Template talk:Birth based on age as of date

Two dates

It would be nice if this template supported adding two data points. Sometimes a person's age is mentioned in two news stories and a template like this could help better triangulate the date (basic math) instead of leaving the second data point unused. czar 18:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:czar: I agree. Although, wouldn't it be possible for editors to do the triangulation and cite two sources and give the evident birth year without needing this template at all? Maybe a talk page comment how it was derived. -- GreenC 18:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the date would need two references, it would be more straightforward if the template handled both, as otherwise it would require the extra step of going to the talk page or a hidden wikitext comment to let other editors know. In my experience, this happens most often with low-visibility biographies that tend to attract drive-by editors who add vital dates without reading comments or talk pages, so I'd rather let the template do the work, and leave an open parameter for another editor to add if there is a second data point. czar 05:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Setting default to display “1950 or 1951”

Per previous discussion there is desire from some (including myself) that the default behaviour should use the MOS mandated “1950 or 1951”, and use a slash (“1950/1951”) only when requested. I have set the sandbox to accept |slash=, but kept default behaviour as is (with |mos=1 in place, but to be deprecated) for until we are confident that all pages that will need |slash=y have had it added (for use in space-constrained places, like tables, or infoboxes?). This means that when we then shift default behaviour, any page that has |slash=y will remain the same, but every other page will display the or.

This first change should be invisible to the reader, but I do want to confirm no opposition before moving forward. Alternatively, if there is a sense that there are more slashes where they shouldn’t be than there would be ors where they shouldn’t be, we can just shift the default immediately, and review for |slash=y after. Of course help to review templates in either case is very much essential (via AWB/JWB).

@Trappist the monk, PamD, Schwede66, Kendall-K1, and Cymru.lass: Pinging users who expressed interest previously. — HTGS (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Achieving MOS-compliance is always a good initiative. In my opinion, to separate the years by "or" is the most logical way of dealing with the situation. Schwede66 03:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just edited another bio where this issue arises, and that brings me back to this discussion. HTGS, given that there was no opposition despite you pinging several users who previously showed an interest in this matter, I suggest that you have support to implement this change. Please proceed. Schwede66 22:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

After a moderate degree of checking pages transcluding this template, I have made the full shift, so the default behaviour is to display, eg: 1950 or 1951. In contexts where a slash is preferable (I could find very few), the template should be amended. — HTGS (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Schwede66 23:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Percentage chance

I found a source dated January 4 which provided the person's age. This means there is a 99.2% chance one year, and 0.8% chance the other year. It would great if we could display it that way, so readers understand there is a extremely high probability in which year they were born.

For example:

1967 (0.8%) or 1968 (99.2%) (age 55–56)

It could be default, or optional. It could be documented as only useful when the odds are less than 10% in one year, for example. It could display by default, but only when the odds are less than 10%, for example. There are many ways to do this.

-- GreenC 18:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes causing errors

@Deor regarding those parser function errors, do you have any other examples? It’s just that those two pages use input dates of September 81, 1988 and September 52, 2022 respectively, and I think it might actually be better to use the parser errors to check and correct typos than to prefer the more permissive version of this template. — HTGS (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: Sorry, since I reverted your edit, they've all disappeared from Category:ParserFunction errors, and I don't remember what the articles were—I just picked the first two to use as examples in my edit summary. (That category is where I noticed the problem, and I think there were about 15 articles affected.) I suppose you could try reinstating your edit, then check the category to see what pops up; they should be the only mainspace articles about people there. Deor (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

All fixed now, I believe. If any more come up, please see if you can fix them, or refer to me. Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)