Which one is correct? Any other way in writing the date?

September 22, 2006

September 22nd, 2006

22nd September 2006

Thank you for your help.
1 2 3 4 5
Comments  (Page 4) 
I personally find the superscript gerund "nd" unnecessary (and somewhat cumbersome) to denote ordinal numbers in written dates. Besides, I have yet to come across it in academic writing.
all of them are correct but the better one is the first choice, especially in writing.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

is there a standard for writing dates where the year is less than four digits? So for example how would you write "
On the 8/6/793 Vikings raided the Northumbria Coast for the first time." Many software applications will only recognise the 2 digit, so 93 (which can't be right) or four digit, 0793 (which just looks wrong). So is there a standard for this?

I have some odd variants and the only ones that look correct for me are these:

"On the 8/6/793 Vikings raided the Northumbria Coast for the first time."
"On the 8 June 793 Vikings raided the Northumbria Coast for the first time."



A small practical comment.

In my opinion, such remote dates are rarely if ever known to the exact month and day. Historians are usually very happy if they know the exact year, or even the decade.

Do you know what time it was, on 8/June, when the Vikings arrived?Emotion: stick out tongue

If a computer system is intended to deal with remote history, it will allow for the appropriate number of year digits, as well as features like BC/AD.

Hi Clive,

I think it was 1137hrs... just before anyone settled down to lunch ;-)

I work in the translation world of computers where people receive texts to translate that could be from anywhere. Dates are things that we can identify and autolocalise into the correct format for a different language... but in order to do this we have to recognise them first. Currently we use the formats laid down here:


For the most part you'll see that in English the recognised date formats for years are that only 2 digit or 4 digit years are recognised. So dates like the one I quoted are considered to be numbers and not dates... hence the date is not autolocalised. In order for it to work the year would have to include the leading zero, 0793, or be simply 93.

So whilst we do see texts like this we do not recognise the 3 digit pattern for a year and neither do Microsoft... hence my question. If there was a recognised standard for writing these dates in English it would have been good to know.


Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

The only standard I am aware of is that leading zeros in the year are not written. I won't say they are omitted, because historians would not think they should be there in the first place. That's a computer programmer's approach!

British is the same as it is mentioned or written in India.
American, the numbering is separated with a DD/MM/YYYY.
what about:
22nd of september, 2012
Try out our live chat room.

what about:
22nd of September, 2012
That's OK, but not common.

Show more