Template talk:Marriage

Year span

The problem with this template is it makes no distinction between the span of birth-death and the span of marriage. It is especially awkward where there is no link to the spouse to check when they were born. So Jane Smith (1900-1950) could be born in 1900 or have married in 1900. It should read Jane Smith (m. 1900-1950) so the reader knows which data is being presented. Several times I have assumed that the information was the marriage span and was the dates of birth and death, and I have also seen the other ... we need to add the "m." to the template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Okeydokey Richard. Done. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Date Ranges

The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.

— Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Other date ranges

This seems clear to me, so does anyone mind if I change it to conform with this guideline? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't care. Perhaps you should ping Norton though. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This was said and apparently agreed a couple of years ago. It doesn't seem to have been done, at least for the date of marriage (see Rebekah Brooks). The use of "–present" is arguably against guidelines as it becomes dated and violates WP:DATED. In the case of a date of marriage maybe "m 1996" or similar would be better than "since". Pol098 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Marriage template microformat incompatible with Infobox person template

There's a problem with the vcard tag added by this template overriding the standard microformat metadata generated by the infobox person when it is used within that template. Browser plug-ins, such as Operator for Firefox, can't partition vcards within a vcard at this time - so should avoid this on any Wikipedia person page. Will remove the marriage template until this can be fixed. Thanks. Rostdo (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be inherited from {{Event}} What a mess! I've removed some classes form that as an interim fix, as it's 1am here and I need to sleep. I'll return later. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - Agree it's better to have a clean root hcard on the bio page(s) now and figure out how restore valid marriage vevents later. One negative result is that Operator now applies the dtstart/end dates from the first nested marriage event to the root vevent on the infobox table. Also, some clarification is needed on my previous comment: the Microformat parsing rules DO cover nesting of valid Microformats. After a closer look, it appears the trouble had to do with uncertanty on how values from invalid nested objects should be handled by the tools (Operator, Oomph,..). So there is probably work to be done on both ends. But would still be better not to produce invalid vcard/vevent objects to begin with. Rostdo (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to remove this template from all Infoboxes

This template is not compatible with Infoboxes. Infobox person, for example, already states the field "Spouse(s):", so the "m." portion of the date range is entirely redundant and cluttered. The spouse field in infoboxes should read "Michelle Obama (1992–present)", not "Michelle Obama (m. 1992–present)". This is redundant, and also doesn't apply to the "Domestic partner" field. Is there a way to easily remove this from all the infoboxes it has infected? Or can we remove the "m." from the template? Or can we simply get rid of this redundantly useless template altogether? Thoughts, please?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support removing the "m." abbreviation, or making it optional. Plastikspork (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, I've removed it for now as I am not sure how to make it optional. If someone reading this knows how to use the coding language in that respect, and wants to add the option, please do so. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. A consensus of two people is not enough. It is not redundant because it is formated the same as years of birth and years of death, and has been confusing people, that is why "m." was added. I am reverting it until a more definitive consensus is reached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have "John Smith (1920-1960) (1940-1960)" or "John Smith (1920-1960) (m. 1940-1960)". Two years in parenthesis need to be distinguished so that people know which is years of birth and death and which are years of marriage. It isn't always clear which pairs are in the parenthesis. If the person doesn't have their own article, their birth and death years appear in the infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending space

This template seems to produce an ending space in the output string. If the template is followed by a ref, there will be a space between the ref and the string, which does not follow MOS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template update

