Template talk:Time interval

Subst heart

@Trialpears: Re diff and {{{♥|safesubst:}}}: It doesn't worry me but naturally there was a reason with a practical effect. Consider:

• {{time interval|1 Jan 2001|March 4, 2002|=done|show=d}} →  time_interval
• {{time interval/sandbox|1 Jan 2001|March 4, 2002|=done|show=d}} →  time_interval

Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I know, I know, but the unnamed parameter is the standard and I can only recall one other time where another parameter was used. I've never seen an non-demonstration use of the unnamed parameter so for all realistic calls there is no effect. --Trialpears (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How often is "now" updated?

I'm looking at Voyager 2 in its infobox where the mission duration is specified. It has {{time interval|20 August 1977 14:29:00|show=ymdhm|sep=,}} which should be (as of a few minutes ago) 43 years, 2 months, 13 days, 20 hours, 53 minutes, 17 seconds. However it's displaying 43 years, 2 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 44 minutes (a little over two days less). And refreshing the page doesn't update the minutes and seconds.

I'm guessing something is preventing the default value, or "now", from being updated frequently. If it only updates every few days, maybe it should be discouraged to use minutes and seconds for situations when one of the parameters is default, and/or or have a footnote saying "as of X date/time" (when it was last updated), or put "approx." before it? -kotra (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It's due to caching. I put an explanation here and it is at VPT. I don't have time to look up the parser time function at the moment but it would be easy to insert something that gives the current date (and time if wanted)—that "current" would match the age calculation since they would bother be updated together. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

See #time at Help:Magic words and the details at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Could YYYY/MM/DD and YYYY/MM be supported?

JIPA / CUP use these date formats. The first only differs from ISO in using / instead of a hyphen, and so should be unambiguous. The second avoids the problem that *YYYY-MM has of looking like a range, and so should also be unambiguous.

Please ping me if I should request this elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Decoding dates is done by Module:Date which rejects slashes due to conflicting interpretion of 1/2/22 as dmy or mdy. Format yyyy-mm-dd (or yyyy-m-d) is accepted as useful at Wikipedia and due to ISO 8601. In principle YYYY/MM/DD would work but a problem is that the module is used by many templates which really should not encourage input of weird formats. Full flexibility requires use of the #time parser function. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm sure they can accommodate. — kwami (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Rough age

Now that {{Rough age}} has been deleted, couldn't this template do the same thing if we just add a "rough" parameter?

Currently it seems the functionality to round is there, but the rounding parameters need to be supplied manually. For the rough age use case, you don't want to have to specify which unit to show and round to, you want the template to automatically choose whatever is significant.

So {{rough time interval|February 1 1900 14:45|February 1 1900 16:50}} would display 2 hours, as if {{time interval|February 1 1900 14:45|February 1 1900 16:50|show=h}} was used, while {{rough time interval|February 1 1900 14:45|February 3 1900 16:50}} would display 2 days, as if {{time interval|February 1 1900 14:45|February 3 1900 16:50|show=d}} was used. Without me knowing beforehand that the first interval is short (hours) and the second is long (days). {{rough time interval}} would be a redirect to {{time interval}} with, say, a new |rough= parameter set to "yes" or something. CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I wrote at the TfD (linked above) that the rough idea was cute (clever and good). However, to be implemented there would need to be a use-case: a couple of articles where the template would help. It's likely that a parameter such as show=ymw (years, months, weeks) does all that is needed, and I would be surprised if a period less than a week was relevant. Examples:

• {{time interval|1 Jan 2001|March 4, 2001|show=ymw}} → 2 months
• {{time interval|1 Jan 2001|March 4, 2002|show=ymw}} → 1 year and 2 months

Is there ever a case where just "1 year" would be wanted for the last example? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, the now-deleted template's documentation gives a fine overview of what to use it for, if I recall correctly. Maybe we can undelete to have a look? In the TfD Grufo does illustrate the point with You don't want to see written “1 year, 2 months and 3 days ago” when all you want to see written is “1 year ago”. The point being not having to specify the units. So {{rough time interval|1 Jan 2001|March 4, 2001}} rendering as "2 months" would be perfectly fine - note, no |show= needed or required. Asking for articles where it could be used would be misguided if it was intended for talk discussions.

Another question: Over at the TfD, Zackmann08 claims the now-deleted template was "completely" redundant with this one. Could you explain how? How can you use this template to replicate the now-deleted functionality "completely"? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone proposing a change to a template needs to provide a couple of examples of how the change would be useful. Whether Zackmann08 was literally correct in what was written elsewhere is not relevant here and any discussion about that should be elsewhere. The deleted template was not used and its documentation did not give any idea about how it would be useful in articles. That is why it was deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things: One, the change would be useful because we would once more have access to the functionality offered by Rough age. I started this discussion to explore whether this would be doable; whether this template perhaps have all the bits and pieces of code needed already. Do you have an opinion on this, Johnuniq?

Two, changing this template comes about because another template was deleted. In the deletion discussion, it was claimed the TfD'd template was completely redundant. If it is, great. But please note that having to specify a |show= would mean this template does not replicate Rough age. Not having to supply any parameters (other than the interval) was its main selling point.

Three, please stop focusing on use cases in articles. Not all templates are used in articles. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I will reiterate what Johnuniq has already said... What is the point here? What is the benefit of having a "rough" estimate and when would you ever need, want or use that? For us to take the time to refactor code to work a new way, there needs to be some use beyond one user thinking it would be a cool feature to have available. If there are use cases for it, I'm open to it and would genuinely like to hear what those use cases are, but thus far all I have heard and seen is a theoretical "wouldn't it be cool to have this". Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Thank you for reaching out. The template was designed for talk pages or project pages, where we often happen to count the time (I am not sure why people keep mentioning possible use cases in articles). I can try to reconstruct how the template was by using its Latin version, but due to how the Latin language works the Latin code is quite different—so I might not be rigorous in my restoration. The code of the former {{Rough age}} template should be quite similar to this:

<includeonly>{{safesubst:<noinclude />Rough age/ex numeris|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#time:U|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|now}}}}|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#time:U|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|now}}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

The code of its former {{Rough age/ex numeris}} helper subtemplate should be quite similar to this:

<includeonly>{{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) < 60
	| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}})}}|second}}
	| {{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) < 3600
		| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:floor(abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) / 60)}}|minute}}
		| {{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) < 86400
			| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:floor(abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) / 3600)}}|hour}}
			| {{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) < 604800
				| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:floor(abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) / 86400)}}|day}}
				| {{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) < 2628000
					| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:floor(abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) / 604800)}}|week}}
					| {{safesubst:<noinclude />#ifexpr:abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) < 31536000
						| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:floor(abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) / 2628000)}}|month}}
						| {{safesubst:<noinclude />plural|{{safesubst:<noinclude />#expr:floor(abs({{{2}}} - {{{1}}}) / 31536000)}}|year}}
					}}
				}}
			}}
		}}
	}}
}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

I believe that the very fact that we are here shows that a time window of at least six months is very much needed before a template can be nominated for deletion. @Zackmann08: I know that talking to you is more toxic than speaking to Donald Trump, but why do you keep asking about use cases when we just had a discussion that included use cases? I will quote myself:

It is designed as metatemplate to be used by other templates, in those cases in which there is a deadline, we want to show the time passing, but we don't need to be too precise. Contexts like this one:

• This discussion lasts one week; it started {{Rough age|{{#time:Y-m-d H:i:s|{{{1}}}}}}} ago.

↳ This discussion lasts one week; it started {{Rough age}} ago.

