Wikipedia talk:Eras/Archive 1

message: The above wordings (as of timestamp) seem to be very good and exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense now.  So, are we voting, or what? siafu 00:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording discussion

message: With this being a proposal to change the Manual of Style guidelines would it be enforceable?  Should we therefore replicate any decision into Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?  violet/riga (t) 23:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion calendar format is not a POV issue, or rather it is not primarily a POV issue. If we wish to establish a calendar format policy then we should write one explicitly rather than conflating it with NPOV. Furthermore, I believe that any policy should acknowledge that CE/BCE is not yet generally taught below tertiary education in the UK or the US; nor is it much taught at tertiary level outside a significant number of humanities disciplines. Because of this, many people are unfamiliar with the notation. --Theo  (Talk) 23:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Style Manual is a guideline and not binding.  But obviously it is a useful point of reference.  I am not sure where I stand.  Perhpas I prefer an as yet unproposed option.  But first off, I am absolutely opposed to the "favor the original author" argument.  No one, not even original authors, own articles and nothing the original author does should in and of itself dictate how the article is edited.  In my mind, this goes against the whole idea of a wikipedia, i.e. a permanently ongoing project.  Of the "favor the change" options, I favor proposal three.  However, I think that more can and should be said.  I am not rehashing my "BCE/CE" is NPOV argument.  But I am making an argument shared by many, which is that dating conventions are not arbitrary, and that different conventions may be more or less appropriate given the topic and contents of an article.  I would explicitly (1) encourage editors to discuss which convention to use on the basis of whether one may be more appropriate to the article in question, and why.  Also, I do think that in any discussion/attempt to reach consensus, (2) much weight should be given to editors who have a demonstrated history of making substantive contributions to the contents of the article or who otherwise demonstrate some degree of expertise concerning the topic.  Given that the Style Manual is a guideline and that it clearly states that this manual is non-binding (actually, the intro almost encourages people to go against the manual), the two elements I am proposing will not have the status of "policy" and be binding, which gives any editor room to make some other argument on other grounds.  But if we are trying to formulate a constructive guideline, I think what I suggest (1 and 2) are reasonable and useful. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  01:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue.  That notion was already rejected.  Not only that, but a new proposal there would be out of order while we have one on the floor. It could be a stand-alone policy, or a part of some other policy, and something explicitly referred to from the NPOV policy.  The NPOV policy deals with entirely different kinds of problems, two or more conflicting views, both of which must be presented, fairly, without claiming one is right and without giving undue emphasis to minority views.  Don't confuse language which is claimed (but not unanimously agreed) to be culturally neutral with neutral point of view. This is a style issue.  Gene Nygaard 12:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS versus Policy 

message: I propose that this policy should be named as Wikipedia:Eras – I'll move it there shortly unless someone can come up with an objection or better alternative. violet/riga (t) 09:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming this page

message: Why don't we just say: "Don't change the year notation without a good reason" and let editors that work on concerned articles decide what good reasons are? Zocky 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What passes as "a good reason" though?  I don't think that changing it because the article isn't about Christianity or the western world is a good reason, but some others here do. violet/riga (t) 16:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme simplification 

message: By and large the general populance aren't going to have a clue what CE/BCE stands for (or why it's being used). I suggest the policy state that if CE/BCE are being used, they should be linked to in the first occurance. Certainly the usage is clear from the context, but the first two points are issues that non-academics and non-secularists aren't going to be aware of.
Perhaps BCE/CE is more common in the US, I don't know. But the US is a minority, and does not represent the whole world of English users.
zoney ♣ talk 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point.  I've questioned numerous people about its use, including kids in history lessons, and they aren't really sure of what BCE/CE refers to.  I agree that it should be policy to link the first occurance.  violet/riga (t) 10:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument isn't worth much by itself. It's not like it's a complex concept. An encyclopedia cannot make its editorial decision based on the supposed ignorance of the readership. All years are linked and any reasonable reader will easily understand what they mean. Zocky 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining BCE/CE 

message: How about we sidestep the whole mess, and use Julian dates for everything?  Time in the JD system is measured in days since a fairly arbitrary point far enough in the past to cover recorded human history.
As an alternative, if people want to use years, we could use the AUC system.  It too is based on a fairly arbitrary starting point, but requires the use of negative numbers for years far enough in the past.
What do you think? --Carnildo 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal