Template talk:Complex date
Spelling issue with centuries[edit]
- {{Complex date|adj=2half|date=20|precision=century|lang=en}} will produce second half of 20th century instead of second half of the 20th century
- {{Complex date|adj=2half|date=20|precision=century|lang=fr}} will produce 2e moitié de XXe siècle instead of 2e moitié du XXe siècle
Cœur (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Complex date" was designed to simplify crazy nested {{Other date}} phrases and to help with issues like the one you give examples of or with phrases in other languages where nesting of {{Other date}} phrases often produce hard to understand results. there is still a lot of unfinished work on this template. --Jarekt (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Circa[edit]
Can this be used with a date/era statement like "1945 ca." or "1930-1950 ca."? Federico Leva (WMIT) (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, luckily this dataset is rather regular so I'll just apply regex and use
- circa 1930
- between circa 1920 and circa 1950
- after 1950
--Federico Leva (WMIT) (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably[edit]
Occasionally, I have the need to use the phrase probably or possibly. F.i., probably 1708. Could this be included in the list? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Format of precision[edit]
The documentation currently suggests that precision can be an integer corresponding to wikibase date format, e.g. 9 for year. However:
{{complex date |date1=1818 |precision1=9}}→ Error in Module:Complex date: 9 is not recognized.{{complex date |date1=1818 |precision1=year}}→
Perhaps either the code or the documentation could be amended? --RexxS (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"After circa"[edit]
It should be possible to combine more than one adjective, e.g. for this Tate drawing where [1] says it is from "after c.1819–20", currently i18ned with a double {{Other date}}: {{otherdate|after|{{otherdate|c|1819 - 20}} }}. It would be nice if |adj=after;ca could express this. Thanks in advance for any help, --Marsupium (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- You can not do "after" with 2 dates but
{{Complex date |conj=after |date1=1819 |adj1=ca }}will give you "after circa 1819". I do not think documentation gets into such unusual cases. --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, I just tried to do something similar to
{{other date|circa|1907}}- early 1908→ circa 1907- early 1908
using this template, as in{{complex date|between|adj1=circa|date1=1907|adj2=early|date2=1908}}→ between circa 1907 and circa 1908
which was rather annoying. But if I use{{complex date|-|adj1=mid|1907|adj2=early|1908}}→ from mid 1907 until early 1908
or{{complex date|between|1907|adj2=early|1908|certainty=circa}}→ circa between 1907 and early 1908
I do not have the issue at all, yet I still do not know if there's a way to make it look like{{other date|circa|1907}}- early 1908→ circa 1907- early 1908,
or, better yet,{{other date|circa|1907}} to early 1908→ circa 1907 to early 1908
(Yes, I know that "to" isn't an allowed conjugation, but it probably should be.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, I just tried to do something similar to
"P" word issues[edit]
In both the documentation and in actual usage, the 3 "P" words are duplicated. I am adding the effects as I currently see them in parentheses, just in case this issue does not show up for anyone else:
{{complex date|possibly|1815-09}}→ possibly September 1815 ("possibly possibly September 1815"){{complex date|probably|1815-09}}→ probably September 1815 ("probably probably September 1815"){{complex date|presumably|1815-09}}→ presumably September 1815 ("presumably presumably September 1815")
I don't know if it's an issue with the template or with Module:Complex date. Can somebody please check on this? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Shāntián Tàiláng: , yes that is a problem. I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Free field[edit]
For certain historical art it may be useful to have a freeform non-machine-parsed optional field, or an ability to add an additional forced-localization date. Consider Mayan art like File:Brique modelée de Comalcalco, Mexique.jpg (12 Ik' 10 Sip), or Islamic art, where the native calendar date might be contextually quite important. Otherwise this would go into |other_fields=, which may or may not be appropriate. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv: , maybe I do not understand what you are saying, but you seem o be describing {{LangSwitch}} template, which you can use instead of {{Complex date}}. It should still be added to