I think that we should remove the reason why the marriage ended and just keep it simple, putting the years in parenthesis and keeping it like that: IE 1991–93 or 1997–2000 if it goes into the new millennium. The reason why the marriage ended will be in the article, so I see no reason why it has to be in the infobox. 173.69.8.105 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason field (why the marriage ended, divorce or death) allows the infobox to be a simple one-stop-shop for personal information, which is its intention. In many articles, this information can be missing or very widely dispersed. For instance, the Judy Garland article makes it very difficult to follow the actor's marriages without the detail in the infobox. That was the article that initially piqued my interest in this template, as I simply wanted to know about her marital history quickly. I believe it should be retained as useful information.--Tgeairn (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Then at least fix it so that the ending year is abbreviated with two numbers rather then the whole year: IE: 1992–1994 should be 1992–94. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.105 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not done the research into why the MOS picked dates the way they did, but one place where removing the first two digits becomes a problem is that it can be ambiguous. My grand parent was born in 1906 and died in 2011. Do I show their dob/d as 1906-2011, while I show my great grand parent's marriage dates as 1901-11 (the other one passed away in 1911)? Consistent dates makes for much more readable copy, and they eliminate confusion or questions. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if the end of marriage or death date extends into the new millennium, then it should be four digits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.8.105 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No. No. Years given in WP should never use less than four digits. --Thorwald (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDATE does say that 1901–11 is acceptable, and means 1901–1911. 1901–2011 would need to be used for the 100-year range. 1911-01 should never be used (unless the range is, by context, in end-to-start order). Saving space in this way won't work well/clearly with the prefixes for reason in front of the end dates, though: (m. 1901 – w. 11) is just ugly, I think. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

1901–11 can be read as 1901–November. The "millenium problem" was all about two digit years. I always prefer seeing 1901–1911 for the best clarity. -79.67.254.246 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Spaced en dash

Hello,

I notice this template spaces en dashes in all contexts, so {{Marriage|Example|1940|1956}} produces "Template:Event". However, according to MOS:ENDASH, "the en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when the endpoints of the range already include at least one space." So the correct behaviour would be for {{Marriage|Example|1940|1956}} to produce "Example (m. 1940–1956)", while {{Marriage|Example|3 October 1940|1956}} would produce "Example (m. 3 October 1940 – 1956)". Can anyone make it so that the template detects whether the arguments are only years, and if so, unspace the dash?

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the m. and w. prefixes for the years, which are logically part of them just as a month would be, at least for appearance. (m. 1953–w. 1976) looks even more wrong than (January 20, 1953–June 11, 1976). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Widowed

How does one distinguish between the subject of the article dying or the spouse dying? Either would have the same date and reason. Do we need a "reason=is widowed" to indicate that the subject died, not the spouse? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. The "reason=" parameter should be expanded and/or clarified a bit. --Thorwald (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, when arg {{{1}}} dies, reason=widowed. When the article subject dies, and is survived by arg {{{1}}}, how about reason=survived (abbreviated s.)? The problem is that we also need reason=separated (abbreviated how?) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations only get in the way of quick comprehension. I had to think a bit before I realized "w" meant widowed. If the spouse died, "death of spouse" would make that clear. If the subject of the article died, we need no further explanation, because the same infobox has the date of that person's death.Peter Chastain (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

With the limited amount of space in the Infobox, though, they are necessary to avoid ugly multi-line constructs. I recently saw a situation where the subject died a couple months after their spouse, in the same year. In that case, the ending year by itself is ambiguous. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Unresolved

Can anyone explain the supposed advantages of the first of these examples, over the second, or even third?

{{marriage|Tanaya Paul|2012}}

Tanaya Paul (m 2012)

Tanaya Paul ({{abbr|m|married}} 2012)

Tanaya Paul (m 2012)

Tanaya Paul (married 2012)

Tanaya Paul (married 2012)

please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Can anyone explain the purpose of this part of its coding:

|hide-coord=y|noHcard=

please? Why enter coordinates in the template, if they're not displayed, and not emitted as metadata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Can anyone explain the purpose of the |uncertain= parameter, and give an example of an article where it is used? If it's not used, why is it there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Can explain the purpose of entering "October 3," in:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992}}

when it renders as:

Michelle Obama (m 1992)

without the date and month, please? How does that differ from entering:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|April 1, 1992}}

for example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Can anyone explain why:

