Wikipedia talk:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting

Initial comments on voting

Almost half the people voting found that BC/AD violated NPOV. Several others who voted against the proposal found BCE/CE violated NPOV. This proposal attempts is an attempt to put policy into effect that many users (on both sides of the issue) believe violates NPOV. The same issues were raised in the original Eras proposal. Guettarda 02:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg you, in the interest of avoiding edit wars, to support proposal #4 despite your objections to the other points. Worse is not better. siafu 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your objections are well noted. If what you say is accurate, I don't imagine the middle parts will be able to achieve 70% approval. You should know, however, that the consensus section is separate from the other issues, i.e. you can vote for the consensus section without supporting the other parts of the proposal. That's why it's broken up into separate sections. Kaldari 03:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"If what you say is accurate" - are you trying to tell me that you have never bothered to look at the original proposal? The numbers are there, the statements are there. I find it highly disturbing that you would have such disregard for the community that you would put it through this again without even bothering to take a casual glance at the original vote. Are you simply out to disrupt the community? Is this nothing but an exercise in trolling??? Guettarda 07:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is clearly an attempt to try to find an "equal" compromise. That's respectable, but in this case, I think you'll find that the attempt is going to ultimately go nowhere, because a number of POV editors regard the subject as a matter of honor, rather than as a subject for intellectual discussion, meanwhile a number of opposing POV editors (albethey less adamant generally than their aforementioned opponents) regard the use of B/CE as more "scholarly". The problem is essentially, that there are two opposing camps arguing about the same thing, but their arguments are not in opposition to each other, one side is arguing about the color of apples, and the other is arguing about the shape of bananas. Meanwhile, the biggest proponent of the whole crapfest that started this discussion to begin with, POV-pusher extraordinare, User:Jguk, with whom I actually have no content disputes, but who has seen fit to illegitemately change era notation from BC/AD to B/CE in over 1000 articles, has proposed an addition to WP:WIN (see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_academic_text_-_proposed_addition) to dumb down the entire EN:WPproject (i.e., turn it into a simpleton's version of simp:WP) in order to nullify the well-founded "scholarly" argument opposing his POV. As I said, I don't have any problems with Jguk's productive edits, but this POV-pushing about eras is appalling. Tomer ^TALK 08:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Far from it, Tomer. I merely made certain articles internal consistent, and as advocated by the Manual of Style, and resisted changes from BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation in fully consistent articles that some articles were trying to push through. You don't need to take my word for it - the issue went to ArbCom and the ArbCom found that that was exactly what I was doing. Indeed, I'm confused as what you see my "POV" being, as I've always stated that I reject the POV arguments that have been espoused.

The whole "scholarly" argument is particularly poor. We aren't writing for scholars, so why should we care what style scholars use? We're writing for the general public - so it is general usage which is relevant, jguk 12:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, jguk, your claim of only changing inconsistent articles to BC/AD and those which were previously consistent as BC/AD back is simply untrue. Parthia is a good example; the article had been using inconsistent notation for a year and a half until it was made consistent with BCE/CE (by me). You did not get involved in working on the article until that point, where you switched everything to BC/AD.

Your POV has always been very clear: BCE/CE is less popular and wikipedia should use only the most popular notation. Additionally, you've also espoused the POV that BCE/CE is "Politically Correct" and that "PC" is bad (at least in the UK) for reasons that remain obscure to me. Because of the statements you've made, I also must reject that claim that you've always rejected POV arguments as untrue.

Though you claim that the ArbCom vindicated your standpoint, you apparently found it to be bad enough at the time to quit in a huff, leaving me confused. I can say clearly, however, that claiming to have been acting for the reasons and in the manner you claim here is patently false. You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, and in fact, I encourage your presenting it, but do not disguise the facts. siafu 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tomer. I presented a formal proposal to use BCE/CE in non-Christian related articles and people were very closely split. this just seems like a back-door way to bring my proposal up again, and this is premature. We have a style guide that says either system is fine as long as it is internal within the article. We have an NPOV policy, the application of which is best (for the moment) handled by editors contributing to an article. Let's just stick to these two established policies for a while. I see no reason not to continue discussion (although honestly, I think the community needs more of a break), but it is way premature to have a vote, especially when this proposal hasn't gone through anything close to the discussion mine did. Let's cool off and just stick with the guidelines and policies we have for now. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's earlier proposal (as well as being deliberately conducted in a religiously divisive manner, even though religion should have nothing to do with this dispute) would, if adopted, have seen BC/AD notation abandoned entirely in Wikipedia, with BCE/CE notation reigning supreme. Almost all articles are non-Christian related - and so Slrubenstein would have favoured BCE/CE notation for them. All apart from one Christian-related article (that on Jesus Christ), cover dates wholly within the last 2,000 years (for obvious reasons), and so no date notation required. And Slrubenstein started this whole argument off by suggesting BC/AD notation should not be used on the Jesus article.

