Template talk:Death date and age

0 views

Unclear death date but known age

[edit]

Deaths are often announced with no explicit death date but with a specific age. Is it possible to have an optional field to supply an age, and not have it shown with a computed range like "(aged 72–73)"? —Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: There's a whole family of templates at } that covers various scenarios like this, and seem worth exploring. For this specific situation, } might work. Left guide (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Those don't seem to allow an optional age override either. It's also preferable to avoid having to change the template back to "Death date and age" when the date ultimately is known. —Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I do not understand what output is wanted. Use } if a death date is known, with the age of the person at that time. If no death date is known, a template is not needed—just write something like "Died at age 35." If an approximate death date is known, write the text suggested in the discussion linked above. A template is only needed for the date if the machine-readable date is wanted. That format requires an unambiguous and full date. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Johnuniq: This is specifically for the infobox. Typically, the first editors use {{Death date and given age}} with the date of the death announcement as their date, and then someone realizes that an actual date was not given, and then removes the day or month. See an example of removing the day here. Depending on the month of birth, the computed age might sometimes show like "(aged 72–73)", but perhaps the source says definitively they were age 73. Sure, the worst case is just to remove (or comment out) the template, but I was just seeing if it would be more elegant to editors to codify the template to take an optional specific age. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what could usefully be done. I think the issue is shown in this example:
  • {{death date and age|May 1, 1999|1949}} → May 1, 1999(1999-05-01) (aged 49–50)
I don't like the idea of having a parameter to set the age because that rather defeats the purpose of a calculating template. That purpose is so editors can focus on the dates knowing that the age will be correct. I take the point about convenience of using a fixed template which could be updated later if the death date becomes known. I normally monitor Category:Age error (although I haven't done that for a while due to being occupied elsewhere). That category often shows a lot of junk from people playing with dates. The fact that an age above 150 generates an error has exposed a lot of dumb vandalism and my reaction to the idea of having a parameter to set the age is nervousness because numbers in a template can acquire a magical "this must be ok" status. For the above example, why not:
  • {{death date|1949|5|1}} (aged 49) → (1949-05-01)May 1, 1949 (aged 49)
Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fair points. I was just hoping for a one-stop template to avoid cycling through different ones. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] This might be a dumb question, but I think about it often when I see this sort of thing crop up - do we need to have a template that displays the calculated age at death, if a source is already providing the age? In other words, it doesn't really matter if the source says "Joe Bloggs died on Friday at the age of 85" or "Joe Bloggs has been reported dead at 85", the infobox can just be typed in "Death date: May 2025 (age 85)" manually. In other (other) words, should the death date calculation template be of the subst variety, since that information isn't going to change? Primefac (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Not so much the calculation, but leaving the template in place seems to allow the option to re-add metadata in the future. —Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] It's common that full birth and death dates are known. Using the template to calculate the age means that the age is correct (or at least, it is consistent with the given dates). If the age were entered manually, it would be another thing for number-changing editors to fiddle with. That would waste time and inevitably lead to important errors. It's not critical if an infobox has the wrong value for the length of a river, but, for me at least, it is somehow important that an infobox should get the age correct if the dates are known. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fair point. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

declared dead in XXXX *year only*

[edit]

How can I use the template if the only known date of someone being declared dead is a year? For example, there is an article about Jarosław Ziętara, Polish journalist who disappeared on September 1, 1992, is still missing and has been declared dead in 1999, on unknown month and unknown day. I want to add this template but it gives me a bold red error "Error: Need valid death date (first date): year, month, day"

Please help. 83.11.167.64 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want }. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is exactly the template I needed. Thank you very much! 83.11.167.64 (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bug with display formatting in dda function

[edit]
Moved from Module talk:Age

WOSlinker uncovered an issue with how dates are displayed when a string is input in DMY format instead of MDY So for example:

  • {{dda|June 15, 2002|April 10, 1990}}→June 15, 2002(2002-06-15) (aged 12)
  • {{dda|16 August 2002|10 April 1990}}→16 August 2002(2002-08-16) (aged 12)

The second one should produce 16 August 2002 (aged 12).