{{marriage|Michelle Obama|October 3, 1992|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>|spouse2=Barack Obama |street-address1=Trinity United Church of Christ|street-address2=400 W. 95th Street|city=Chicago |lat=41.7219|lon=-87.6342}}

displays as only:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

and what, then, is the purpose of including:

|spouse2=Barack Obama |street-address1=Trinity United Church of Christ|street-address2=400 W. 95th Street|city=Chicago |lat=41.7219|lon=-87.6342

How is that different from, say:

{{marriage|Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel|First of never|show=[[Michelle Obama]] <small>(m. 1992)</small>|spouse2=I'm a banana, la, la, la|street-address1=Third Rock from the Sun|city=Disneyland|lat=9999999|lon=-111111}}

which also displays as:

Michelle Obama (m. 1992)

for example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

More questions

What purpose do the following parameters serve:

• |street-address1=
• |street-address2=
• |street-address3=
• |province=
• |locality1=
• |locality2=
• |uncertain=
• |region=
• |state=
• |department=
• |postcode=
• |country=
• |hide-coord=
• |noHcard=
• |lat=
• |lon=

are they used anywhere; and is there any reason not to remove them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

???? - present

I don't know if this has been discussed or not, I browsed through the previous comments and didn't find it so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something someone has already said but is there anyway to put in (present) for the couples that are still together, it looks weird and not uniform when an infobox looks like:

John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)

Bob Dole (m. 2000)

can't the template be updated to have (present) put in there? Like this:

John Doe (m. 1993 - 1999)

Bob Dole (m. 2000 - present)

I think it would look nicer and better. Lady Lotus (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing parameters

The recently-concluded TFD was filled with people objecting to the presence of many of this template's parameters: many delete voters saw them as reason to delete, and many keep voters (including me) saw them as extraneous and worthy of chopping. I placed this template at the Sandbox (revision) with all parameters filled out, and the template only displayed the following parameters:

• 1= (the name of the person getting married)
• 2= (the date of marriage)
• 3= (the date of the end of the marriage)
• reason= (the reason why the marriage ended)

Everything else is in the HTML, but it's only producing the microformatting that's apparently broken; see the block of text at the end of the final section of this version of WP:VPT. Removing the other parameters apparently won't affect the appearance of the articles in which these parameters are used, so can we remove them to cut down on template bloat and mangled microformats? I'd say yes, but I'm not going to do it without additional input. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll back this, I see no problem with cutting this down. Ducknish (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a great proposal, I completely support it. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see what pages use the parameters that are under consideration to cut. I'll put in some maintenance categorization within an hour and put a little table below. If nothing is using the parameter, cut it. If it is being used, then it should probably be displayed. Technical 13 (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A good idea. I'd also like to be able to code multiple marriages.--Auric talk 11:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a version in the sandbox with less parameters (output is on the testcases page). The only thing it's missing from the list above is the reason parameter since it seemed like too much info to cram into the infobox field. — Bility (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just waiting for the categories below to populate, then I'm sure we'll have a better idea of what is(n't) needed. Technical 13 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, based on the list below, there are some arguments that can just be chopped as they are unused:
    • spouse1
    • street-address3
    • province
    • locality2
    • locality3
    • uncertain
    • state
    • department
    • postcode
  • Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, after some more work, the only parameters left used by articles are:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• reason
• show

There are some you can see listed below that are being used, but not on articles... I'm untagging those to list articles only so we can see what else is using the template. Then all but the ones I've just listed can be chopped until they can properly be coded to be included. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance list

Okay, so I've added all of the categorization to the template and here is a list that will show which parameters are used and which aren't.

