We deal with approximate dates all the time in genealogy. I don't have a problem entering the rationale or the date in my software or writing about it in a narrative.
I'm working on a project now that involves some charting. Specifically, I'm displaying "life span" information. Ala, "Joe Smith (1699-1772)" or "Sally Thomas (1710-1781)." The question arises about how I should display date approximations that are unique when my presentation calls for a summary (year).
Each time I run into one of these "weird dates" I ponder whether or not there is some collective wisdom/recognized approach to summarizing the approximate dates as years.
As in the examples, it's sometimes the date and sometimes the circumstance that causes me to pause. For example, should I write 1723/4 to summarize the year for a double date 6 March 1723/4. In the alternative, should I consider the baptismal practices of the day? If the children were usually 6 months of more of age when they were baptized, should my summary then read 1723?
In the third example, since the parents were at court and punished--if I consider court calendars and birth practices, I might deduce the child was likely born four months earlier--so should the year be summarized as "1684?"
In the alternative, is the year summary always "just the year" from the approximated date.
I thumbed through some scholarly journals this morning, but did not spot an example that would have served as my guide. I'm not losing sleep over this but wonder if members of group have crossed the same path.
Update (clarity): I have revised the graphic/examples in the hope more specifics provide clarity. The problem I find is that my approximate date qualifier doesn't always hold when I move from using a specific date presenting it in some more summarized form (such note DD MMM YYYY but YYYY).