Template talk:OldStyleDate

message: This template should be set to conform with the users Date format preference. For instance Boris Galerkins life with my preferences, now reads
(March 4 [O.S. February 20] 1871 - 1945-07-12)
:Set per your request.--Jusjih 10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I just realized there is :Template:OldStyleDateDY for exactly that needs. How about some operating guidelines for these templates somewhere, folks? --FordPrefect42 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conforming to user preferences 

message: I've created :Template:OldStyleDateNY, for dates without year. --Soman 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I'm going to update this ancient template to reflect contemporary font guidelines stipulating that prose text should remain consistent in size and format, bearing in mind that this template transcludes as regular text inside prose segments. Snow talk 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Fontsize change

message: See Template talk:OldStyleDateDY for a discussion about a proposed cosmetic change to the output from this template as well as two others. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion notice 

message: This template (and its variants) currently points to Old Style and New Style dates. Following extensive and long-running discussion at talk:Old Style and New Style dates, much of which revolved around the issue of duplication/forking of content with Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, the former article has been revised extensively so that it addressed specifically (and only) the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Great Britain and its colonies, as it is here where the terms O.S. and N.S. are most used. However, other jurisdictions also changed to the Gregorian calendar and the term 'old style' is used there too (both within en.wiki and in English-language resources externally). In respect of readers coming to Wikipedia to clarify what is meant by a reference to 'old style' in an external medium, there is a hat-note in Old Style and New Style dates that directs readers to the Adoption article. For the internal references (which are particularly prevalent in articles about Russia and Russians), a change is needed. So I would like to make the following proposal:
* that, when the template generates a wlink to 'O.S.', the target becomes Adoption of the Gregorian calendar rather than this article. 
::Thus the template would become:  [[[Adoption of the Gregorian calendar|O.S.]] ] 
::(instead of  [[[Old Style and New Style dates|O.S.]] ] ).
The effect will be not be evident in the articles that use the template, they will look exactly the same. The only people that will be aware of the change will be those who wonder what the O.S. means and click on it. If this proposal achieves consensus, the 'sister' templates will be changed equivalently. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no comments, I have changed these templates. However, given further discussion at talk:Old Style and New Style dates, some additional material will be added to address the use of OS/NS notation in modern English language texts that deal with dates of events in Russia around the time of the revolution. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have revered the change. I do not agree with changing a link to an article about new and old style dating to an article about a calendar particularly when. If you insist on educing the article Old Style and New Style dates so that its meaning is not comprehensive enough for this redirect then expand the article not redirect this to something that does not even mean old style date but instead means one of two possible new style dates. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree. Old Style and New Style dates does a far better job explaining the difference in dates. Ibadibam (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with  on this. I was reading an article about a Russian composer, and was surprised to find that clicking on the O.S. link brought me to an article about "the 18th-century changes in calendar conventions used by Great Britain and its colonies", with no information whatsoever about Russian use. A link to the "Adoption" article would be way more useful. —capmo (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change the target of this template 

message: The periods in O.S. should be removed in accordance with MOS:ABBR. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Periods are used in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 October 2018 

message: For use in articles where linking "O.S." to the article about dates in Great Britain is inappropriate, such as Dmitri Mendeleev, it would be useful to be able to specify a different target (here Adoption of the Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Eastern Europe). Hairy Dude (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative link parameter 

message: It would be very helpful to have a parameter which unlinks O.S., for example on Battle of Ronas Voe, it's linked 12 times, including four times in four sentences, and four times in three sentences later on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlinking O.S. 

message: MOS:DATE requires a comma after the day when using mdy dates, e.g. "February 2, 1905". The example given here has no comma:  produces February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905. This should be February 2 [O.S. January 20], 1905. The template currently doesn't recognize that mdy is in use and so doesn't add the necessary comma. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conforming to MOS when using mdy dates