No longer using the following maintenance categories

Category Pages using Tmarriage-1 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-2 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-3 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-show not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-spouse1 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-spouse not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-date not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-end not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-reason not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-street-address1 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-street-address2 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-street-address3 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-province not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-lat not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-lon not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-locality1 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-locality not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-locality2 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-city not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-locality3 not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-uncertain not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-region not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-state not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-department not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-postcode not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-country not found

Category Pages using Tmarriage-spouse2 not found

Given the above, and the below, what need is there, to keep this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The above is a representation of nothing since the maintenance categories were stripped out of the template. Kind of makes your question moot in my opinion. You are most certainly welcome to take it to another TfD to get a new consensus now that the extraneous arguments have been removed per the last discussion. Technical 13 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The stupidity of this template

In the Meg Ryan article mentioned above, this template is entered (other examples omitted for clarity) as:

|spouse={{Marriage|Dennis Quaid|1991|July 16, 2001|reason=divorce|show=[[Dennis Quaid]]<br /><small>(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)</small>}}

which renders as:

Dennis Quaid

​

​

(m. 1991; div. 2001)​

The text that is displayed is generated by the |show=, where it is entered as wiki-markup, thus:

• |show=[[Dennis Quaid]]<br /><small>(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)</small>

In other words, the template not only emits no microformat metadata, but also does nothing to format the text.

The same result could be entered by typing:

• |spouse=[[Dennis Quaid]]<br /><small>(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)</small>

which renders as:

Dennis Quaid
(m. 1991–2001; 1 child)

In other words, the text {{Marriage|Dennis Quaid|1991|July 16, 2001|reason=divorce|show= and the closing }} are utterly redundant.

Can anyone tell me the point of this farce? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it Andy. Do you know how to make <categorytree>...</categorytree> tags show the collapsed version of the list? Once there has been some time for the new maint categories to run through the job queue, we'll have a better grasp on what needs to be done to the template. I've been told you are somewhat of an expert on microformat metadata. Can you link or explain exactly what it is so I can understand why some of these things were included in the first place? Technical 13 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? I have no idea what you mean by "<categorytree>...</categorytree> tags"; nor to which list you refer; nor why you've asked that and a question about what microformats are, in reply to this section, which is about the display of wikitext, and in which I point out that "the template... emits no microformat metadata". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"<categorytree>...</categorytree> tags" was in reference to the section right above this one, which I have already figured out and am just waiting on the job queue to finish processing the change to the template to categorize all of the parameters. The template is allegedly suppose to emit microformat metadata, and I'm not entirely sure what that is, if you could point me to some information as to what that data is used for, I would appreciate it. Once I understand what was hoped to be accomplished by these additional parameters, and I see how many of them are actually used, I'll be in a better position to answer your question. Technical 13 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As you've been told, it's like any other basic template that formats content the same way across numerous pages. If we decide to expand the way that it displays the dates, we'll have a far easier time than we would if we just had plain text. This usage is odd, since "Show" isn't supposed to be used to do things that parameters such as the dates and reason are supposed to do. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not dissimilar to the example given in the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't point you to what the microformat metadata is supposed to be used for; because this template doesn't emit any. I'm not sure how many more times I'll need to say that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm not making my question clear, and I seem to be frustrating you. Let's try it like this. Can you link me a template that DOES emit microformat metadata? Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Templates generating microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There we go, now I understand the concept a little better. Now, let me ask a couple different questions. Are you opposed to this template emitting such data? Are you opposed to it "only" emitting that data and not doing anything else with the information? In the last 6 hours or so since I added the maintenance categories to the template, I'm not seeing most of the arguments being used at all (and I've modified the documentation to discourage use during this phase of the project). We should give the job queue more time, because I'm still seeing the numbers go up every time I visit, so I know it is not done. That being said, it looks like it might be safe to just chop these unused arguments off the template, which leads me to my next question. How does Wikipedia view maintaining templates for article histories? Unfortunately, viewing a specific revision of a page doesn't use the templates as they were at that time, but as they are now (I could put in a bug report as that probably wouldn't be hard to change). I know on other wikis, we take strong efforts to maintain article histories by making all templates as backwards compatible as possible. Is that a concern here? Technical 13 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not a concern. Are you near to being able to answer my question at the top of this section, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The show parameter seems to have been intended to allow formating to the output of the template to keep the other parts that were suppose to emit metadata from having all kinds of divs and spans in them for formatting. Unless, we are going to include h-card metadata, all of the pages that use it should be gone through and make sure the information is in the "other" appropriate arguments and deleted. Just my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah-ha! I've found what the use of |show= is for in the process of trying to remove it from all the articles. See the Clay Felker and Victor Adamson articles. Technical 13 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Given this edit, there still appears to be no need for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Endash got un-spaced

