Template talk:Start date/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Start date and age

Just a heads-up: I have proposed renaming {{Release date and age}} as "Start date and age", and adding the same microformat class outputs as used on this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

reorder output to make sortable

Unresolved

This template outputs dates in two formats, thus:

February 24, 1993 (1993-02-24)

with the second, machine-readable, ISO format hidden by CSS. It seems that, if this were reversed:

(1993-02-24) February 24, 1993

then the dates would become sortable in sortable tables. Any thoughts? Would this cause any problems? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a paramater to link the dates?

Usually the "start date" is a pretty significant date in the article and would warrant being linked. Are there any concerns for adding this parameter? ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. Then wash your hands ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikitext conversion is an inherently flawed approach

I appreciate the good intent of the template writers here, but it needs to be pointed out that the problem of global specification and conversion of dates is not well appreciated.

I am proposing this template and that for end date be deprecated in favor of human readable dates with bot created encodings that can later be hand modified by astute authors (eg modifying for local time errors). For details and comments, please see discussion on the microformats project page -J JMesserly (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that the discussion above includes a proposal to deprecate {{Start date}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Date formats issue

This template produces dates in the format Month Day, Year and is therefore not suitable for any article on a UK or Commonwealth subject, nor on any article on a subject not identified with any English-speaking country but first written using the Day Month Year date format. This seems like quite a major flaw for a template like this to have. Is it really worth keeping it? --John (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected it looks pretty awful when used in an article which otherwise uses DD-MMMM-YYYY format. I took it out of Duran Duran for this reason. Is there actually a good reason for this template's existence? I am struggling to see it. --John (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To quote from the template's documentation: "An optional parameter, df, can be set to "yes" to display the day before the month. This is primarily used in articles about events in parts of the world where the day precedes the month in a date." And the point is to add the microformat to a date. (as stated in the documentation as well). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is the benefit this brings to the project? Where is the consensus that this is a worthwhile thing? --John (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There could well be no immediate benefit, just like when coordinates were first being added to articles. Later on though, many good uses to leverage the data emerged and now provide great benefit, like the the WP:WikiMiniAtlas, Google Maps, and Google Earth overlays containing Wikipedia coordinate information. So far, few compelling distilled uses of date data have emerged. Perhaps—someday—you'll be thanking the good people who harvested historic data information for use in your personal calendar. —EncMstr (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. In the meantime, I would be concerned if people are adding them willy-nilly to articles where they break date formatting, without ever having had a consensus to do so. Or have I misunderstood? --John (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Manual of style, editors are not supposed to change date formatting, whether through use of a template or not. So if a date is in day-month format in an article, if an editor converts it to use {{birth date}}, the editor must use the df parameter. Personally, I don't think calendars are a very compelling use of wikipedia microformat dates. I like the idea of Google earth using them to enhance their time slider feature. Say, view all the locations in paris in the 1890s illustrated by impressionist painters of the day. That would give an idea of what the place was like during that time period pretty hip. Anyway John, I share your misgivings about the old {{Birth date}} template for a variety of reasons including its bias to one form of formatting. Consider instead {{Birth-date}} (note dash). It is WYSIWYG. Put in the date in whatever format you like and within reason it will recognize it and emit a proper microformat date for it. More info on how you can see microformat dates and other information being passed by wikipedia to other applications may be found here. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from 24 June 2009 Baghdad bombing for the same reason cited by John. I tried the optional parameter 'df=y', which works universally on many other date templates, but does not work here. It's sort of counterintuitive when it's the only template which works only with 'df=yes' like this. Can someone at least correct this, please? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- We can. I'm just curious which "other date templates" you are talking about. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Birth date and age for example. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Is it not possible to change this template's code so that it shows the date as per user preferences? (i.e. the way {{date|yyyy-mm-dd}} does?) Is it not a better idea to have people see dates in their native format? Fleet Command (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with df param

