Language desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 16

What is the proper formatting of date ranges for two partial years?

What is the proper formatting of date ranges? This is for Wikipedia articles, but I'd also like to know for "real life". Let's say that you are describing the latter part of 1953 and the beginning part of 1954. And you want to encapsulate that info in a column labelled "Years". What option is better: 1953/1954 (with a virgule) or 1953–1954 (with an en-dash)? Or something else? The latter one -- with the en-dash -- looks wrong or misleading, because it looks like it is referring to the entire year 1953 through the entire year 1954 (in other words, January 1 of 1953 through December 31 of 1954). The former one -- with the virgule -- I am not sure what to make of. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOSNUM#Ranges. Normally a 2-year range is written 1953–54; see the article for exceptions. I'll observe that / has no place in date ranges in any usage I'm familiar with, in Wikipedia or not. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the latter part of 1953 and the beginning part of 1954", are you referring to fiscal or financial years that begin on 1 July and end on 30 June the next year? Otherwise, how would people interpret "latter" and "early"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the Academy Awards. The 4th Academy Awards were for films dated between August 1, 1930, and July 31, 1931. That sort of thing. Where the actual dates are not important, but the year is. So, the 4th Academy Awards honored films from 1930 (but only part of the year, not the whole year) and 1931 (but only part of the year, not the whole year). So, if I am creating a Table, and there is a column called "Year" or "Years", what is the best notation to indicate the partial year of 1930 and the partial year of 1931 (within the row for "4th Academy Awards")? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., §6.105, Slashes with two-year spans: "A slash is sometimes used in dates instead of an en dash (see 6.78), or even in combination with an en dash, to indicate the last part of one year and the first part of the next. See also 9.63." The winter of 1966/67 was especially severe.; Enrollment has increased between 1998/99 and 2001/2.

But Chicago's preferred style is the en dash. §6.78, En dash as "to": "The principal use of the en dash is to connect numbers and, less often, words. With continuing numbers—such as dates, times, and page numbers—it signifies up to and including (or through)."

Under the sections on Inclusive Numbers, §9.58–63: "An en dash used between two numbers implies up to and including, or through." (§9.58, When to use the en dash). §9.60, Abbreviating, or condensing, inclusive numbers recommends changing only the last significant digits of 4-digit numbers, e.g., 1980–81, 1929–1930 (my examples) as the long-standing Chicago style (since the first edition). §9.63, Inclusive years notes "Inclusive years may be abbreviated following the pattern illustrated in 9.60. When the century changes, however, or when the sequence is BCE , BC, or BP (diminishing numbers), all digits must be presented", e.g., 1897–1901;the war of 1914–18

Significantly, §9.61, Alternative systems for inclusive numbers allows "A foolproof system is to give the full form of numbers everywhere" which seems to me best for allowing automated Wikidata and search engine parsing and recognition of date ranges in Wikipedia's tabular data, a major source of factual metadata for all kinds of projects and purposes even now, with many long-term benefits to all. "Foolproof" explicitness seems to me the best usage in the present context. 1930–1931 has my vote for machine readability.

Addenda: Alternatively, a simple note to the table might indicate (to humans, at least) that the date range, however formatted (1930–1931) is meant to refer to the last part of one year and the first part of the next. Per the Notes section of the above cited WP:MOSNUM#Ranges, "Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06). The slash notation (2005/06) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources." If that route is taken, source note would be invaluable, as would Talk page defense of your formatting choice. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, let's look at this notation: 1930–1931. That does not mean: the full year of 1930 through the full year of 1931 (i.e., January 1 of 1930 through December 31 of 1931). Correct? It can refer to partial year 1930 through partial year 1931. Right? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Chicago editors see it, 1930–1931 "implies up to and including, or through" so perhaps the slash notation (1930/31 as Chicago would have it) would be best after all in the generic case, if it was consistently applied.

But in the specific case of your Oscar awards example, I would simply cite the year of the award and perhaps note the exceptional case(s) of two-year spans in a footnote from the relevant cell(s) for those odd years or, better yet, in the relevant annual article. My understanding is the rule now (since when?) is that Oscar nominations are based on movie releases of the preceeding calendar year. I'm sure the vast majority of secondary references simply cite the year of the award, glossing over the arcana of the date the movie was released. In any case, consistency of formatting within a table's date columns is the overriding concern for doing all kinds of wonderful automated charting and statistics. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have e.g. the article 2009–10 NBA season. This is analogous to the Oscars you refer to—it does not mean all of 2009 nor all of 2010. Loraof (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific example

This is a chart. My question is what should I put in the first column? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Film	Film Title	Awards	Nominations
Year in Film	Film Title	Awards	Nominations	1927 / 1928	7th Heaven	3	5
1927 / 1928	Sunrise	3	4
1928 / 1929	The Bridge of San Luis Rey	1	1
1928 / 1929	The Broadway Melody	1	3
1928 / 1929	Coquette	1	1
1928 / 1929	The Divine Lady	1	3
1928 / 1929	In Old Arizona	1	5
1928 / 1929	The Patriot	1	5
1928 / 1929	White Shadows in the South Seas	1	1
1929 / 1930	All Quiet on the Western Front	2	4
1929 / 1930	The Big House	2	4
1930 / 1931	Cimarron	3	7
1931 / 1932	Bad Girl	2	3
1931 / 1932	The Champ	2	4
1932 / 1933	Cavalcade	3	4
1934	It Happened One Night	5	5
1935	The Informer	4	6
1936	Anthony Adverse	4	7
1937	The Life of Emile Zola	3	10
1938	The Adventures of Robin Hood	3	4