He's certainly right that the community needs a break though. The community also needs to go about improving its articles - and that means putting readers (not editors) first. This is a very, very small subset of where some editors have tried to put their religio-political beliefs ahead of the readers' interests. But more generally, we have many articles contributed by many learned academics that, unfortunately, are not written so the non-academic can understand them. That's a crying shame, and we really should encourage our writers to open up their language for a wider audience. The present dispute is a very, very, very small subset of this - and we'd be better off leaving it to one side for now and encouraging more fundamental improvements that will make our articles as accessible as possible, jguk 12:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that by this repeated appeal to think of the readers, you are saying that wikipedia should determine which notation is the most popular and adhere to that. The problem, of course, is that we have an equal obligation to the readers regarding NPOV.

That aside, however, I'm unclear as to why your belief that BCE/CE doesn't serve the readership makes you opposed to the idea of consensus (point #4). Can this not be brought up as a point to be made in the development of consensus for an article? siafu 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I have had it with your lying. My proposal would in NO way have "seen BC/AD notation abandoned entirely in Wikipedia." To claim that is simply a lie. You know it is a lie. Also, stop hiding behind this claim that your concern is "good writing." BC and BCE are not about good versus poor writing. No one disputes that articles should be well-written. Nor is this an issue of some group of editors (based on the vote concernig my proposal, about half of our editors) putting their religio-political beliefs against the "interests" of our readers. Who in god's name are you to claim to represent "the readers?" Here at Wikipedia, every reader is an editor, ever editor is a reader, and we discuss and debate ideas all the time. The issue here is how to write a high quality, NPOV encyclopedia. It was on these grounds alone that I made my proposal. You can disagree with it for any reason you like. But stop lying about me. It's pathetic. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is regrettable that such a word as “lying” is used here. It seems that you have either a short memory or do not appreciate the implications of your earlier failed proposal. You did propose. You made the proposal Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate. If successful, it would have limited the conventional AD/BC articles. At the same time you removed the conventional AD/BC notation from articles such as Cultural and historical background of Jesus. One wonders what space would have been left for AD/BC. If your incorrect assertion that “want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View” was true, then the “BC/AD notation” would be “abandoned entirely in Wikipedia”.

I still hope that you will pause, and reflect on your words and your actions. --ClemMcGann 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep the comments brief

This is not a difficult concept to understand guys. If you want to debate, do it on the talk pages. If you want to vote, do it on the vote page. The voting page is for tallying opinions, it should not be cluttered up with debate and banter. If people do not stick to brief comments, I will be forced to remove all the comments completely. Kaldari 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments in considered vandalism. Removing the comments which disagree with your POV is not the way you should conduct a vote. Also, you have not done much to publicise this vote - have a look at what Steve did to publicise the previous vote. Your actions make it difficult to assume good faith. Guettarda 19:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not respecting the guidelines laid out for voting is considered a departure from Civility. It says in the instructions "limit comments to 1 sentence". Many votes do not allow comments at all. I do not care what your POV is, I care if your comments are a paragraph long. And saying that I have not done much to publicize this vote is not true. Here are the pages I have publicized this vote on:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal
• Wikipedia:Goings-on
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

I would really like to know what, exactly, you think my agenda is. This proposal is quite obviously an attempt to find compromise and consensus between two deeply entrenched camps. Attacking me personally will not help your position (a position which I think is quite valid, BTW, although I do not agree with it personally). Kaldari 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleting other people's comments is still vandalism, and you will be reverted if you decide to do so. Proteus (Talk) 20:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Spamming a vote page which specifically instructes that discussion is to be limited to the talk pages is vandalism. Kaldari 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So, how about moving comments here instead of deleting them outright? siafu 20:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I'll just leave them for now though. Hopefully other editors can follow the instructions. Kaldari 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. You can't just define "vandalism" yourself, you know. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case, please show me where it is written that deleting other people's comments is vandalism. Kaldari 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Polls are evil