If a deadline is only one week, the benefits of using such a template can be seen especially on the first day (where we would see “0 days ago” otherwise). And so on for larger intervals. That is not a theoretical usage, it is more akin to translating bad/robotic English into actual English. And we can also expect that such a template stops being transcluded after the deadline is met, so by design it will probably never have permanent transclusions. --Grufo (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to explain why a rough age is helpful here... What is wrong with saying it started 5 days ago? Why would you want or need a rough age. Also, throwing aspersions like comparing me to DT is not really helping your case here bud. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again we have {{age in days}}, {{age in weeks}}, {{age in years}} and of course {{time interval}}. I see no scenario where those would not work. Grufo keeps claiming to have found an example... but I see no reason that the following doesn't work?

This discussion lasts one week; it started {{age in days|2025-12-1}} days ago.

Producing: This discussion lasts one week; it started 240 days ago.

This is actually even simpler than Grufo's code as you do not need to parse it with {{#time:T-m-d:..., {{age in days}} does that for you.

Grufo I genuinely do not get it. What is the problem with what I have just shown above? That is a rough age, to the nearest day... Is the issue that it isn't displaying the hours? What is the missing component here? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: “I genuinely do not get it. What is the problem with what I have just shown above?”: I genuinely can't understand if you are playing games or you are serious. Let's say a substitution template “freezes” the starting time at 2022-05-12 14:23:45. Here is a comparison between {{Rough age}} and {{Age in days}}:

What time is it now?	{{Rough age|2022-05-12 14:23:45}} ago	{{Age in days|2022-05-12 14:23:45}} days ago
2022-05-12 14:23:48	3 seconds ago	0 days ago
2022-05-12 14:25:03	1 minute ago	0 days ago
2022-05-12 14:56:14	32 minutes ago	0 days ago
2022-05-12 18:12:48	3 hours ago	0 days ago
2022-05-13 04:33:11	14 hours ago	0 days ago
2022-05-14 13:24:08	1 day ago	1 days ago
2022-05-16 06:12:23	3 days ago	3 days ago

It is not a mystical template; if you already know the scale of your measurement, the only thing it does is avoiding zeroes and robotic English expressions like “0 days ago”, or “0 weeks ago”, or “0 hours ago”, and so on—to be precise: the only zero the {{Rough age}} template shows happens before the first second (“0 seconds ago”—which in the future we could replace with “now”). If you also don't know the scale of your measurement, the template finds the right scale for you. End of story. --Grufo (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Grufo: your lack of AGF is getting tiresome and is getting to the point where I and others are going to simply stop engaging with you.

For the record the table you made above was VERY helpful and frankly would have been useful at the TFD. I now understand what you are looking to achieve. I will say that personally I still don't see what use this is to anybody. The only example you have given, both here and at TFD, is for tagging of a discussion thread on a talk page.... Signatures already include a date that displays how long it has been since that comment was made. I don't see the usability of seeing seconds, then minutes, then hours, etc. as the time grows (though I do finally understand the difference thanks to your table above).

If others see a use for this that warrants it's creation, then it should be implemented as a function at Module:Age (which is where all these types of functions lay) not as it's own independent template. Additionally there is definitely no need for the added complexity of making it a substitution template... No reason not to just have a straight transclusion.

If you feel like putting in the work to make an added option for |rough=yes to work with {{time interval}} will certainly not object to having that as an option as long as it doesn't break anything else, but I think you will have a hard time convincing another TPE that this is a worthwhile use of their time to create. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I truly don't want to convince you that this template is cool/needed/useful, but I demand that you at least understand the things you talk about and you ask others to talk about. WP:AGF has nothing to do with the fact that after a week of discussions you are happy to claim that you don't understand how this template differs from {{Age in days}} or {{Time interval}}, especially after you have nominated it for deletion. The documentation page was full of examples. You could have just read a few of them. All this is terribly serious, frustrating and definitely not constructive. Now you say that you don't find the function in question useful “personally”; but that is very different from the objective truth you argued with at TfD (“COMPLETELY redundant…”). That's also the reason why someone pinged you here, by the way: they want to use the functionality offered by {{Rough age}} and you reassured that it was “COMPLETELY redundant to {{Time interval}} which can do all this and more”. Up to you if you want to answer that. --Grufo (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Grufo you can demand whatever you want, doesn't mean you are going to get your way as exemplified by the fact that most of your templates are being deleted by admins, which I am not. If you want to continue to LAWYER the process, complain when you don't get your way and file bizarre ANIs you are free to do so. Just know it is not going unnoticed by others. Your actions speak far louder than my or your words. In any case, I'm no longer interested in engaging with you and will not do so further except as is absolutely required. Take care. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm commenting to the last reply would ideally would want to the first, but can't as the indent levels were manually changed. I read half of the above, but I want to ask what Johnuniq asked again (and I don't think an answer was given). Is this code missing in any current articles? I'm not looking for hypotheticals, but real, current pages, where this code is missing and is an improvement over what we currently have. Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym:

