to internationalisation. --Pete 00:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing which prevents this from being used internationally. When the Euro versions were replaced they were replaced with the day first version. Here is an example. If you have an example where this was not done please tell me on my talk page. I will follow up this conversation on your talk page so that I can understand your specific concerns. -- Patleahy (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• John Howard
• Petula Clark
• Brent Webb

The list goes on - all I need do is look at my watchlist and while some were changed, this is by no means universal. --Pete 03:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we promoting internationalization for the sake of contributors, i.e., to make it easy for them to use the templates? Or as a manifestation of European anti-Americanism? There are plenty of Asian contributors who are comfortable with year-month-day order, not to mention all us computer programmers.

I'm shocked to here that something as simple and intuitive as a year-month-day standard is being described as "illegal".

I'm sure we can find a way to support day-month-year order for users who are more comfortable entering birthdates that way. I myself prefer month/day/year, but I desigined this template to support year-month-day as the default, because I didn't want there to be any "cross-pond" confusion (America and England, two countries separated by a common language ;-)

Cheers! --Uncle Ed 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be equally shocked to hear of a year-month-day standard described as illegal. As a computer programmer, I use it as a good, sortable way of presenting dates in everything from spreadsheets to filenames. And yes, many Asians use it as their preferred date format. Good on them. The problem with the template is not really with the input, but with the output. Is the default output a case of arrogant Yankee imperialism? Is the removal of the "Euro birth date and age" template a spit in the face of nations from New Zealand to Norway? --Pete 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why display the age?

Could I please ask that we discuss the point in displaying the age of a person on their article. There are numerous reasons that I can find to support removing this, and few I can find for keeping it.

Remove the age because:

• As mentioned above, the age is surrounded by tags so that it is not mirrored and is not printed, why, given that it is displayed nowhere else, with no detriment to the article, is it displayed here.
• As mentioned above, the format reads incorrectly. Although it is evident what this template means, it does strongly imply that people are born old.
  • Although this might be fixed with formatting, previous attempts at this have been reverted.
  • Although this might be fixed by adding a short word to the template, no-one seems to wants to do this because it would add yet more noise with no signal to the articles.
• In certain places it is considered impolite to explicitly state someones age (good old Britain for example).
• Anyone who feels a desperate need for this information can work it out with no difficulty, most people do not need or want to know this.
• It is added to articles with little or no thought as to whether the age improves the quality; which it doesn't in the vast majority of cases.

Keep the age because:

• It is a useful time saver if you are looking up the age of a person.
• It is used on over 10000 articles, so it must be good.

Any thoughts? Conrad.Irwin 10:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I personally like this template. I find it very useful in many cases. However, the wording could be changed. I have previously suggested someone change it to look like:

Born: December 16, 1917 (now aged 89).

Rather than "(age 89)". You can also make it "hidden by default"... so if you really need to see the age, you press it and it expands showing the age. What do you think about this? ---Majestic- 16:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your proposed wording; I do not like the idea of hiding content. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of this reasoning is suspect. First off, as already noted above, everyone already knows that it is literally physically impossible to be "born old" so that objection is nonsensical; as Conrad.Irwin himself notes, there is no consensus to "fix" this "problem", with s-to-n ratio reasons to not bother going there. Secondly, there are all sorts of things that are kept from mirrors and printing; that they are is not an argument for deletion (though as I note above, I disagree with the logic of no-printing this particular bit of information; I think it is rather "user-hateful" to do so, but that is a different topic). Third, that the age can be manually calculated with effort does not militate against us doing it for the user automatically; this is one of the things that computers are very useful for, and the ability to do things like this is one of the things that separates Wikipedia from paper encyclopedias. Fourth, no argument has been supported that presenting the age does not improve the quality of the article (Conrad.Irwin appears to insist that this is the case, but the argument is not backed up with even his reasoning for thiking so, much less anything stronger, e.g. a Nielsen/Norman Group usability study suggesting that this is a bad idea). Finally, why bother having what amounts to a WP:TFD discussion on a template talk page where nothing will come of it? Take it to WP:TFD; let's settle the matter now with a Wikipedia-wide consensus discussion that has actionable effect, and move on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"*In certain places it is considered impolite to explicitly state someones age (good old Britain for example)." - Bullshit. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (in "good old Britain")