Just thought I'd remind everyone. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a vote on whether polls are evil or on the proposal? And does it take into account that sometimes some evils are necessary ones? ~~~~ 12:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• This is a satirical poll on whether polls are evil. (SEWilco 02:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC))

Agree

1. Agree. Polls are evil. (SEWilco 07:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
2. Agree - this poll is especially evil, since the issue previously tore the community apart just a few months ago. Why bring all that bad blood back, why re-open old wounds? Guettarda 13:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

1. Aye. Mostly because I wanted to say "aye" in the "nay" section, but also trying to balance out the "aye aye" votes.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 09:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. The point of this proposal is to try to find common ground. Whether it works is a different question. Maurreen 17:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

   But how can it find "common ground" without addressing the underlying problems? After the last vote Jguk was gone and Slrubenstein had largely dropped out of sight. It resulted in a rash of personal attacks and insults which hurt the community. This proposal addresses neither the issues raised in that vote, nor those that were riased in the original Eras proposal. It simply ignored all that had gone before. The underlying intentions may have been good (I can't judge what was in people's heads, so I must assume good faith), but they lacked any thought as to consequence. Guettarda 18:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus threshold

The 3 most commonly used consensus thresholds are 66%, 70%, and 80%. Changes to official policy or votes for admin priviledges usually require 80%. The threshold for more trivial matters like Picture of the Week is usually 66%. Since the Manual of Style is neither official policy nor trivial it falls in the middle threshold like most other non-binding resolutions: 70%. Please do not change this threshold without discussion. Kaldari 20:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is effectively a policy proposal. It should require an 80%+ threshold. Anything less will just lead to further arguments and divisiveness. Also, I don't think it appropriate for someone to launch a vote after a fortnight's lack of activity on a topic and try to enforce a low threshold for the vote. I have therefore changed it back to 80%, which is the usual consensus threshold. Please do not change it back, jguk 07:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a vote on this. Maurreen 07:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Tee hee (although personally I prefer SEWilco's joke directly above):) jguk 07:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying it requires an 80% consensus to change the required consensus from 70% ? ~~~~ 12:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I intended a diplomatic way of saying that people shouldn't change a voting format while the vote is in progress. That is confusing at best. Anyone who disagreed with the way the vote was set up should have brought their concerns to the talk page and not decided to make unilateral changes. Maurreen 12:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And Jguk, you were quite happy to make changes to the style guide without even a majority. Maurreen 12:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it seems that even many official policy votes only require 70%. See, for example, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal and Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD. Jguk, what is your reasoning behind terming 70% a "low threshold"? Kaldari 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised - although the point seems to be moot in the examples you give (and going by the votes on this proposal so far, it seems to be moot here too). If you look on RfA, for example, you'll see that whenever there's a decision below 80% it leads to a lot of controversy. Given that the details of this have caused much acrimony (albeit limited to a restricted number of articles), we really should insist on 80%. I say this knowing that many proposals that I would find acceptable would be rejected because of this high threshold - but I think if we are going to resolve anything a high threshold is an absolute must, jguk 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari has read the guideline on consensus correctly, IMO. Changes in policy require a 70% majority. Period. Sunray 07:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand...

...what the point of this proposal is. If BC/AD is POV, it is just as POV (perhaps much more so) to use it for articles about Christianity. If it is no more POV than BCE/CE, then it should be favored regardless. At any rate, I find this whole thing ridiculous. No matter if we call it "BCE" or "BC," our date for the Buddha is still going to be based on how many years before Dionysius Exiguus's miscalculated date for the birth of Christ he lived. No matter if we call it "AD" or "CE," our date for Muhammad is still going to be based on how many years after that same miscalculated date he lived. It's the same dating system, just given a different name. I shall restate my suggestion that the only truly NPOV dating system would be to use the Seleucid Era (S.E.) for all dates. Since it has no specific connotations to anyone living, it cannot possibly be offensive to anyone. For years before 312 BC, I suggest we invent the conception of B.S.E. (before the Seleucid Era). I await any comments on this suggestion. john k 22:13, 15 July 2316 (SE, UTC)

