Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 37

message: Hello, everyone. I am in support of the anno Domini terminology personally, but I have a different proposal that may just satisfy everyone who reads Wikipedia. This proposal would remove the edit wars, as well as all problems of "confusion" and the extreme likeness of BCE to CE. Also, it would stop confusing pages like this one from referring to years like 164 BC/BCE. I got this idea from the customs of the History Channel. Here is the proposal:
Years from 1 forward will be abbreviated with CE (Common Era; can be interpreted as Christian Era).
:This ensures that nobody is acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God, and it also leaves Christians with the Christian era option.
Years prior to and including 1 BC will be abbreviated with BC (Before Christ; can be interpreted as Before Current).
:Although this method would acknowledge Jesus (Christ) directly, noting this era as Before the Common Era simply masks the reasoning behind the Gregorian/Julian calendars. Unlike using AD, using BC does not acknowledge Christ as a god, simply as a historical figure, which most scientists agree that he is. It is basically the same as saying the days of the week, such as Wednesday, because it only acknowledges the historical meaning behind the word, not that the historical meaning is a god. It can also be difficult to speak BCE in dialog, and also, it has three letters. When we drop the "E" and use just BC, it has no grammatical similarities to CE, meaning the terms cannot be confused with one another easily. (One of the reasons of support given for the use of AD and BC on the common era page). Finally, using both BC and CE in a sentence also roll off the tongue easily (e.g - It was ongoing from 2 BC to 5 CE).
:The best part about this proposal is that it will not be required that we change the current Wikipedia policy. The current Wikipedia years pages use BC, but they use neither CE nor AD for years after 1. Also, like the History Channel does, we can use AD in replacement of CE for exclusively Christian pages, and we can use BCE rather than BC for exclusively non-Christian religious pages. However for religion-neutral pages, meaning all pages other than those associated with religion, will use the proposal above. How does this sound? CrazyInSane 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era Proposal; CE/AD Compromise 

message: #A very reasonable compromise. CrazyInSane 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #It'd be making up our own dating system - it'd be confusing, and we don't usually engage in original research. The present compromise is fine. Ambi 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: Since the main articles have names such as January 1 and not 1 January, is that also the standard usage on Wikipedia? Shawnc 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Putting brackets around the day month or month day allows the software to convert it to the format you set in your user preferences. So putting brackets in is the standard. The default for non-logged-in user is month-day I believe. Rmhermen 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The default is "no preference" — it will be displayed as written.  Neonumbers 10:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Month-Date vs Date-Month 

message: Spelling out of centuries vs Arabic numerals.
Having trawled through the entire talk archive I have come up with the following
:Don't use Roman numerals "XI century".
:A few (maybe four) people expressed a preference one way or the other.
:One style guide recommends spelling out.
The Guardian style guides recommend spelling out first - ninth following their newspaperish take on numbers.
I suggest rewording the MoS to at least allow spelling out centuries on an equal footing with Arabic numberals. Rich   Farmbrough. 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find anything in the MoS that forbids it. Can you? bobblewik 16:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sure, spelling out is on an equal footing with Arabic numerals (though not Roman numerals), why not.  Neonumbers 11:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Numbers in words' section appears to cover it. bobblewik 11:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centuries 

message: I apologize if this has been previously covered, but I'm not going to read through 36 pages of archives and I don't know how to search just the archives. Currently, in section 1.3 Dates of birth and death, there is a statement saying, "Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article." I see many, many articles where this is not the case, and I've cleaned up many, many articles to move the location from the date area to the body of the article per the current style guide. I'd like to propose that the style guide be changed to allow locations in the date area. Many times, it does not seem appropriate to have a sentence in the body just to say where someone was born if it isn't relative to the rest of the article. Thoughts? If this has already been discussed and decided, please direct me to the appropriate discussion area and I'll happily be on my way. Lbbzman 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of birth 

message: Some thoughts:  I think the bottom line throughout the encyclopedia should be consistency. Create a base and stay with it. I realize that is what a Manual of Style is supposed to create and maintain. What I see are a group of people, each with their own personal style to promote. There can and will be “chaos” in the substance of the material in the encyclopedia since it covers such a wide area of information. However, if the structure, the basic framework that is supposed to contain that information is chaotic, and changes from article to article, you have an unreadable disaster. One of the primary functions of Wikipedia (as in any encyclopedia) should be to organize this chaos.
Our brain depends a great deal on a certain amount of consistency and familiarity in our day-to-day surroundings. If the very basic elements of your life changed day to day you would soon be unable to function. But if the basic elements remain constant, you are able to deal with those elements that are different day to day. Each article in Wikipedia is a day; that basic structure should remain constant as the information changes.
Without this consistency it's like a group of architects arguing about what the basic structure of a building should be; each having their own creative concept; without considering that real people are going to have to navigate it every day. If that basic structure changed from day to day, the effect on the person trying to navigate it would be total disorientation.
Specific suggestions: Constants article to article - Presentation of Birth & Death Dates should be consistent, easily read and located in the same place (that's all the reader may be looking for); Location of Birth should be presented as close to the beginning of the body of the Article as possible  (that's all the reader may be looking for); Links to other Articles should be relevant to the specific article it's keyed in. Imagine you're sitting in a library with unlimited resources; you come upon a term, name or other piece of information in the Article you're reading; would you get up, cross the room and pull out another text to look-up that reference? (I know that Pittsburgh is a city; I know it's located in Pennsylvania; is knowing more about the city of Pittsburgh going to enhance my knowledge of the specific subject I am researching at the time, or is it going to be an unnecessary sidetrack? The trunk of the tree is the primary subject you are researching; how many branches can there be before you no longer see that trunk?
I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, and am fascinated by its concept and execution. I plan to contribute as much as I can. More later… Michael David 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "sidetrack" is one of the fascinations of good reference works.  I generally assume the target audience is reasonably smart in their late teens, with good English, from a distant land, who is not familiar with the subject.  Therfore I don't expect them to know more cities than perhaps New York, London, Paris and Tokyo, to know any jargon, or obscure words (like propinquity or crapulence for example).  Therefore liberal (but not silly) use of linking, can provide a key to contextualise articles.  One of my problems with policy is "wikipedia is not a dictionary" because it can (and often does) provide a valuable self-glossary. Rich   Farmbrough. 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Thoughts