{{editprotect}} I'm attempting to use {{as of}}, with |df=US as per the template's documentation. However, the date remain in DD-MMMM-YYYY format. It appears that the issue is with this template as {{as of}} simply passes the argument on. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} disabled; that's meant for changes where you specify the code you wish to have altered. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that the code change made on 31 July broke the {{as of}} template's ability to properly render US-style dates across the encyclopedia. Would it be possible to reverse this change or at least modify the code so that {{as of}} properly renders US-style dates? Given the number of articles disrupted, there is significant urgency to this matter but I find myself a bit hesitant to simply undo the change myself. - Dravecky (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the previous change. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the way this was originally supposed to work was "df=y" date first - "mf=y" month first. Simplicity - the birth date templates actually did not even know about "mf" they simply took the existence of a "df" parameter to use the "international" style (hence df=Y, dr=yes, df=on etc. would all work - drawback - so would "df=no"). But people love to complexify. Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Ah, I see we have a volunteer to wield AWB to correct all the current usages. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

TfD

Please fix the TfD to be wrapped in noincludes! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not meant to be in noincludes. -- User:Docu at 02:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be done. The TfD is being included with this template and is breaking THOUSANDS of articles! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a sample? Apollo 11, Apollo 8 are ok. -- User:Docu at 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You think its infobox saying "Launch date ‹The template Start date is being considered for deletion.› July 16, 1969 (1969-07-16) 13:32:00 UTC" is okay?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been changed to {{Tfd-inline}}. Another option is to use {{Tfd-tiny}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its still messing up stuff. Check out List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes where it is not only hideously ugly, but also killing the load time. This template is used in many many episode lists since the bot went through...its TfD can not be included like this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, as per WP:TFD#Listing a template - "use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TFD notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gratsi :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I placed a notice on VP instead. -- User:Docu at 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Month/day only

Would it be possible to allow the template to display only month and day? So

{{Start date||12|31}}

would display December 31.

It would be useful on showing ranges using Start date and End date templates in infoboxes that started and ended in the same year. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because the purpose of the template is to emit a metadata date with a year. There could be a separate template for what you want, though. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

class="published"

{{editprotected}}

Please add class="published", by changing:

<code>
<span class="bday dtstart updated">
</code>

to:

<code>
<span class="bday dtstart published updated">
</code>

to facilitate the use of thsi template in hAudio microformats. No visual changes will occur. For background see the microformats project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Date ranges

Unresolved

We could do with a new template, based on this one, for a date range like:

February 29–March 10 2008
May 23-28 2009

and which outputs the microformat code for the start date (with the end date code ~~to be added, once the inclusive-end-date issue is resolved~~). That's beyond my skills; will someone work on it with me, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we NEED to use this template?

The title basically asks my question....ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

No we don't and in theory, we don't need templates to write an encyclopedia either. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor computers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No; this is a wiki. You can enter dates as prose, and someone else (or a bot) will apply the template for you later. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Error state

{{Start date|1973|05|07df=y}} (note missing pipe) renders as "May 1973 (1973-05)" - could we make it instead emit an error warning? Perhaps by checking that the dd value is numeric? Presumably, this applies to sister templates like {{Start date and age}} also? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That code doesn't set the day value (third unnamed parameter), but it sets the value of named parameter 07df to y. To detect this and similar errors (and still allow {{Start date|1973|05}}), all 31 parameters 01df to 31df would have to be checked and I don't think that's worth it. Svick (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

In discussion of an Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats it has been Proposoed that this template "should never be used directly in articles". Please make your views known, on that issue and the wider RfC. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Time at end

It would be good to have a "time last" option, so that, while:

{{Start date|1993|02|24|08|30}} returns "08:30, February 24, 1993 (1993-02-24T08:30)"

the addition of that flag would mean that:

{{Start date|1993|02|24|08|30|tl=y}} would return "February 24, 1993, 08:30 (1993-02-24T08:30)"

This would be useful in lists and tables like this one, where only some of the events have a time (this version, with the the time first, was unsightly). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

startdate|df=y

is it possible for startdate with df=y to display like this 7 November, 2010 instead of 7 November 2010 as without df=y it display November 7, 2010 jsut makes it look better rpesentaiton and i am sure it aquick and easy fix--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:DATESNO, such formatting shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Svick (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

but using df=y is to use uk date format and this is how uk dte format is 7 November, 2011 not 7 November 2011, maybe the MOS needs ot be udpate to include uk airdate since there alot of uk shows--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Template breaks tooltip preview