“Is this code missing in any current articles?”:

No, because the template was not designed for articles (although one can never know). It was designed for talk pages.

“Real, current pages, where this code is missing and is an improvement over what we currently have”:

It depends on how you define “missing”. If you are looking for a page that shows “Error: Template {{Rough age}} is missing”, the answer is of course no, since the template was created one month ago and few people even knew about the existence of {{Rough age}}. If instead you are looking for pages that will benefit from this template, every single discussion similar to an WP:RFC, which has a beginning and a fixed end, qualifies for the group you are looking for. Moreover, in the examples above I showed how to use it to count an age, but the template can be used also in reverse as a (rough) countdown for the cases in question, specifically for knowing that a discussion will end in two hours and not in one day. --Grufo (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope this answers what you are looking for (I don't know if CapnZapp had other use cases in mind). I will no longer answer to comments of the like “This can also be done with {{Time interval}}”, because the difference between the various templates is explained above. I will also not dwell on “non-missing” courtesy use cases—like easily describing quiescent pages in long list of pages automatically generated, where it is inconvenient to click on the page history of each page (for instance [[Wikipedia:Example]] was last edited {{Rough age|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:Wikipedia:Example}}}} ago can show “Wikipedia:Example was last edited 2 minutes ago” as well as “Wikipedia:Example was last edited 4 years ago”), and many others—because this is not what you asked. --Grufo (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, a solution without a problem... Why would you ever need to display when a page was last edited? Just use recent changes... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I said in my previous comment I will not dwell on courtesy use cases, so why do you ask? --Grufo (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You continue to insist there is a use but fail to address basic questions about it... Then you get pissed when nearly all your code is deleted at TFD. I think it is about time you moved on to other projects. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

“Then you get pissed”: I don't get “pissed” and I did not start this discussion. “I think it is about time you moved on to other projects”: Notoriously these are the words often heard from a “non-pissed” person. Now, please, stop derailing every discussion and try to stick to the point. --Grufo (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok... So once again, the point... Why would you ever use this when you have the page history and recent changes to see when the page was last updated? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: At this point I am no longer sure you are able to follow a discussion. Someone asked about concrete use cases: are you able to summarize what the point of my answer was (and on what I said I will not dwell)? --Grufo (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Not interested in trying to parse your ramblings, but if you want to be part of a discussion and "defend" your code and your ideas, you can't really make blanket statements like "I will not address how this could potentially be used". In any case, you clearly aren't interested in a constructive conversation about how this would ever be used and this clearly isn't going anywhere so I'm out. Good luck. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, slick updating your previous comments at the same time you responded to me here so that I had to go back and re-read what had already been read in order to see your updated comment. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I responded to you there exactly because I did not want that courtesy use case (a.k.a. displaying page revisions) to become the center of your derailings. One last time: My answer concerning missing use cases was that of counting time in certain discussions. Feel free to answer to that or not answer at all. --Grufo (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I've asked for a real-live example. You gave me an example of Wikipedia:Example with the text Wikipedia:Example was last edited... which does not appear there. Again I'll ask. Do you have an example of any non-sandbox, non-testcase, non-imaginary page, live on en.wiki, that this code can make better? Gonnym (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Unfortunately, although I try my best at being precise, I have to repeat myself quite often, as it seems:

every single discussion similar to an WP:RFC, which has a beginning and a fixed end.

