Sure, but I think you're drawing a somewhat arbitrary cutoff here. Why wouldn't `60 weeks` be acceptable? Or `389 days`? You're assuming that this code would never be used for displaying dates that could be long in duration when it's entirely possible that this code could be applied to another use case in the future. I'm not saying that it's important to account for years right now, but it just seems unnecessary to constrain the scope of a reusable piece of code to *exactly the use case it's being applied to* when the cost to account for these cases in time, effort, code size, complexity, you name it, is so trivial. Writing code that thinks ahead is not a universally bad thing to do.

(This is more of a commentary on your general critiques of this pull request than this particular instance)