Somehow, the endash between the years became un-spaced, in contradiction of MOS:ENDASH section 1: "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space." Based on #Spaced endash above, it was apparently correct at one point.

To fix it, the endash ("–") in the template code should be replaced with "&nbsp;– ", right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Alan. This edit is what changed it. Rrius seems to think that "year-only date ranges aren't spaced", so I've just pinged him (and am reverting) so that it can be discussed. Technical 13 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have read the policy. It says, "The en dash in a range is always unspaced". It then goes on to explain that when a certain condition is met, spaces are put on either side of the dash. That condition is that either the beginning or end point of the range contain a space itself. Since a year does not have a space, it does not meet the condition. As such, there should be no spaces around the dash. I am reverting. -Rrius (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To be clear, what the policy is saying is that 1901–1930 is not spaced, but 1901 – February 1930 is spaced. This is because neither "1901" nor "1930" contains a space, but "February 1930" does. -Rrius (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Rrius:Yes, and the template seems to now always insert at least "(m. " in front of the marriage year (at least), meaning there is always at least one space and the endash should therefore be spaced (e.g. "(m. 1930 – d. 1946)"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe

John Smith

​

(m. 1930⁠–⁠1946)​

should not be spaced. seems like logic would complicated to make this work in all cases. a better option, in my opinion, would be to simply not use the template in the cases that it is not producing the correct spacing (or use the show= option). Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. If it is m. 1962–1982, then the "m." applies to the whole date range; it is not a part of the first year. If you are using "m." and "d." together, there should be no dash (i.e., it should be m. 1962; d. 1982 or some such). -Rrius (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've got an edit/idea sitting on my laptop until I get to school tomorrow where there is wifi to test that should resolve this issue. I don't see why full dates aren't being used but instead only years. Technical 13 (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @AlanM1, Frietjes, and Rrius: so I've played in the sandbox and I think I've finally got it working well to address all issues raised above. This includes full dates (in an abbr popup), using "; " if there is a reason specified, and no spaces for just years. I'm unclear from MOS: if the years actually should be unspaced with the full years available as popups though... I'm thinking that maybe there could be a new parameter that would allow full dates to be not in abbr popup, and include extra spaces around endash. Please see Template:Marriage/testcases and let me know if there is anything else that needs adding. Technical 13 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am, of course, wrong. D'oh!.

• In (m. 1930–1946), I agree that the "m" does apply to the range, not just the first year, making the unspaced endash correct.
• In (m. 1930; d. 1946) the semicolon with trailing space is the correct punctuation, not the endash.

• I'll note that the MOS currently says that the closing year of a range of years in the same "century" should have just two digits (i.e. 1930–46), but that's on my list of things to question, since I don't think that should be mandatory; as often as I run into 1930–1946, it may not even represent the majority of usage in WP. ("century" quoted because it may not be technically correct either)