This template, when used inside an Infobox at the top of an article, breaks the tooltip preview mechanism when the cursor hovers over a link to said article. Instead of seeing a preview of the article, all one gets is a tiny rectangle about the size of the cursor with no text or images inside. It's worse-than-useless in its present form.—Quicksilver^{T @} 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean popups functionality, not tooltips, which is a userscript extension, If you give an example page, that will probably help. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking the date

Before you ask, I'm not proposing to needlessly link dates. Rather, an event infobox could easily have the field first event (or similar) and have this linked to the year edition, i.e. in the article Important Foo Event the infobox would say First event: 2010. Is there a good way of also incorporating {{start date}} into this (perhaps: [[2010 Important Foo Event|{{start date|2010}}]]) or perhaps it would be possible to change the template to have a link field, something like {{start date|2010|link=2010 Important Foo Event}}. (I work with a lot of cycling articles so for an example, take a look at Paris–Roubaix, a Good Article). Thanks, Severo^TC 15:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

[[2010 in film|{{Start date|2010}}]] gives 2010 - whether there is consensus to use such links is debatable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of full dates

Is it valid to use {{start date|3 May 2011}} or is {{start date|2011|05|03|df=y}} the only valid form? The reason is that there are several different types of infoboxes for railway stations, most of which which have a parameter for the opening date (see {{infobox GB station}} for example). We don't really want to require editors to construct their own {{start date}}, it's easier to let them enter dates in "natural" form, with the fiddly bits done by the template; so the editors would put something like |start=3 May 2011 - and the infobox template then pushes this through {{start date}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The former is not valid - see the documentation for this template. Consider also what happens if someone enters, say, {{start date|3 May 2011 (by Pete Waterman)}} or even {{start date|3 May 2011 <ref>foo</ref>}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Double usage

Related to the above: if the infobox does its own {{start date}} and the editor also uses {{start date}}, as in {{infobox GB station}} being given |start={{start date|2011|05|03|df=y}}, this results in {{start date|{{start date|2011|05|03|5=df=y}}}}, so will this double use of {{start date}} cause trouble? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nnemo, 26 June 2011 — Non-breaking spaces

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello,

This template is used by the Template:As of, which is used in article.

For correct typography, conform to WP:MOS, please put " " — non-breaking space — where necessary so that the template generate:

23 March 2011
March 2011

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS only advocates non-breaking spaces between day and month (or vice versa), not between those items and the year. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Request declined for now. Please reactivate if you have consensus for this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NBSP specifies "May 2024" as an example of something needing an  . The day example was removed months ago. I don't know what that does to microformat, but we really shouldn't use it in prose (well, at least not in featured articles and such) without the nbsp between month and year. Art LaPella (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

User:Redrose64 proposes on my talk page that:

{{start date}} just needs this change, which will also bring it in line with {{end date}}

Seems reasonable to me. Thought? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This was in relation to another user's comment that word wrapping could occur within dates built using {{start date}}. I had noticed a few days earlier that {{end date}} produces a "nowrap" effect, so I compared the two - and worked out that the difference lay purely in whether four spaces were "normal" or   --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Could this request be actioned, please? I can't see an issue with it, and I think it would assist in quite a few circumstances where the fractured nature of the dates produced causes nasty formatting. See here what it does in tables, for instance. Pyrop e 00:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No objections, so

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

anachronistic UTC

There is a problem in usage of the "Z" flag for dates prior to 1961. For example, the Sputnik 1 infobox reports the flight's launch date as "19:28:34, 4 October 1957 (UTC)". This date expression is nonsensical, because UTC doesn't exist for dates prior to 1961. In that era, precise timekeeping was mostly referenced to UT2, so that's probably the basis for the recorded "19:28:34". But when reporting with a resolution as coarse as whole seconds it's mostly meaningless to distinguish at all between flavours of Universal Time. It would be most sensible for this particular date to be reported with "(UT)".

