On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:30:49 PM UTC-8, springer wrote: > > If I happen to create a tiddler in TW5 while timestamps are off, the > tiddler ends up without a create date. Once I've created it, it seems TW5 > won't even back-fill the create date to coincide with the first recognized > modification date (once timestamps are back on). So the only way I've found > to give it a create date is to clone it and delete the original. That works > fine if I realize right away, but gives misleading results if I catch it > significantly later. > I do see these reasons not to make these fields easily modifiable (as they > were in TWC), but then there ought to be more options...
Here's a little trick to changing the "created" date on an existing tiddler: 1) edit the desired tiddler 2) in the "add a new field" controls, enter "created" in the "field name" input (even though the field already exists!) 3) in the corresponding "field value" input, enter the desired date using format "YYYYMMDDhhmmssxxx" (i.e., a 17 digit number) notes: * if you are only concerned with the date (but not the time), you can enter a value using "YYYYMMDD" and the remaining digits will default to zeros. * the date number uses UTC time zone, not the local time zone. enjoy, -e > > Perhaps someone can easily tweak the timestamps toggle so that it affects > modification timestamps but not creation timestamps? > > On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 1:40:17 PM UTC-4, TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> Ciao Mark S. >> >> That was my feeling. Better manipulate the inbuilt system as primary if >> it gives all you need. Seems lightweight and doable. >> >> The input side was what my question was about. To do it in a reliable >> way--because I see issues if you don't change the dates accurately. >> >> Thanks for affirming I'm not entirely mad on this! >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> >> On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 18:48:41 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 9:25:38 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>>> >>>> But IN PRINCIPAL never ever changing creation date seems a tad OTT. >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree. The creation date field takes up at least 27 characters of >>> space (JSON isn't a compact way of storing info). It makes sense to use it >>> however you need it to work, and having it match the actual day a journal >>> was created, for instance, makes sense. That said, creating that accurate >>> date stamp might be tricky. There was a recent post about using dates in >>> 2019-04-09 format, and I think it has all the code you would need to set up >>> your dates correctly. >>> >>> -- Mark >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7e36aa5e-9ee9-4d38-94c3-f88120c6cb59%40googlegroups.com.