@Johnuniq: is this something you could take a look at? It is currently blocking a merge of } to }. Thanks! — Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bug here. The above is how it is supposed to work. The default is mdy and is independent of how the date is entered ({{dda|16 August 2002|April 10, 1990}} and {{dda|2002-08-16|1990-04-10}} would give the same as above). If you are asking for a change in the way dda behaves, a significant investigation would be needed to see whether it would be desirable and if users of the template wanted it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Help me understand, why is this a desired behavior? Why wouldn’t you want {{dda|16 August 2002|10 April 1990}} to preserve the format that was supplied? I can’t think of a reason where you would provide a DMY and be happy that it changed the date to MDY. I realize that you CAN get around this with |df=yes… For context the reason for this discussion started here as we are hoping to merge } into this one. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] The documentation says the dates must be entered as numbers, in the sequence Y | M | D. So whoever edited the template to accept multiple operand orders, and spelled-out months, violated the documentation and those changes should be ripped out. Or, the documentation should be fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"day first" (df) and "month first" options

[edit]

"The default output of this template is the month before the day (American-based style). This default may not be appropriate in articles about people from parts of the world where the day precedes the month in a date (e.g. Europe). In such cases the parameter df should be set."

Why is this blatant American imperialism entrenched in the default? And on how many pages does this default appear where it is not appropriate, simply because a user did not realise they needed to set 'df=yes'? I'd request that the formatting be changed such that there is no default, and that lack of either 'df=yes' or 'mf=yes' should return an error message, not defaulting to a highly illogical date style that is not used in >90% of the world. It far from just Europe where this idiotic style is not used, also Africa, Asia, Australasia, Oceania, and South America do not use it.

Perhaps until this is done, an addition to the ==FAQ== section might be appropriate:

  • Q: Why does this template give a default American date style?
  • A: Because of blatant American imperialism to foist an unwanted illogical date system on the rest of the world.

- MPF (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us how you really feel. The default is American likely because the WMF is based in America and the default language is also American English. I agree with you that from a "use" perspective it would make more sense to match the rest of the world, but I don't think there's any reason to get this upset about it. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

death date and age text

[edit]

Apparently } has been redirected here by Beland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) without including/integrating its specific functionality. Previously, as allowed by MOS:ABBR MOS:NUM, } would have generated "1 Jan 2000 (aged 20)". Now it incorrectly generates "1 January 2000 (aged 20)". Can this be fixed? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't see anything in MOS:ABBR that says that is allowed... Now I also don't see anything that says it is not allowed... User:Fourthords that is a long MOS page though, can you link to the section where you are seeing that it is allowed? Additionally, what is the circumstance where this would be preferred? My experience is that this template is almost always used in the Infobox where there is no reason to abbreviate the month... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm so sorry! That original link should've been MOS:NUM, now corrected.
As for more specifically, though, it'd be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Formats which specifies (with the examples 2 Sep 2001, Sep 2, 2001, 2 Sep, Sep 2, and Sep 2001) that such abbreviations are allowed "in limited situations where brevity is helpful […] For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] So I think this warrants further discussion. By FAR, the vast majority of pages do not abbreviate the month in the birth/death date... If that is needed/desired I think consensus should first be reached as to whether that is valid. Then, and only then, should it be implemented. My read of the MOS linked to above (specifically the statement in limited situations where brevity is helpful) is that it does not apply to the Birth/Death date field where there is no need for brevity like this (which at most eliminates 6 characters: September). I could see it applying to a lengthy image caption, I.E. "Joe Smith at the opening of his new art gallery in Jan 2026." or the often used |updated= param which produces text like "Stats updated on 29 Jan 2026". User:Fourthords That is my take on it. If consensus is different that is fine, but I do think the MOS you linked to leaves room for interpretation that should be discussed and decided on. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The manually-formatted abbreviated date is the only difference between the two (code in commemnt)I can't speak to by FAR; I don't have that data. As for myself, I've seen it used in complicated and/or nested infoboxes, presumably though sometimes-explicitly to prevent [long month names + 'aged' parentheticals] from overrunning the width allotted to variables and causing uncontrolled line-breaking and the befouling of rendered parameters and variables, as seen here (for which I hope you'll forgive the largess, I just rushed together an example I thought would work).
None of which speaks to editors who might want or need to use the template to abbreviate months in any other of the allowed instances (tables, […] references, etc.). I can't think of an (nor want to generate an arbitraty) example, but if the MOS allows for it, then shouldn't this widely-used template—now the only one of its kind, I think—provide for it?
If [abbreviate the month in the birth/death date] is needed/desired I think consensus should first be reached as to whether that is valid. Isn't that consensus already at the MOS, which explicitly allows for it? Isn't the extant MOS the established project-wide consensus? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I was just implementing the outcome of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#Template:Death date and age text. I have no opinion and trust y'all to do something sensible, so I'm not subscribed to this conversation; mention/ping me if needed. -- Beland (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.