Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive D5

message: The stuff I've delinked has been among the categories that wikipedia's rules of style says should be delinked, such as days of the month or things that have been linked more than once.
Treybien 1:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just following the rules, folks

message: I'm bringing out my other point separately, which is to ask for opinions on the practice of deleting year links indiscriminately across a wide range of articles despite their being no policy requirement for this and despite the guidelines explicitly acknowledging that many editors like such links. Any views? -- Kvetner 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, this has resulted in some user blocks, and some rather nasty revert wars.  I recommend reading through the archives of this talk page, and possibly User talk:Bobblewik and associated archives such as here or here before doing this. Neier 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting year links

message: Am I missing it, or is there nothing covering year ranges: a) 1352-3, b) 1352-53 c)1352-1353? All I can see is a link to the dash policy, which doesn't cover this question.  An editor keeps changing b)s  to c)s - which other people change back.  b) should be standard, in my view. Johnbod 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think b)s are comprehensible enough.  I'd support making them standard. a)s, of course, create consistancy problems when next to ranges spanning across decades (e.g. 1352-69).  The problem still exists with b)s when next to ranges across centuries but the problem would be less frequent in this case. Jɪmp 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year ranges

message: Does this section imply that dates that occur AD or CE should not be referred with AD or CE? I know I didn't express my question so I'll provide an example. Is 18th century preferred to 18th century AD/CE? I imagine the context may influence which one is better. If BC/BCE dates are frequenty mentioned then it may be better to add the AD/CEs in too. Am I correct? GizzaDiscuss © 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's no point in adding AD's all over Voltaire. In a sequential chronological History of metalworking or something, as a minimum you should probably start with a BC, have one or two for your last BC dates, & an AD for your first one or two of those.  More may be necessary & all dates may need them if you are jumping around.  Or do more, like this list Timeline of clothing and textiles technology Johnbod 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say only add AD or CE where not to do so would cause confusion or lead to unnatural prose. Of course, it is context dependant but in your example, I'd suggest that 18th century should be preferred to 18th century AD/CE.  Given that BC/BCE dates are frequenty mentioned I don't see that it follows that it may be better to add the AD/CEs in too.  These are not symmetric in the mind's eye.  To crudely exemplify what I mean, consider 2007 BC & 2007 AD verses 2007 BC & 2007, surely you'd agree that the AD (or use CE if thou wilt) is unnecessary.  We don't put plus signs before all positive numerals. P.S. I'll be moving this into the appropriate section above. Jɪmp 00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries]]