Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 84

message: Specifically referring to figures important to both Christianity as well as other religions, is it appropriate and/or acceptable to switch from BC to BCE? In these cases, the religious overtones of the nomenclature are enhanced due to the religiosity of the subject, and I feel if the person is is of significant importance to other religions, the less pointedly Christian terminology should be used. For example, see Isaiah. Thoughts? Thank you. -- Avi 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. I get the feeling this talk page has 10 thousand pages of debate on this subject. There might already be a policy on this? Jeff Carr 01:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to specifically clarify anything in the MOS for you to do this. Do it with a clear edit summary and if someone reverts you, then take it to the article's talk page. When it comes to BC/BCE, editors tend to argue with each other and do what they want anyways. Just look at the Jesus article—one article that should use BC/AD— and what a mess that is in respect in the BC/BCE. —MJCdetroit 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Tony 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I make a suggestion for such situations? Many general readers without an academic background do not recognize "BCE/CE". It might be wise to recommend linking the first use in an article to "Common Era", which would not only explain it but also point out that it may be read either as such or as "Christian Era" if the reader so desires. I suspect a lot of those fighting over its use are completely unaware of the latter point. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. it usually is ala BCE, but where it is not, it should be; as should AD -- Avi 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/BCE in articles on religious figures 

message: Interesting to see the above discussion recommending spelling out centuries in text, and pointing to a number of external MoS which recommend this (to which one can add the Oxford MoS) resulted in the option to spell out being removed on the basis of existing practice. IMHO "16th century" is fine for notes, but unsuitable for text. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging it's use over "sixteenth century".  Any objection to al least reinstating the option on centuries? Rich Farmbrough, 13:44 7 September 2007 (GMT).
:Richard: what don't you like about 16th century? To me, it's much easier to read, and I'm happy to retain the choice. Tony 14:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on context. "The sixteenth century brought a new cultural openness to England" should be spelled out, and probably capped, as a personification. "The 16th-century musician  William Byrd" would be fine by me (but should be hyphenated). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with Tony's readability point.  And I do not understand PMAnderson/Septentrionalis's gist here.  For one thing, the first is not an exmaple of personification at all (it is a mistake to think of generic transitive verbs like "bring" as anthropomorphic; contrast "the 20th century murdered American trust in government" – for it to be personifying, it generally has to be verb limited to conscious, human-specific action).  There doesn't seem to be a strong contextual difference between the two examples.  And "16th century" would only be hyphenated in the 2nd example because it is a compound adjective; "William Byrd was a musician of the 16th century" would not get a hyphen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Centuries again