There are multiple options to resolve this. The generated text "(UTC)" could be automatically varied to "(UT)", or possibly "(UT2)", for dates prior to 1961. Or some other threshold could be used, such as the 1972 switch from rubber-seconds UTC to leap-seconds UTC. Or, the most correct option, it could be "(UT)" for all dates: it's only meaningful to be more specific than that when the resolution is sub-second, and in those cases the source of the timing data should explicate which flavour of UT is meant (maybe as an extra template parameter). Or, going the other way, times stated through this template could be confirmed as being based only on UTC, requiring a rule that editors must not use the template for older dates; but what to use instead, and what chance of the rule actually being followed?

With respect to ISO 8601 conformance, this is one of the areas where the standard screws up somewhat. It has some explicit references to UTC, particularly in defining all timezone designators as being relative to UTC, but interpreting it as referring strictly to UTC breaks the usability of the standard. This was discussed on the leapsecs mailing list in 2008, in the thread "Footnote about CCITT and UTC" that can be seen at [1]. See particularly my dissection of it at [2]. Applying the standard as written, no timezone designator can be correctly used on dates prior to 1961. Applying the standard sensibly, "Z" refers equally well to any flavour of UT.

195.81.245.98 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC) (Zefram)

Date ranges

Unresolved

We need a version or versions of this template, which for date ranges like;

16 – 29 January 2012
16 January - 12 February 2012

can be set to output either the machine-readable start date of 2012-01-16; or both that and a machine-readable end date (per {{End date}}) of 2012-01-29/ 2012/02/12 respectively. Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nudge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Time display

This template displays date/ time combinations as, for example:

08:30:23, February 24, 1993 (UTC)
08:30:23, February 24, 1993 (-07:00)

But display in articles tends to more often be like:

16 January 2013, 07:59 GMT

(the latter in 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash). Can someone add a switch, making the display format configurable, please? Be mindful of the embedded microformat markup - I can advise on that if required. The sister templates may also need to mirror this change. Perhaps #Date ranges, above, and Lua implementation if advisable, can be accommodated at the same time? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be a problem to put the time behind the date by default? It seems the more logical way to go. Putting in the switch means a lot of code will have to be duplicated. — Edokter (talk) — 10:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Time after Date version now in sandbox/testcases. — Edokter (talk) — 11:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Time last is fine by me. Thank you, but please note the "GMT" timezone text in the latter of my examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TIMEZONE suggests that timezones and offsets are supposed to be parenthesized. — Edokter (talk) — 17:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

At the level of one second, GMT is undefined. GMT should not be supported by a template, in part, because there would be a discrepancy between the value that appears in an article, which is claimed to be GMT (whatever that means), and the metadata, which is specified to be UTC. (In the case of time zones far from Greenwich, is the metadata expressed just as UTC, just in the specified time zone, or as UTC with an offset?)

If an editor really needs to use GMT in an article, let the editor avoid templates and explain in the text, or perhaps a footnote, what the meaning of GMT is for that particular article.

Another problem is that pointed out in the #anachronistic UTC section above. ISO 8601 specifies that the time zone be specified either as Z or as UTC plus an offset, for example, ""22:30+04". The ISO 8601 standard defines UTC as "time scale which forms the basis of a coordinated radio dissemination of standard frequencies and time signals; it corresponds exactly in rate with international atomic time, but differs from it by an integral number of seconds". Since this definition did not go into force until 00:00 1 January 1972 UTC, I would suggest that any ISO 8601 formatted time before then should not include neither the Z suffix nor a time zone numerical offset, and thus be interpreted as a local time. The text of the article would state what the local time was, whether it be a time zone, such as US Eastern Standard Time, or a locality before the establishment of time zones, such as any times mentioned in Battles of Lexington and Concord. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Use dmy dates

Can this template (and related ones) automatically use DMY format (df=yes) on articles tagged with {{Use dmy dates}}? —sroc 💬 11:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Minus sign in time zones

In examples with time zones west of the UTC meridian, shouldn't the time zone use the minus sign (−) instead of a hyphen?

