Template talk:Months

This is the talk/discussion page for: Template:Months.

Created

This message is currently used on the pages for the 12 months and on 366 day pages (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Months ). The birthstones are more suitable for the month pages (where there are already listed individually) than for the day pages, thus I removed them from this message. -- User:Docu [ 20 May 2004 ]

11-Jan-2008: Back in May 2004, the template really was, as the name stated, links only to 12 months. On 24 October 2006, the "Template:Months" became months+days, as 12+366 = 378 links. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jan 32

Jan 32 is linked to the doomsday algo. I dont get it. Is that vandalism or is Jan 32 not supposed to be there? Brusegadi 06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parenthesis around unusual dates?

How about we put parenthesis around the "unusual" dates, like January 0, February 30 etc? Not Feb 29 though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Days linked after October 2006

11-Jan-2008: During 2004 and 2005 (and most of 2006), the template really was, true to the name, links only to 12 months, displayed as a one-row table. On 24 October 2006, the "Template:Months" became months+days, as 12+366 = 378 links. Adding the options "v-d-e" (plus "January 0"/etc.) later generated a total of 386 wikilinks. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia overlink crisis

11-Jan-2008: During 2007, large navigation-boxes were added to more than 50 thousand articles, where each navbox propagated wikilinks to each article, generating millions of extra links in the Wikipedia page-link database(s). The resulting "overlink crisis" (or megalink crisis) has increased total wikilinks, within a few months, by a factor of more than 20. As a small example, the Template:Months started as 12 month-name links in 2004, but grew after October 2006, to have 386 wikilinks, more than 32x times the original count. By Jan. 2008, Template:Months had been linked into 418 pages, generating:

Template:Months - in 418 articles * 386 = 161_348 propagated links.

Those 161,348 links are stored (after the servers are updated) into the Wikipedia page-link database(s) to allow quick display (such as for "What links here"). There are ways to easily avoid overlinks, as discussed below. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding overlinked navboxes

11-Jan-2008: Propagating links with navboxes can be avoided by using a navbox-reference to connect the live navbox-links only as a 2nd-article navbox, or a spawned navbox as a menu in a 2nd window of the browser. Although websites have the option to automatically spawn a new menu window, Wikipedia articles could simply rely on right-clicking a navbox reference to spawn that navbox into a 2nd browser window. By spawning navboxes, those links occur only on the navbox menu page. For Template:Months, by changing the template to spawn a days-navbox, the wikilinks could be reduced to about 10 (rather than 386), to generate about 4180 total links, rather than the current 161,348 propagated links. The net improvement would be 157,000 fewer links for the Wikipedia page-link database(s). Plus, users would see navboxes as small, centralized menu windows, not a section scrolled down at the bottom of various article pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with MonthsSource, and rename

Why was this template's main code split into {{MonthsSource}} in October 2006? Can they be merged back together, so that only one template needs to be watchlisted, and so that only one template needs to be transcluded to each instance?

Should this template be renamed, now that it encompasses days? To something like {{Monthsanddays}}, perhaps? (As a list of just the months, {{Month header}} is currently in use on the 12 pages.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was never quite sure how the Template:MonthsSource was used. It seems to me that it is not usable on its own but needs to be wrapped in something like Template:Months does. Can it be used standalone? Template:Months is a nice wrapper. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, we could easily merge Template:MonthsSource into Template:Months. I like the way the latter looks. I think that merge would go very smoothly. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Per edited comments above by Quiddity: It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps User:Eleassar will be watching this and comment on why it was done. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the contents of {{Months}} was moved to a separate template {{MonthsSource}} in October 2006 in order to be included in the List of historical anniversaries without the table formatting of the template Months. It seems this is not needed anymore so I have no objections in merging together. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge done.

And the rename? -- Quiddity (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be renamed, but I wouldn't put up a fuss if it was. So long as the redirect is handled properly. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-standard dates

It seems to me that this template should list only standard dates (i.e. not February 31, etc.). What is the general feeling on this? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the currently-included nonstandard dates (February 31, 0 January, March 0), but I understand the sentiment of not wishing to include them. They've been added and removed a few times recently. Perhaps they could be moved to the end, in a See also line? -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a see also line would be disruptive. I don't have strong feelings either way but I wouldn't expect to see those dates in a regular calendar, why here? If they are included, perhaps they should be distinguished by being in italics (as some are). -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There were comments saying see discussion before removing, but this is about the only discussion about this. Since the general emphasis seems to be to remove non standard dates, that was done. --ČσъяạβҜ ^†Talk† 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the only discussion, I don't really see any big consensus one way or the other. I don't see the need for all the 0s, but I do think February 30 should be on there since that date has actually been used, and since the template is only used on the date and month articles, I don't see a reason to leave off the ones that actually have articles, and it also seems kind of silly to have the template on a page that doesn't include the article on it. PaulGS (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about adding "Gregorian calendar" to the header? Revert if at all problematic. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You already did it. Georgia guy (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The pages don't cover just the Gregorian calendar, though, since they include plenty of events from before 1582, and the only difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars is the leap-day rule. PaulGS (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Gregorian doesn't seem right. Doesn't the Julian Calendar use the same month lengths (after 45BC)? In that case wouldn't it be the same either way? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment to throw into the mix-- I learned about the Doomsday method because I was curious about "March 0" on this template several months ago. I'm really glad I stumbled across that article-- it's been really useful! So for what it's worth, I'd vote to keep the 0s in. Brakiton (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gregorian removed, and a new test made. As before, improve or revert if problematic. Ideas welcome. Thanks :) -- Quiddity 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What Links here?

