Template talk:OldStyleDateDY

De-emphasize Old Style date

This proposal also applies to related templates {{OldStyleDate}} and {{OldStyleDateNY}}.

Propose unconditionally de-emphasizing the Old Style date, as February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731], because the O.S. date is less important, approaching a mere footnote. Alternatively, if there is a real need, add a new parameter to specify whether the O.S. date should be de-emphasized, with de-emphasis as the default. But is there a real need? We should avoid feature creep and unnecessary complication of coding and doc.

This change would not be inconsistent with the guidance at MOS:FONTSIZE, as I read it.

I'm coming from George Washington, whose DOB-DOD currently looks like:
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799)

After this change, it would look like:
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799)

The issue arose because a few other historical bios were using ... tags to shrink the entire template output, and GW was modified to be consistent with that, as:
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799)

That shrinking has been removed as of this moment, in GW and the other few known cases, but it's unknown whether all of those removals will stand, or whether this still exists in other articles. If this change were made, any remaining such cases would, presumably, then look like this:
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799)
The ... tags would optimally need to be removed from those articles at a low priority, but I don't see that as a serious problem or sufficient reason not to make this change.

One might ask why this template even exists, considering that it only provides a consistent formatting and doesn't, for example, calculate the O.S. date for you. You have to code both dates. My answer to the question is that the template is what makes it practical to implement site-wide changes just like this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this template before, the change sounds good to me, but {{small}} should be preferred over .... nyuszika7h (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Output is identical in Firefox. Doc for {{small}} describes the rationale for using the template. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because ... is smaller for me in Firefox 46 on Windows 10 (also in earlier versions). nyuszika7h (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following look identical to me, Firefox 46.0.1, Win10. I just upgraded FF from 46.0, but I'm about 99.9% certain they were identical before the upgrade.
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799) - ...
(February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731] – December 14, 1799) - {{small}} ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my MS Edge, the {{small}} version is a tad larger than the ... version. But no matter, we'll use the template because the template doc says it's preferred. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nasty template. For a start there are two meaning of old style as explained in the article Old Style and New Style dates, either based on the start of year or on a conversion to Gregorian from Julian (it can be either), and usually one make a distinction in years with a slash eg see for example Pepys' diary Tuesday 31 January 1659/60, so the format is not standard.

If this template ought not to be used without an accompanying footnote: "If there is a need to mention Old or New Style dates in an article (as in the Glorious Revolution), a footnote should be provided on the first usage, stating whether the New Style refers to a start of year adjustment or to the Gregorian calendar (it can mean either)." (See WP:OSNS -- MOS Julian and Gregorian calendars). Why is that not mentioned in the documentation of this footnote.

Oppose See WP:OSNS (MOS Julian and Gregorian calendars). "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752," ... "The dating method used should follow that used by reliable secondary sources (or if reliable sources disagree, that used most commonly, with an explanatory footnote)". In Britain [and in] the colonies the Julian calendar is most commonly used in secondary sources up until until 1752 and the adoption of the Gregorian calendar by the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. So in the examples given in the documents of this template and the example given above given the dates used if either is to be diminished it ought to be the Gregorian date rather than the Julian date if the template is to be MOS compliant. -- PBS (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whatever extent that I have correctly interpreted your sometimes tortured grammar (e.g. "In Britain the colonies the Julian calendar..." - Beg pardon?):
1. The first part of your comments seem to suggest that the first use of the template should be followed by a footnote. I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see what that has to do with this proposal. The template can't know whether it's being used for the first time in the article, so such a footnote would have to be separate from this template's transclusion. This is not a general-purpose thread for discussion of anything related to this template. So there's that.
2. You cite various passages that are about which style of date to use. I don't see how that bears on relative emphasis when two styles are used. Those passages actually say nothing about font size at all. You seem to be reading something into the written guidance, similar to WP:SYNTH. I agree that we need to be MOS-compliant, but things are complicated enough without inventing personal derivative interpretations of MOS, no? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make it clearer I have added "and in" to the sentence. The problem is that before 1707 they were English colonies and after 1707 British. -- PBS (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what PBS might have been working towards (though he did not connect the dots above) is that O.S. dates might not in every instance be "mere footnotes" but may in fact be those which most directly comport with the scheme being used for that article, as a consequence of the primary sources which inform upon the subject and the varied approach of secondary sources which predicate their own chronologies upon them. I could be wrong, but I think his argument is as follows: in-so-far as MoS tells us to take our ques from the sources in what dates we select, the rest of our content needs to be consistent. Which is not to say that this a make-or-break argument (both dates will still appear in the template output, either way), but I do think that is what PBS was getting at. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose As a matter of style and consistency with how similar situations are approached across the encyclopedia, it just doesn't seem appropriate to place small text inside of a chunk of full-scale text in the main prose section of an article--I can't think of a single other context in which this is done, and it looks aberrant, awkward and unenecylopaedic to my eye, but that's just one editor's take.

On a separate point (and to address Mandruss' concerns), to the extent that a NS/OS notation is deemed pertinent to mention for a given date, I don't think we can draw broad assumptions about how often the OS date is going to be irrelevant; the dichotomy is only going to be germane to a certain subclass of article, but for those articles it can be crucial for those trying to establish the particulars of a chronology of events. Further, some articles may rely more on old style dates (in some circumstances, without the authors of the content having been aware of this), further complicating the issue. I also question whether having small script really de-emphasizes anything, if that is the goal, as it is an extremely marked form in Wikipedia articles, which draws the eye. But all of these are just minor observations; my main objection remains one of style, consistency, and the implications to tone from the use of a non-standard format. All of that said, this is a bit of a minor issue, so I'm not about to go to the mat over the matter, either way! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re broad assumptions, that's why I raised the possibility of a new parameter. But a new parameter would probably be beyond my technical ability (I'm not template-qualified), which changes the practical picture considerably. It's clearly more problematic than I thought (again!), and I'm not going to that mat either. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the colonies, Great Britain and Ireland the most common dates that are used are Julian dates with the year adjusted to January 1st up until 1752. All this is explained in the MOS section WP:OSNS and Old Style and New Style dates. So for the period when dual dating was used, this template's format is incorrect, and putting the old style dates into a smaller font just exacerbates the problem. To see how how to handle dual dating look at the article Glorious Revolution and in particular the footnote and the section Crossing and landing. The reason that section needs split dates is because William's fleet set off from the Netherlands on the local date of 11 November and arrived in England on 5 November -- hence the need for "1/11" November and "5/15" because the Netherlands were using the Gregorian calendar while the English were using the Julian calendar, and the / is the traditional way to indicate this difference. -- PBS (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the target of this and sister templates

There is a proposal to change the article referenced in this and sister templates. See Template talk:OldStyleDate#Proposal to change the target of this template.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]