`{{Start date\|2013\|12\|16\|11\|04\|\|-02:00}}` →	11:04, December 16, 2013 (-02:00) (2013-12-16T11:04-02:00)
should be rendered as: →	11:04, December 16, 2013 (−02:00)

—sroc 💬 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't use a hyphen, but uses a hyphen-minus, which is wider than a hyphen but narrower than a minus.

Hyphen ‐ or ‐ ‐
Hyphen-minus - or - -
Minus − or − −

The thing about the − character is that whilst visually good, in that it's at the same vertical position as the crossbar of the plus +− (compare +-, hyphen-minus; or +‐, hyphen) it tends to break programs that read the data back in; many only know how to handle the hyphen-minus. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also the correct symbol (see MOS:MINUS). —sroc 💬 06:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be possible to use one symbol for the visual display, and anther for the non-displayed (hidden by CSS) metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The documentation for this template says it is in use inside other templates. I'd say, take it up with the creators/maintainers of the templates that embed this template. If they collectively want a change, let them make, or request, the change. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All of them? As far as I can tell, {{start date}} is linked to from a lot of templates but mainly the documentation calls for {{start date}} to be called from the parameters and it is almost universally used for the date alone. I can't find any good examples that invoke the template to show the time zone. It's also called directly from many articles, despite the admonition in the documentation: "It should not be used outside such templates." I'm not quite sure what the problem with changing the format is, as it seems that changing how {{start date}} formats the output would be reflected in the templates/pages it's invoked in. —sroc 💬 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking through a few examples of where this has been used, it seems to me this template has been so badly documented and abused that it is ruined forever and should be gotten rid of. I wash my hands of it. Start date for a planet? Really?? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity we've ended up with the name {{start date}} as well, as it's commonly used for all kinds of dates, not just dates for the start of something. —sroc 💬 05:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Then it's being misused, see Template:Start date#Usage. In the template code - after the <-- BELOW FOR hCalendar --> - we find that the final rendered page might contain  (2013-01-31T12:30:43UTC). It is those classes - particularly dtstart - that indicate that the date is a commencement date. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Do these count?

Template:Infobox earthquake#Usage:

|date               = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode#Usage:

| airdate           = {{Start date|2012|11|11}}}

Template:Infobox The Goodies episode#Usage:

| airdate      = Use {{tl|Start date}}

Template:Infobox football match#Single game:

| date                    = {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}

Template:Infobox football match#Two legs:

| date1                   = {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}

| date2                   = {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}

Template:Infobox body of water#Usage:

| date-built         = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} For man-made and other recent bodies of water -->

| date-flooded       = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} For man-made and other recent bodies of water -->

Template:Extra music sample#Sub-templates:

Date-of-publication ("published") information will only be included in the microformat if {{Start date}} (or {{Start date and age}} where appropriate) is used in a parent template or infobox...

Template:As of#Usage:

The date used for a given statement should be the current date (for currently valid statements) or the date on which the cited reference was produced (for example, when using census data). It also includes the ISO 8601 format needed by hAtom (class="updated") and hCalendar (class="dtstart") microformats through use of the {{start date}} template.

—sroc 💬 13:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with {{Infobox earthquake}},r {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} or {{Infobox The Goodies episode}}. For {{Infobox football match}}, it's fine if there is only one leg, or for the first leg of a two-leg match; but it is inappropriate for the second leg. Regarding {{Infobox body of water}} and {{Extra music sample}}, {{start date}} should be applied to only one of the dates, but I'm not able to judge which is the more suitable date. However, {{as of}} is a problem, so I've raised Template talk:As of#Start date. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of two instances for two-leg football matches is immaterial; as the microformat's parent class=vevent is suppressed in such cases (a more elegant solution is almost certainly possible). Regarding water bodies and the like, any second (or subsequent) instance is ignored by microformat parsers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is it being used for a planet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Date ranges within the same month/year

I noticed this at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis which implements the {{Infobox civilian attack}} infobox. The documentation of that infobox says to use:

| date        = <!-- {{start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}-<br />{{end date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->
| time        =