Why would you use a range for Year in Film? Seventh Heaven came out in 1927. (Also, film year links are cinematic anathema in these here parts.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's the whole point of this thread. The "year" is not a calendar year. The "year" runs from August 1 to July 31 (or some odd variation like that). The 1st Academy Awards were films of 1927 and also films of 1928. The 2nd Academy Awards were films of 1928 and 1929. And so forth. The chart reflects what happened at each ceremony. So, the year of the film is not important; the "Oscar season" (range of years) is important. In this instance. This may be a subtle nuance, but the column is labelled "Year in Film" (meaning "the Oscar Season Year"; i.e., what "year of films" the Academy was honoring that "year"); it's not "Year of that Film Title". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, thanks for the chart. What is at issue is now clear. But "Year in Film" is no more clear than "Year." Year in Oscars and year in film are distinct. Is the year column meant to represent: 1) when the film was made, or 2) when the film was awarded an Oscar? Decide and be done. One column can not represent two variables. The latter (date of award) is unambiguous and most likely the form found in reliable secondary sources.

If, as you say, "the "Oscar season" (range of years) is important" then consider representing that detail: a) in the article for each Oscar year, or b) as a footnote in the relevant cells of the table, each of which are represented with unambiguous 4-digit years.

Alternatively, rename the column to match this arcane detail ("Oscar Season"?) and format dates consistently in Month, Day, Year format.

I recommend options 2 and a. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulscrawl: Thanks. But you are still not seeing the point of my question. So forget the above chart. Here is a better chart. You asked: Is the year column meant to represent: 1) when the film was made, or 2) when the film was awarded an Oscar? The answer is neither. The "Year" column represents the period of eligibility for a film to be considered for an Oscar for that particular awards ceremony. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Ceremony	Year in Film	Best Picture
Awards Ceremony	Year in Film	Best Picture	1st Academy Awards	1927 / 1928	Name of Film
2nd Academy Awards	1928 / 1929	Name of Film
3rd Academy Awards	1929 / 1930	Name of Film
4th Academy Awards	1930 / 1931	Name of Film
5th Academy Awards	1931 / 1932	Name of Film
6th Academy Awards	1932 / 1933	Name of Film
7th Academy Awards	1934	Name of Film
8th Academy Awards	1935	Name of Film
9th Academy Awards	1936	Name of Film
10th Academy Awards	1937	Name of Film

So, if this were in prose, this chart is saying:

The 1st Academy Awards honored films that were made in the period of August 1, 1927, to July 31, 1928. The Best Picture at the 1st Academy awards was Film A.
The 2nd Academy Awards honored films that were made in the period of August 1, 1928, to July 31, 1929. The Best Picture at the 2nd Academy awards was Film B.
and so forth

And the date components are not important (August 1 and July 31); just the "year" component is important. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I think I get it, Joseph. For this level of detail in a table (official Oscars database does not go so far), one would need more columns to represent more aspects of the data in two-dimensional form. Three to four dates are significant: 1) movie release date (YYYY-MM-DD), 2) award date (YYYY should suffice), 3) start of eligibility (YYYY-MM-DD), 4) end of eligibility (YYYY-MM-DD). Conflating latter two dates in one column eliminates most automated procedures for sorting, dicing, splicing, and charting. Try out a few new column names and see what you think. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, you stated that: "(official Oscars database does not go so far)". The Oscars database looks exactly like what my chart above says, with one minor exception. Their database states, for example, "1st (1927/28)" (when you scroll down the "Award Year(s)" column. So, the only minor difference is they put the second year with only 2 digits, where I used 4. In other words, they put 1927 / 28, whereas I put 1927 / 1928. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too noticed Oscars.org is following Chicago Manual of Style §6.105, Slashes with two-year spans, quoted above. Alas, CMOS doesn't dive this deep in its section on tables. Mixed format works fine for human readers and sorting wiki table by date works so I have no objection at this point. Use your best judgment, as always. But I would love to see if this messy data could be put in Wikidata (all four dates as YYYY-MM-DD) as a test case for its advertised abilities to automate Wikipedia tables. Looks like a great corner case and a good excuse to explore its capabilities. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, my chart certainly does not need four dates for columns (date of film; date of award; begin date of Oscar season; end date of Oscar season). I just need one column (essentially, the Oscar "year" or "season"). And I was asking the best way to format it. I have no idea what Wikidata is? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is Wikipedia's fact database, beyond your immediate needs, but as such it allows discrete facts to be represented once and pulled into tables automatically. Arcane for now, but the future of Wikipedia tables, lists, and infoboxes lies there. May lack flexibility for this case, however, thus my interest. Forget it for now.

I now favor a single column titled "Award Year" and populated with a text string that sorts fine in wiki table format, exactly like Oscars.org has it: 1927/28 (1st), 1928/29 (2nd), ... 1932/33 (6th), 1934 (7th), ... 2015 (88th). These strings would be most helpfully wikilinked to each article page on that specific Academy award year from 1st Academy Awards to 88th Academy Awards, where the details of dates of eligibility for the first several award years might best be found. (Not also attempting to include the articles for the year in film, e.g., 1928 in film, as first table above has it: apples and oranges and causes loss of focus of tabular view.) Looks fine and readable; single hyperlink to obvious target article is crystal clear; adheres to both Chicago and WPMOS allowance for last-two digits only in slash-separated two-year spans (when sources support); sorts fine even when mixed with conventional 4-digit year format for 1934–2016; importantly, follows primary source usage, which should be linked from table footer and discussed on Talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would most appreciate seeing what you come up with. Lots of choices, all yours. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am still working on this. But it's not a high priority. So, it will be quite some time before I finish. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]