Talk:Pythius of Priene

message: The earliest dating system of this article is the most common one BC/AD and it was used without any problem for more or less 3 years. User:Wetman introduced BCE/CE , an unfortunate action which went against WP:ERA. I checked the history of the article and restored the original dating system (something which I forgot to mention in the edit summary). User:Jayjg believes that my change was somehow against WP:ERA. So let's debate the issue. Flamarande (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been using the BCE notation for over two years, without any issues. Wetman did change the notation, but as part of a re-write and improvement. Your change, on the other hand, was entirely arbitrary, purely for the purpose of notation conversion. Your edit was precisely the kind that WP:ERA says one should not do. If you had made your edit soon after Wetman's, you would have had a good argument. Over two years later, however, there is no justification. Jayjg (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ERA says nothing about time limits, it says: "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page." Wetman's edit clearly failed in this regard. So what do you propose? Flamarande (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ERA also says nothing about "first use", and, unlike Wetman's, your change was without doubt entirely arbitrary, and solely for the purpose of notation conversion. Wetman's change also clearly had consensus, since no-one complained about it for over two years. Your arbitrary change clearly has no consensus, because it was reverted almost immediately. I think you need to review WP:ERA for what it actually says and doesn't say. Jayjg (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So if no one notices/complains about a dating change for two years the new dating system becomes protected by WP:ERA? I don't believe that this is the purpose of that policy (but who knows? Perhaps it is - IF that is so they could have clearly said so). Flamarande (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wetman's change wasn't "arbitrary", because he changed the entire article, and it had consensus, because no-one objected for over two years. Your change was the exact opposite. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I simply don't agree. WP:ERA: Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. There was no reason for a change, and he didn't ask for a consensus on the article's talkpage. Flamarande (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He changed the entire article text, and replaced the sentence in question with a different sentence in a different location. No-one objected for over two years, so there was no problem with consensus. Your edit was an arbitrary era change, and your continued harping on this is not helpful or assisting in improving Wikipedia. There's little more to say on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD versus BCE/CE