Normally RfCs should not be longer than 30 days at most. This means that—for instance—the RfC at Talk:Tetris § RFC on How to Define Tetris will benefit from showing on top “This discussion started 2 days ago (19:43, 7 December 2025, UTC) and will terminate in 28 days (19:43, 6 January 2026, UTC)”. As I already wrote, this applies to every discussion that has a fixed end. --Grufo (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The first comment of the RFC was made on 7 December 2025. In my version I see a clear line of text saying ... 11:43 am, 7 December 2025, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−8). Maybe that is specific to the skin I am using, not sure...

Additionally, per WP:RFCEND, there is no fixed end for discussions. There are certainly defaults or generally accepted customs... But your text above: This discussion started XXX ago and will terminate in YYY would not be accepted by current policy as it implies that comments made at YYY + 2 seconds are not welcome. That is not how RFCs work. Generally RFCs are very active at first, then run stale after a few weeks. So the DEFAULT behavior is to remove the RFC tag after 30 days. That certainly DOES NOT mean the discussion is terminated at that point.

Don't see a valid use case here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Grufo see my above comments (forgot to ping you), can you point me to a conversation type that has a regid, written in policy, fixed end? I'm not familiar with any... The discussions I've been involved in (RFC's, TFD, AFD, etc.) do not have ends written in policy. They have default ends, widely accepted time periods after which they can be closed if consensus is obtained. But I have never heard of a discussion that was locked at lasting exactly X amount of time. Can you point me to one? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: “Can you point me to a conversation type that has a regid, written in policy, fixed end? I'm not familiar with any”: Discussions at TfD end in exactly one week. They can be relisted, but that always starts a new countdown. --Grufo (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Grufo: I would encourage you actually to look at Wikipedia:Tfd. There are discussions from as far back as October 23rd right now that have not been closed or relisted. If you consult WP:TFD/CI you will see there is NOTHING written in policy stating that discussions last exactly 1 week.

Your initial example for Gonnym was that it was for use in RFCs. That is not accurate as RFCs do not last a predetermined amount of time. Now you are changing your story and saying actually it is for use at TFD. Well like I have said, that doesn't work either.

Unless you can point to a discussion type that has a written policy stating that it lasts exactly X amount of time, your current use case is not only not useful, it would actually be detrimental to the process as it would imply you can only comment on a thread for a predetermined amount of time. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

“Now you are changing your story and saying actually it is for use at TFD”: I rarely change the story, and I repeat that this would apply to RfCs (the two things are not mutually exclusive). You have to manually prevent Legobot from closing an RfC after 30 days, or that is what will happen. That said, I have nothing not against long discussions on a case-by-case basis and delaying a deadline when required. --Grufo (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

So now we are back to RFCs, changing the argument again. Ok, well there is no policy that RFCs end after 30 days. The bot will end them by default after 30 days if they have run stale. YOUR text implies that no comments will be welcome after 30 days. That is a very different matter. Now if you want to raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment that RFCs should contain a header saying they end after 30 days, you are welcome to do so. IF consensus is to add that, then and only then would this be a valid use case. Right now that is far from the case as RFCs routinely run for far longer than 30 days.

I will note that you have gone silent on the TFD point. Will you admit you are wrong that TFDs last exactly 7 days or do you maintain your statement that, and I am quoting you, "Discussions at TfD end in exactly one week". Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want to know what I think this template should do at TfD, that would be something like this:

“This discussion started 2 days ago (19:43, 7 December 2025, UTC). If withing 5 days (19:43, 14 December 2025, UTC) no consensus is found or the participation is too little, the closing editor may, at their discretion, choose to relist the discussion”

That quotes, almost literally, what WP:TFD/CI says should happen after seven days. Or we could use a shorter version (better, although less literal):

“This discussion started 2 days ago (19:43, 7 December 2025, UTC). In 5 days (19:43, 14 December 2025, UTC) the closing editor may, at their discretion, choose to relist the discussion”

Or other variations on a theme. --Grufo (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

So then what you are suggesting is the adding of 2-3 sentences at the top of EVERY TFD expressing that the discussion, might be closed in X days, but only if a consensus is reached and there is no active participation? Setting aside the fact that I think that is a terrible idea, such a changed would need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. If consensus is that such a change would be benefitial, then and only then would it make sense to create this. I will gladly bow to consensus if it is different than my opinion on this matter.