It also states:

time – The time of the attack(s), if all targets occurred at the same time (do not use this along with time-begin and time-end)

time-begin and time-end – The start and end times, respectively, if a series of attacks (do not use this along with time)

This produces the following for multi-day events:

Wikicode

Produces

{{Infobox civilian attack
...
| date       = {{start date|2014|12|15|df=y}}–{{end date|2014|12|16|df=y}}
| time-begin = 9:44 a.m.
| time-end   = 2:44 a.m.
| timezone   = [[Australian Eastern Daylight Time|AEDT]], [[UTC+11:00]]

15 December 2014–16 December 2014
9:44 a.m. – 2:44 a.m. (AEDT, UTC+11:00)

Note that the above is incorrectly formatted (per MOS:DATERANGE, the dates should be separated by a spaced en dash preceded by a non-breaking space). Also, the month and year are unnecessarily repeated.

Instead, the template has been invoked as follows, contrary to the documentation, in order to format the dates correctly:

Wikicode	Produces
{{Infobox civilian attack ... \| date = 15–16 December 2014 \| time-begin = 9:44 a.m. \| time-end = 2:44 a.m. \| timezone = [[Australian Eastern Daylight Time\|AEDT]], [[UTC+11:00]]	15–16 December 2014 9:44 a.m. – 2:44 a.m. (AEDT, UTC+11:00)

Firstly, is there any way to automate the template to do this so that, consistent with MOS:DATERANGE:

when the {{start date}} and {{end date}} are in the same month, they output as: 15–16 December 2014 (with an unspaced en dash)
when the dates are in different months in the same year, they output as: 15 November – 16 December 2014 (with a spaced en dash preceded by a non-breaking space)
when the dates are in different years, they output as: 31 December – 1 January 2015

Secondly, when times are given, is there a better way to format this so that the times are next to the corresponding dates:

9:44 a.m. 15 December – 2:44 a.m. 16 December 2014

—sroc 💬 14:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Padding?

This: {{Start date |2014 |4 |27}} shouldn't result in blanks within the date in HTML, but it does. Check for yourself: April 27, 2014 (2014 -04-27) Can it be fixed in this template?-91.10.40.113 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Examining the page source with my browser I see, in part, "2014 -04-27" so there does indeed seem to be a problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

91.10.40.113 had put their test in Template:Start date/sandbox, I've moved it to Template:Start date/testcases#With embedded spaces, see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was only me playing around, isn't that what sandboxes are for? I'm done with it, my example testcase is above in this section.-91.10.40.113 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The /sandbox subpage of a template is for prototyping, and the tests for both that and the live template go on the /testcases subpage, see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should rename them then, Wikipedia:About the Sandbox says something different.-91.10.40.113 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About the Sandbox is about the sandbox, located at Wikipedia:Sandbox, plus a few others. The /sandbox subpages of templates have that name because this is the accepted and established name, which is linked from the bottom of the documentation box of every template that uses {{documentation}}. See for example the bottom of this template's doc, where it says "Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox ...". I'm not going to rename tens of thousands of template /sandbox subpages, not just because it would take far too long: it would break the links, require recoding of some bots, and annoy a lot of people. I'd be hauled up to WP:ANI at the very least. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

<shrug/> Whatever, I don't foresee that I will ever use it again. Just don't be surprised if people will use "sandbox" according to WP:SANDBOX for years to come, until it is fixed.-91.10.40.113 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorting

I'm having issues with sorting when using this template and {{End date}} in a sortable table, such as that at List of Doctor Who serials#Overview. Sorting the columns using these templates orders the cells by the numeric day value, instead of sorting it by the chronological date, and setting data-sort-type does not help. Ideas? Alex|The|Whovian 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Don't use {{start date}} - it is not intended for use outside microformat-emitting templates. Use {{dts}} instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for that! Working as it should now. Alex|The|Whovian 02:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Should it be MM|DD or M|D?

