Template talk:Yesterday
Add issues below as you see fit, sign with ~~~~
Would this be better accomplished with {{calcsubtract}}, as {{tomorrow}} is with {{calcadd}}? -- Alfakim -- talk 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Since 'calcsubtract' has logic to cover a wider variety of conditions I think 'yesterday' is actually slightly more efficient as is, but see m:ParserFunctions. When implemented that should vastly simplify all 'date math' type processes (among other things). I think we should plan to revise these at that time and not worry too much about precise methodology at present. --CBDunkerson 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to be implemented already --SgeoTC 21:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, as of two days ago. --CBDunkerson 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to be implemented already --SgeoTC 21:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Category
[edit]{{editprotect}} Please added <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>, whoch will include [[Category:Date-computing templates based on current time|{{PAGENAME}}]] . Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 12:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --CBD 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
DMY
[edit]Could someone please, add a feature for this template to support DMY dates just like template TODAY does? It doesn't make any sense to have Today template work in DMY and Yesterday template work in MDY. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2017
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think maybe DMY should be the default setting, and the template should be customizable with the MDY format. ToThAc (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: MOS:DATEVAR - I'm not going to restart the arguments about date formats, which were resolved years ago, on your behalf. Do you have a specific need for a DMY usage, or is this just a whim? Cabayi (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's perhaps if the template is used where DMY is preferred over MDY. ToThAc (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done as this is not a ready-to-go edit. From the section above this one, support for an alternate style parameter alone doesn't seem contentious - code it up and test it, then it can go live; else establish consensus for new styling first. — xaosflux Talk 19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
