Template talk:Months

message: 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)
thread_title: Created

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jan 32 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parenthesis around unusual dates? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Days linked after October 2006

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia overlink crisis

message: 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)
thread_title: Avoiding overlinked navboxes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Alternatively, how about adding "Gregorian calendar" to the header? Revert if at all problematic. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. You already did it. Georgia guy (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Non-standard dates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What Links here? 

message: * 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
</noinclude>
:.  No consensus exists for the changes.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why link common calendar terms? 

message: 203.99.208.3 (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 19 October 2012 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 CarteletTalk 21:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020