You are doing things backwards, and not for the first time. You need to discuss changes not enact them on such a grand scale and then be surprised when they are reverted.

Again if you want to implement this code here, you are free to do so. But en masse adding it to every TFD without any discussion would be wildly inapprorpriate. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

“So then what you are suggesting is the adding of 2-3 sentences at the top of EVERY TFD expressing that the discussion”: Yup. Possibly <small>...</small> and right-floating, like the one shown here on the right. And, most importantly, via dedicated template. “Again if you want to implement this code here, you are free to do so”: I have absolutely no intention of doing that, especially after {{Rough age}} has been deleted. --Grufo (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

As per my comments above, this sort of a change would require consensus to be reached at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion that such a change is desired before it were implemented. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

As per my comment above, someone else will have to ask about that, not me. --Grufo (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok so we it seems the agreement is not to move forward without consensus reached at TFD discussion, which you are unwilling to seek. Is there anything more to discuss here? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You should ask the others. But keep in mind that nobody asked about TfD, and they might not be interested in that, and might still be interested in more general use cases or how to obtain via {{Time interval}} what {{Rough age}} did (which was the original question). --Grufo (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you were asked to provide an example of how this could be used. You said first RFC, that clearly doesn't work as there is no such policy. Then you said TFD, for which I have made clear you need consensus first to change the current policy. Now you are saying the others may want it for some other unknown purpose. This is why it is so frustrating to try to work with you. You cannot keep to one story or to one purpose. Figure out what this is for and how it might be used within currently existing policy, then worry about trying to make the code for it. I'm out. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't close a discussion that was started by others, who asked you questions you did not even answer, on points that you decide are the closing points. I confirm what I said on how discussions in which something might happen after a fixed deadline can benefit from {{Rough age}} (these include RfC and TfD). That was the question for me and at least that chapter is closed for me. --Grufo (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok so I'll have to agree with Zack here. No discussion has a hard-end-date until it is officially closed. Additionally, I'm not a fan of ticking-clock style message. You could just as much write "RfC opened December 10" or "RfC opened December 10 and will run 30 days until January 8." (if we really had a 30 day time limit). We don't need the "in 5 days it will close". So if that was the only real-world scenario, then it isn't an improvement in my eyes and I oppose adding the code. In the future, requests of this matter should be related to a specific and current need. Also, if you want to change other templates, like the RfC one, you should get consensus there first. Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

“No discussion has a hard-end-date until it is officially closed”: That is irrelevant as long as

something might happen after a fixed deadline

(not earlier and per policy), which is worth be reminded to the participants of a discussion. “We don't need the ‘in 5 days it will close’”: Of course. We can also not show anything. How usable and friendly enwiki is is up to us after all, isn't it? “In the future, requests of this matter should be related to a specific and current need”: Not sure what past requests of mine you have in mind. I only saw a few potential use cases and created a template accordingly. My involvement on enwiki is normally sporadic, so what I do here can have slower rythms than other editors. Anyway, that template was judged redundant to {{Time interval}} according to one person and was nominated for deletion as such. At TfD the idea was judged cute but unused, so it was deleted. In the same discussion more than one participants invited to recreate the template in the future. In the meanwhile here one user asked how to exploit the many capabilities of {{Time interval}} to do what {{Rough age}} did, as the nominator reassured was possible, and was actually the main reason why {{Rough age}} needed to be deleted (vehemently expressed in all caps). In all this story I never had any requests. --Grufo (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)