Hello, I am having a doubt about using 'comma' in date format.

1. 13th June, 2007 is this correct? Emotion: smile

2. 13 June, 2007 is this correct? Emotion: surprise or

3. June 13, 2007 is this correct? Emotion: big smile

Please explain me where to use comma in date, month and year format.

Thanks in advance,

Hi Bhc

Dates are written in various ways in English. A comma is most often used between numbers only:

13th June 2007
13 June 2007
June 13th, 2007
June 13, 2007

The last one is very common in America. There has been a growing tendency in BrE to drop unnecessary punctuation, which has led to some British newspapers' using the following date format:

June 13 2007

I think quite a few Brits consider it wrong, though.

I believe it is generally accepted that if something is set off from what comes before it with a comma, a comma is used afterwards as well.

October 13, 1517, is a significant date in history.
Denver, Colorado, is one of the most beautiful cities in the Rocky Mountain area.

This can get rather awkward, however: He was born on May 5, 1873, in Waco, Texas, to Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.
Try out our live chat room.
Hello CB,

Thanks for the information. Now my doubut is cleared.

With regards,


Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:04:15 PM
What about separating the the year within a sentence? For example:

October 31, 1517, is one of the most significant dates in history.


October 31, 1517 is one of the most significant dates in history.

I understand if the year is parenthetical, but in this example it is required. All of the grammar sites seem to agree that the first option is correct. I am not taking issue with dependent clauses, but if the year is unconditionally separated by commas.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 Philip's reply was promoted to an answer.

Thank you very much for your response. I think that my confusion may be rooted in whether we are off-setting the year in a parenthetical sense or in an aesthetic sense due to it following the numbers of the date.

It was always my understanding that the information off-set by commas could be removed from the sentence without altering the meaning. However, if I were to remove the year from the sentence regarding October 31, 1517, I would change the meaning from a specific date to referring to all Halloweens throughout time. Therefore, the year is necessary to define the date.

Regarding your example, I agree that "in ," should be off-set, as it does not alter the meaning. However, if it were removed the sentence I think should read "He was born on May 5, 1873 to Mr. and Mrs. John Smith," instead of "He was born May 5, 1873, to Mr. and Mrs. Smith." On the other hand, if the detail of "to Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" is superfluous to the meaning, then the comma after the year would be off-setting the information regarding the Smiths.

The particular example that stirred this debate was as follows:
"The change was effective pending the February 11, 2009, renewal."

In this case, there are no dependent clauses or superfluous information. The year of the renewal is required because it refers to a specific renewal, not a change that will occur on every February 11th renewal. Would you still agree that the second comma is appropriate here?