While I understand the point of this template, it makes things difficult if I click "What links Here", as it now brings up at least 365 links of dates. Could the use of this template be voted on for its usefulness or not?? I don't think it helps users who want to see which pages are related to this to see 365 useless pages... Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting request because really the only pages that use this template are the date pages. What are you expecting to see when you click what links here? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The only pages that host Template:Months are the date pages. However, If I go to September 11, quite a symbolic date, I see only 8 of the first 50 links that are not dates because of this template. Its very difficult to see what other articles have the date inside them. I think that instead of the additional 365+ links it creates, it should just be the months. At the top of the article it shows another date box for that month Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 06:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. I wonder if there is a way to keep links that are in a template from showing up in what links here - or maybe there's a hack for this case. It's really the template that should be in what links here, not every page that the template is on. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

I've converted the template to navbox, which is what has been done with almost every other footer template. The version before Quiddity's had very little white space and I've reverted to that. Navbox allows a standard look all across Wikipedia, it is simpler, and most importantly, it is allowed to collapse. Epson291 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

But it looks awful at 1024x768 (with my default font settings). Image:Wikipedia-months-template-layout.png. The original design works well at all screen resolutions.

Also, please see WP:BRD for the best way of resolving disagreements.

Also, the template {{•}} should not have a space before it (but removing the extra space only removes a small gap, and doesn't fix the linewrap problem.

Lastly, the original table is collapsible.

I agree with the idea of replacing bad table layouts with standard navboxes, but not at the expense of visual clarity. Please test extensively, or ask for additional input, before re-implementing. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to make such changes to the template. And since the most important stated reason for making the change turns out to be false, no need for change. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I think. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because Mufka cited too much whitespace as the reason, that was not true with my version. (Please see WP:AGF, I wasn't doing what you were suggesting). I agree with you the table looked terrible on your setup, the latest edit you made is certainly better then what was here before. Regards. Epson291 (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

February 29

I would like to add a special note about the parentheses around February 29. They make it take up more space, not less, meaning that it can suggest that that day is superior, not inferior, to other days. (Specifically, "(29)" is a total of 4 characters; the (, the digits 2 and 9, and the ). On the other hand, "29" is just 2 characters, the digits 2 and 9. Georgia guy (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it is a real date, I see no reason to differentiate it. Removing pending further discussion here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a real date. It's a special date for obvious reasons. The attributes of 'superiority' and 'inferiority' don't seem to be relevant(?)

I understand your point, but I don't think it is a critical problem. However, to avoid argument, I've italicized 29, which hopefully makes everyone content. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The italics were used before for dates like January 0, which doesn't really exist but is used in certain calculations, and February 30, which actually occurred but only twice. February 29 is a perfectly standard date, and doesn't need to be differentiated from the others. I've removed the italics. PaulGS (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave as-is. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See also

• {{Month header}} for the horizontal navbar of just the 12 months.

ar:قالب:شهور bjn:Templat:Bulan es:Plantilla:Mes eu:Txantiloi:Hil aurkibidea fr:Modèle:Mois gu:ઢાંચો:માસ hi:साँचा:महीने व दिन hr:Predložak:Mjeseci i dani u godini ia:Patrono:Menses hu:Sablon:Az év napjai és hónapjai mk:Шаблон:Датуми ne:ढाँचा:Months pl:Szablon:Miesiące i dni roku ckb:داڕێژە:ڕۆژەکانی ساڵ te:మూస:నెలలు తేదీలు tr:Şablon:Aylar ur:سانچہ:مہینے

 Not done. No consensus exists for the changes. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why link common calendar terms?

The purpose of this template is to provide navigation to the full set of month-day articles. It's not there to provide links to basic calendar terms such as 'month', 'day', year', or the 12 month names. I suggest that all these should be delinked, just leaving the month-day links. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Why can't the purpose be both? The usability or layout of the template isn't any worse because of these links, and some people may be interested in them. Delinking them makes th template less useful, with no benefit. PaulGS (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WP has a general principle of not linking anything and everything just in case someone might find it useful - we link only to places that the reader might reasonably find helpful. Both overlinking and underlinking are harmful: overlinking is a problem because the reader can't immediately distinguish relevant links (the month-day links) from stuff that practically everyone already knows. Links like those only add value for a tiny minority of readers, and actively put some readers off clicking on links because they find they end up at a page that's completely useless to their purpose in reading that template. If anyone really wants to learn about the calendar, they wouldn't be looking at a table of 'events on month-day' links to do it. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012

203.99.208.3 (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Jared Preston (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

The part showing the "Today" shows the incorrect date (shows January 7, 2020 when it is January 14, 2020) 64.158.197.100 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The template looks correct when I'm viewing the page. Are you sure you're not viewing an old/cached version of the page? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)