|date=field. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)- Considering I'm talking about a forced localization, which is not in {{LangSwitch}} (besides which nobody would have Classical Maya as a default language), you seem to have misinterpreted. Most calendars that predate a Julian-style systematization will have some uncertainty in their calibration to the modern calendar, so even if a piece has a precise date written on it (like say something marked from ancient Egypt) it may have a wide range of uncertainty for the current (or potential) state of scholarship. So the question is, if the date of a piece in the calendar of origin has a precision independent of the date by estimates in the modern calendar (and there are of course other reasons this could come about, but let's stick to the one hypothetical I'm describing here), then what should be the practice in the
|date=field, and is a template needed to be extended to fit it for machine readability? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)- @SamuelRiv: , I understand now. I run into similar issue once related to death of Julius Cesar. We do have supper precise date (15 March 44 BCE), but the date is translated from another calendar which have some uncertainty about how it meshes with our calendar. As a result, it is 15 March 44 BCE because all the sources say it is, but the date might not be as precise as lets say if the astronomers calculated solar eclipse on the same day. It is also a bit like, Ark of the Covenant which had dimensions of 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits. That is quite precise, except for the fact that cubit length varied a lot depending on place and era. I even run into it in relation to resent comment on medical x-ray in relation to third finger, as it was not clear which one is it since in common English that is ring finger and in medical English it is the middle finger. There is no way to express this kind of uncertainty with {{Complex date}}, and the closest match would be certainty=presumably parameter. My recommendation would be to use regular {{ISOdate}}, {{Other date}} or {{Complex date}} and than add a comment in parenthesis, possibly with {{LangSwitch}}. However as you pointed out, we might have end up with imprecise machine-readable data. The only machine-readable data where it would make a difference is the encoding used for transfer of data to Wikidata, see Template:CreateTag. That format, relies on wikidata data model being able to express this type of imprecision. If you want this capability, the best path would be:
- Write Wikipedia article about it. We would need some sources, so it is not self-research.
- Based on the article, add wikidata item about it and develop some way of marking such uncertainties in Wikidata
- Only then, possibly extend {{Complex date}}
- --Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- @SamuelRiv: , I understand now. I run into similar issue once related to death of Julius Cesar. We do have supper precise date (15 March 44 BCE), but the date is translated from another calendar which have some uncertainty about how it meshes with our calendar. As a result, it is 15 March 44 BCE because all the sources say it is, but the date might not be as precise as lets say if the astronomers calculated solar eclipse on the same day. It is also a bit like, Ark of the Covenant which had dimensions of 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits. That is quite precise, except for the fact that cubit length varied a lot depending on place and era. I even run into it in relation to resent comment on medical x-ray in relation to third finger, as it was not clear which one is it since in common English that is ring finger and in medical English it is the middle finger. There is no way to express this kind of uncertainty with {{Complex date}}, and the closest match would be certainty=presumably parameter. My recommendation would be to use regular {{ISOdate}}, {{Other date}} or {{Complex date}} and than add a comment in parenthesis, possibly with {{LangSwitch}}. However as you pointed out, we might have end up with imprecise machine-readable data. The only machine-readable data where it would make a difference is the encoding used for transfer of data to Wikidata, see Template:CreateTag. That format, relies on wikidata data model being able to express this type of imprecision. If you want this capability, the best path would be:
- Considering I'm talking about a forced localization, which is not in {{LangSwitch}} (besides which nobody would have Classical Maya as a default language), you seem to have misinterpreted. Most calendars that predate a Julian-style systematization will have some uncertainty in their calibration to the modern calendar, so even if a piece has a precise date written on it (like say something marked from ancient Egypt) it may have a wide range of uncertainty for the current (or potential) state of scholarship. So the question is, if the date of a piece in the calendar of origin has a precision independent of the date by estimates in the modern calendar (and there are of course other reasons this could come about, but let's stick to the one hypothetical I'm describing here), then what should be the practice in the