This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Birth date and age template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days

Time Template‑class High‑importance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Birth date and age is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 November 8. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for merging with Template:birth-date and age on 2016 July 24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Corbin Braxton (Virginian), has an unknown birth date. The parameter in the info box for date of birth does not allow for "unknown", but it does allow "0000" for a birth year without generating an error message.

But at age of death, the infobox does not allow for 0000, nor unknown, nor unk, so an “Expression error: missing operand” is generated.

Is there a convention to use here? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian: For the death date you need ((death date)) instead of ((death date and age)). (((death-date)) would work as well.) I've made the change in the article for you. For the birth date, I'm not sure there is a way to specify "unknown" in machine-readable format, so I just removed the birth date template altogether. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The situation doesn't come up often, and will less so as I advance in the Charts of Virginia Conventions delegates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add date of death March 13th, 2017 173.49.208.203 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this template is for birth dates only, I suspect from your question that you want to change a date on an article. If you are not sure how then perhaps as at Talk:Morton Deutsch, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could someone add an |infant=yes parameter? So instead of ((birth date and age|2016|11|28)) and ((death date and age|2017|7|28|2016|8|4)) appearing respectively as 28 November 2016 (age 0) and 28 July 2017 (aged 0), the "0" is replaced with their age in months and days i.e. 28 November 2016 (age 8 months and 3 days) and 28 July 2017 (aged 11 months and 24 days). It would save having to use ((Age for infant)).--Nevé–selbert 19:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: We could have a |super=yes parameter for the extremely old, e.g. Jeanne Calment, also.--Nevé–selbert 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit template-protected)) template.

On the substance of the request, wouldn't it be more sensible to change the template's default action for ages <1 or >115 rather than add extra parameters? Cabayi (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of that. If that's indeed possible then yes, Cabayi, that would be more sensible. Not sure whether that might make it harder to code, though.--Nevé–selbert 21:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to have |infant=yes and |super=yes parameters? So instead of having to use ((Age for infant)), |infant=yes would display the age of said infant in months and days rather than years. With super-centenarians, |super=yes would display their age in years and days, rather than just years. Relisted by Cunard (talk) at 18:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC) per Snuge purveyor's review, "lots of suggestions, none in agreement". --Nevé–selbert 23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: This RfC applies to Template:Death date and age also.--Nevé–selbert 23:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Idea: Have the parameters named |md=yes (for months and days) and |yd=yes (for years and days) instead.--Nevé–selbert 08:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not sure how an infant is going to meet WP:GNG. For SC's months and days are no more important than for anyone under 100 and we don't need a countdown clock. MarnetteD|Talk 23:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, Prince George of Cambridge born 22 July 2013 (current article created 27 June 2013) ; Princess Charlotte of Cambridge born 2 May 2015 (article created 8 September 2014). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my incorrect assumption R. I had not taken royalty into account. I wonder how many of these kinds of articles will exist at any one time. I still don't think that the parameter is useful. Where would it stop - age one? After it stops how would moving the BDA info to the regular field be done. I understand that others will disagree but I just don't see a beneft to readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After it stops how would moving the BDA info to the regular field be done.

By removing the |infant=yes parameter. This is meant to be a technical proposal aimed at benefiting editors rather than readers. Instead of having to use ((age for infant)) for young royals and the like, or ((age in years and days)) for the oldest people on Earth such as Violet Brown, editors can simply use a parameter to do just what those templates offer. It would probably mean deprecating ((age for infant)), as the new parameter would render that template redundant.--Nevé–selbert 20:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Summoned by bot) While I haven't yet used these parameters in the course of my work, I think it will work. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (as discussed in the edit request above) If this behaviour is desirable then it's desirable for ALL infants/super-centenarians and should be produced automatically by the template - it shouldn't require the use of an extra parameter. Cabayi (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I replied to you above and you did not bother to answer. @Redrose64: Do you know whether it would be possible to do it automatically? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 08:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  bother? There was nothing there that required a reply. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be the ((age)) template. It returns ages in years: ((age|2017|8|1)) → 6; ((age|2017|1|1)) → 7; ((age|2016|8|1)) → 7. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But not in months & days or years & days? So, I guess there is no automatic way of having this done then.--Nevé–selbert 22:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there is: but what I'm saying is that to do this, ((age)) needs modification; and that in turn could affect several other templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If you could do it, that would be great.--Nevé–selbert 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Perhaps the proposed names for the parameters are a tad subjective. |md=yes and |yd=yes sounds better.--Nevé–selbert 08:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (RFCbot invite) - I'm wondering if this shouldn't a question of an automatic function and its nullifying operator. So people under age 2 or over age 105 would just automatically get month/day or year/day, unless you set extreme_age_days=no. Just a thought, not a formal proposal. That way, there's no maintenance when a child turns some magic age, nor when a centenarian reaches that magic point. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanisaac: I would totally prefer an automatic function, and that may help to bring this discussion to an early close.--Nevé–selbert 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alternately an extreme_age_days=yes could force the behaviour at any age. So the absence of that parameter would invoke the predefined age limits (which i am sure someone will eventually will want an override for as well) Agathoclea (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No need for a parameter; simply code the template to use "months and days" if the value is less than a year (or two years, or whatever is agreed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but use a single parameter: We routinely merge templates that don't differ from each other but for a minor output change that can be coded as a parameter. The "clean" way to do this is |display=md and |display=yd, with any other option producing the default output. This will obviate having to code up any error handling, e.g. for invalid input or for conflicting |infant=yes|super=yes in the same template, or |md=yes|yd=yes in the same template, both of which could happen with the above proposals (the second being more likely, i.e. because someone thinks "if I turn on both options, I'll get years, and months, and days"; avoid any confusion by giving a single parameter with limited and mutually exclusive output options). That's only if we actually want to use down-to-the-day ages for supercentenarians in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I also have no objection to the automation sub-proposal, if that's what consensus wants.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wrote a couple of date modules that handle durations and more—some of the existing templates have edge cases where the result is not quite right. See ((time interval)) and the demo ((extract)) for some usage notes. I chose |show=md rather than |display=md. The modules are used for ((age in years and days)) and ((age in years and months)) but I ran out of energy before proposing wider deployment. The modules have the logic to emulate ((age for infant)) but I haven't done anything with the birth date part of this template. I'm mentioning that because the modules should be used if a merge is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this seems more of a novelty than an actual useful addition. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that there are two proposals, that is we either add a parameter or have the template display said functions automatically.--Nevé–selbert 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No new parameters for such trivialities.
  For the wee ones: Days are overly precise, just as months would be overly precise for an adult. Modify the code to automatically show age in months up to 24 months, then switch to years. Technical details to be determined separately by people who know the internals.
  For the supercentenarians: No change. Days are not only overly precise but unencyclopedic trivia. It is not encyclopedic to track the days of continued existence in a person's bio, however amazing each successive day is. For readers interested in the precise limits of human longevity, we have multiple articles including List of oldest living people. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Age of infant or whatever the template linked above is does the job just fine, imho no need to include here. –Davey2010^Talk 04:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]