When using the template, should it be:

{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}

Or, should it be:

{{Start date|YYYY|M|D}}

I am merely asking because there is a user going around removing the MM|DD, even when this own template and the templates it is included in requires it, deeming it as "Unnecessary increasing text in the code." So, which is it? livelikemusic talk! 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Both of those work (and should have worked since the template was created in 2007), presumably by design, and both result in the same output. MOS says YYYY-MM-DD should be used but doesn't say whether this applies to templates like this one, so maybe ask on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Jc86035 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: It matters not one bit. The template takes the input values and treats them as pure integers. This means that it processes them regardless of whether they have a leading zero or not. Consider the code

{{start date|2018|01|01}}

this is equivalent to writing

{{MONTHNAME|01}}&nbsp;1,&nbsp;2018<span style="display:none">&#160;(<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2018-{{padleft:01|2|0}}-{{padleft:01|2|0}}</span>)</span>

which is itself equivalent to

January&nbsp;1,&nbsp;2018<span style="display:none">&#160;(<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2018-01-01</span>)</span>

Now consider the code

{{start date|2018|1|1}}

this is equivalent to writing

{{MONTHNAME|1}}&nbsp;1,&nbsp;2018<span style="display:none">&#160;(<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2018-{{padleft:1|2|0}}-{{padleft:1|2|0}}</span>)</span>

which is itself equivalent to

January&nbsp;1,&nbsp;2018<span style="display:none">&#160;(<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2018-01-01</span>)</span>

which is exactly the same as the one that was provided with leading zeros.

Anybody going round altering e.g. {{start date|2018|01|01}} to {{start date|2018|1|1}} on the grounds that it saves space is in fact increasing the amount of space that is used, since the previous version of the page - the one with the two extra zeroes - is preserved in the page history indefinitely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Result of "start date" and "end date" templates

How do these templates differ? They would seem to generate the same output.
I have an article that uses "start date" for the premiere of an opera in an infobox. Is that a valid use? I would be inclined to just enter the date directly.
Given the presence of "use dmy dates", is the "df" parameter interpreted as "yes" if it is not given or set to "no"?

Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

They differ in just one respect, the classes applied to the innermost ... element. {{Start date}} uses the four classes bday dtstart published updated whereas {{end date}} uses the single class dtend. These classes are used by tools that look for metadata, see Template:Start date#Use in microformats and Template:End date#Use in microformats.
This is valid use.
The {{use dmy dates}} template is purely advisory, it does not affect any part of an article. In the |df= parameter of {{start date}}, the actual value that is supplied is ignored - it is the mere presence of a value that is tested, so |df=yes, |df=no, |df=USA are identical in effect: the day is placed before the month. If the |df= parameter is blank or absent, the month is displayed before the day. "df" simply means "day first".

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand the "advisory" status. To me, it is directive in nature, at least to the bot that keeps things in order. Why shouldn't the df parameter be assumed in this case? Jmar67 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of {{use dmy dates}} is for both bots and editors, to try and keep an article consistent within itself. I don't understand your last question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The question was why {{start date}} can't force "day first" if {{use dmy dates}} is present. Or perhaps the bot could modify {{start date}} to ensure that. Jmar67 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The code that executes when a template is encountered is only aware of the parameters within the template; when the {{start date}} template is being processed the code is unaware of any {{use dmy dates}} that might be in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed options for time last, and timezone without parentheses

Both benrem and I would like to see an option added to {{Start date}} and {{End date}} to place the date first when a time is given, e.g. "21 December 2018, 01:51:00", and I personally would like to see the option to remove the parentheses from timezones, e.g. "UTC" instead of "(UTC)". Would those be possible? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Pigsonthewing as template creator, Jo-Jo Eumerus as last contributor, and Redrose64 as an expert on this template per discussions above, as there has been no response thus far... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have much of an opinion on this template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What problem does this attempt to solve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: It would solve the inability to place the date before the time, and the inability to display the timezone without parentheses when deemed unneeded or unnecessary. Simple customisation, really. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request 25 October 2020

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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

I have nominated {{film date}} for merging with this template. Please add the following to the top of the template page:

{{Tfm/dated|page=Start date|otherpage=Film date|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Template:Film date|type=tiny|help=off|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}

Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Partly done: I've disabled the notification on the pages this will be transcluded to (that is, type=disabled) given that it's used on the main page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)