• Since the template is normally used in Infoboxes, I think years only is the correct format, given the limited space available.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• • AlanM1, so you support the sandbox version as it is? There is little I can do about the 1930-42 thing at this time, but I'd be happy to research and work on making that happen. Technical 13 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It sounds like we've reached a consensus. I would only add that I think the technical problems seem to me to justify ignoring the YYYY–YY thing, which is ignored pretty routinely anyway. Incidentally, MOS tends to apply with more force to prose than elsewhere, so there is still another reason not to get too bothered about ignoring the problem. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • With regard to the 2-digit year, I agree with leaving it as is – the performance penalty to "fix" it is too great in template code, and should probably wait for a Lua version (and I want to try to get it out of the MOS anyway ).
      • {{Marriage/testcases}}: The doc says that |reason= is supposed to be either "divorced" or "widowed", but the code also appears to support aliases: "d", "d.", "div", "div."; and "w", "w.", "wid", "wid."; respectively. "s", "s.", "sur", "sur.", and "survived" are also supported. If the value is none of those, it just passes through whatever is given, whereas previously, it ignored the parameter. This last bit may affect existing usage, though I suppose it would have technically relied on undocumented behavior. I can do the doc changes. Does "survived" mean that the subject of the article survived the person named in the template, or vice-versa? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about my delay Alan. Survived means the person died and Widowed means the spouse died. I've also added the logic to deal with the MOS:YEAR issue that was raised again below. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Template Violates WP:YEAR

Resolved

I've noticed that this template violates the terms of WP:YEAR. The YEAR page clearly states: A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986). For clarity, years with fewer than four digits may be written in full (355–372). Is there anyway to change the template so it does not violate such? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've spent an hour or so and this template now has the logic that this isn't an issue. Was throughly tested through /sandbox revisions and monitoring changes to /testcases. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please change the abbreviation for divorce to "div." and not "d." "d." is universally understood to mean died. DrKiernan (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Also, that this is "universally" understood. Also, it's not "d.", it is d. (put your mouse over it). Technical 13 (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• As far as death goes, this template uses s. or w.. Technical 13 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why would I run my mouse over it? Normally, people just read what's written. The abbreviations (apart from m.) are not clear because they are not in general use outside of this template. DrKiernan (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Even without running your mouse over it, we are talking about marriage here, the options for that ending are, "widowed", "survived", or "divorced". "Died" isn't in this list. So, please get some consensus to make this change. :) Technical 13 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• A marriage obviously ends when one of the partners dies. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, yes, when someone dies the marriage ends. I'll give you that. Problem is "died" is ambiguous because it doesn't tell you ho died. This is why we use survived or widowed when dealing with deaths in marriage. Survived means the topic of the page died and left a spouse behind and widowed means the spouse died. Technical 13 (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that is clear at all since I would expect the parenthetical comment to apply to the spouse not to the subject of the page. Hence, I read "survived" and "widowed" in the same sense: spouse survived subject of the page, and spouse was widowed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My initial request was not to change widowed and survived to "d." but to change "d." to the obviously unambiguous "div.", I think now it is better to change this template so that instead of using abbreviations we've made up ourselves, we use abbreviations that are already common practice:

d for died [1][2]

div for divorced [3][4]

wid for widowed [5][6]

These abbreviations in brackets beside the spouse's name would indicate to me that they apply to the spouse, i.e. the spouse died or was widowed in that year. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're overlooking why it was chosen to use single letter abbreviations with the {{Abbr}} template in the first place. This template is most often used inside of an infobox with very limited line width an longer words or abbreviations don't fit on one line. Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Then put a space in like the formatting at Charles, Prince of Wales, or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. It's much clearer than the formatting created by this template. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "wid." These are unambiguous, and I agree with Dr. Kiernan that d. generally speaking does mean "died", and thus using it for divorce is confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• support proposal to change to "d.", "div.", and "w." to "wid." per TonyBallioni and Dr. Kiernan. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support change to "div." or similar. I have long thought that this was unnecessarily ambiguous and confusing, but I assumed there was consensus for it. Reliable sources and consensus seem to clearly favor DrK's proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as I think it takes too many lines and is bulky in the infobox... Template:Marriage/testcases#Testing in an infobox shows what I mean, having the extra 4 characters forces some lines to take two lines instead of one as in the Billy Bob Thornton example. Technical 13 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support change to div. to avoid confusion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support change to div. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.