We should be able to enter months as the number that they appear on the documents that we’re indexing in order to more quickly be able to enter the data from a document without as much work and have them mapped to the text version.
Numbers are not clear when dates can be reversed 12/10 or 10/12 but it is always clear when you write 10 December. You are filling in data into a database so the dates are used later they need to be clear
Please be aware that ...
Much/Most of the World prefers the 'Date' FORMAT to be that of the "International' Standard ...
ddMmmYYYY or dd Mmmm YYYY
[ eg. 01Dec2021 or 21 December 2101 ]
As, there is much less "Chance" for misinterpretation.
Whereas, the 'Date' FORMAT of, "mm/dd/yyyy" (eg. 12/01/2021) or "mm, dd yyyy" (eg. 12, 1 2021) is prone to TOO much misinterpretation, by the majority.
12/01/2021; or, 12, 1 2021 ...
Was that, either, "12 January 2021"; or, "1 December 2021"!!!???
That Said ...
You ALREADY, certainly CAN, enter the 'Date' in WHATEVER way you like, such as with a two digit Month.
The most IMPORTANT thing, to remember; and, do, is to "Standardize" the 'Date' so that it is associated with the CORRECT, Day; Month; and, Year, "Standard".
'Head Up' ...
Just remember ...
IF, you enter the 'Date' as "mm/dd/yyyy" (12/01/2021) or "mm, dd yyyy" (12, 1 2021); and, "Standardise" that as (in the previous example) "12 December 2021" ...
THEN, there will be any number of Users/Patrons from around the World that will CHANGE what you have entered to, "01Dec2021"; or, "1 December 2021" (of course, RETAINING that "Standard").
That is 'Human Nature', that is the way it works.
Just my thoughts.
I agree that when indexing the data recorded to the index should match that on the original image or physical document. There are some cases where minor alterations are in fact, required. But in those cases the indexing instructions will spell it out. So when INDEXING, just follow the instructions.
However, when documenting CONCLUSIONS (i.e., values for vitals recorded in FS person records) clarification through standardization is often necessary. For example, there was a time where some calendars started on January 1, but other calendars started in March or April. So in that case would the month of March be 03 or 01? In fact it would have been both depending on where you lived. January would be 01 or 10 (of the previous year).
Conversely, if you saw a month of 01 on an indexed document, would that be January or March? You just don't know from the raw number. You have to look at what year it was and where in the world it had been recorded.
An example of these issue can be seen where in the description of New Year's Day on the Wiki we get the following:
"The Roman calendar began the year on 1 January, and this remained the start of the year after the Julian reform. However, even after local calendars were aligned to the Julian calendar, they started the new year on different dates. The Alexandrian calendar in Egypt started on 29 August (30 August after an Alexandrian leap year). Several local provincial calendars were aligned to start on the birthday of Augustus, 23 September. The indiction caused the Byzantineyear, which used the Julian calendar, to begin on 1 September; this date is still used in the Eastern Orthodox Churchfor the beginning of the liturgical year. When the Julian calendar was adopted in AD 988 by Vladimir I of Kiev, the year was numbered Anno Mundi 6496, beginning on 1 March, six months after the start of the Byzantine Anno Mundi year with the same number. In 1492 (AM 7000), Ivan III, according to church tradition, realigned the start of the year to 1 September, so that AM 7000 only lasted for six months in Russia, from 1 March to 31 August 1492"
That's why I prefer to use standard dates (where known) for documenting all conclusions. The source linker brings data over the way it wants to regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and it frequently has to be corrected after a source is attached.
Nice if you can see the original source. But in many case the original source is not accessible to all (or even any) researchers, an an index is all we can rely on. What then?