Technically, there is little in the way of POV problems with a number of different systems, either extant or newly invented. While your proposal is admirable, it's not a novel approach. The problem is that wikipedia reports, it doesn't advocate or invent.  :-/ Tomer ^TALK 22:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me be clear that my "proposal" was wholly facetious. john k 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I couldn't help but notice that you used "BC" in your proposal. :-p I have thought perhaps we should invent systems such as Before Sighting/After Sighting Santa, etc. Obviously, I'm just being a little feces too. Tomer ^TALK 22:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the two systems use the same timeframe for numbering is a good thing, IMHO, as it to a very great extent alleviates the problem of addressing the readership that jguk puts forward. They use exactly the same numbers, so no one is going to be overly shocked or challenged by switching from one to the other. Moreover, the NUMBERS used (particularly the year 1) don't actually correspond to the actual birthyear of Jesus of Nazareth, which means to me at least that using that particular year as year one is NPOV enough, so long as the POV label is removed. Regardless, I feel the need to reiterate that even for those who have an objection to points 2 or 3 should consider supporting #4 simply on the basis that it can be inferred from existing guidelines already, and will provide a basis by which edit wars can be resolved. siafu 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think calling the BC/AD marker POV is dubious. Particularly BC. But, in general, the basic fact is that, whatever the religious meanings these terms may have initially had, they are essentially meaningless - one can use BC/AD without believing that Jesus is either the Christ or the Lord (indeed, I believe neither of these things, and I would normally use these terms). To assert that these terms actually have a genuine religious meaning that might be offensive seems questionable to me - perhaps even insulting to those of us who use these terms without being Christians. As to #4, I see no particular reason to support it, because it is not a policy change, nor even a restatement of an existing specific policy. It is simply a restatement of a very vague general policy in a specific context. john k 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence for this assertion - you are making a bold statement, that words don't mean what they say. We can't base policy on "I think" and "I feel" - NPOV clearly states that we cannot endorse a POV. BC states that Jesus is the Christ. If it has been diluted the the point where it means nothing to anyone, then there must be some articles somewhere dealing with teh shift in the meaning. Can you support your opinion? Similarly, gievn that it offends people, it must have meaning at least to those people. You say "To assert that these terms actually have a genuine religious meaning...seems questionable to me". You ask for evidence that the words mean what they mean. The onus is upon those who assert that the words don't mean what they mean to prove their case. I have asked time and again, in the various incarnations, for any evidence... Can you supply some? We are supposed to be dealing in the realm of verifiable information. Can someone please verify this statement? Guettarda 07:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How is one meant to prove a negative? The basic fact is that when people use BC and AD most do not believe they are making a statement of Christian belief. I use these terms, and am not a Christian. It seems to me that this is rather like the "ceremonial deism" that allows "In God We Trust" to be written on US currency - essentially, the terms (BC and AD) have been so stripped of conscious religious meaning that their literal meaning is essentially irrelevant. I'm not sure how I can provide "proof" - why would somebody write an article on something which is utterly unremarkable and which occurred imperceptibly hundreds of years ago (certainly, from the Enlightenment on, you're going to find instances of non-Christians using BC and AD terminology). So Non-Christians (in the west) used BC/AD for hundreds of years without complaint until quite recently, when the BCE/CE idea was created. I find it continually insulting that people claim that I am somehow pushing a Christian POV because I want to use the standard name for the standard dating system which has been used for hundreds of years. Are you really trying to argue that whenever you read a book which uses BC/AD terminology, you believe that book to be trying to push its Christian POV on you? Because that's what it means to say using BC/AD is POV. At any rate, BCE/CE is a complete euphemism. Why is it the "Common Era?" Why does Dionysius Exiguus's misdating of the birth of Christ define the "Common Era"? This seems to be just as insulting and POV, if not more so, as far as I'm concerned. At least BC/AD acknowledges that it is a calendar based on a Christian system. BCE/CE tries to pretend that a calendar based on a Christian system is somehow universal. (Note: I don't really think that either usage is terribly POV, but if you think about it hard enough, it's obvious that both can be interpreted in such a way.) john k 13:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

John, I sympathise with your sentiments. To make matters even more confusing twice as many regard CE as meaning “Christian Era” as those who regard is as meaning “Common Era”. Just do a goggle search on “CE Christian-Era” and “CE Common-Era”. If that is insufficient to confuse, there are those who say that it means “Current Era”. While, CE is really a stamp on just about every manufactured or processed item to indicate that it conforms to European Law! It seems the religion and its denial is important to some people. They like to say CE, meaning “Christian Era” to emphasize their religion, while others enjoy CE meaning “Common Era” to emphasize their rejection. The French Revolution had the same idea; it changed the dates to “suppress superstition”. By Napoleons time, they got sense and reverted. Fortunately this CE/BCE notation is used only by a minority (again do a Google on any term and BC and then that term and BCE). We need another Napoleon! ;) --ClemMcGann 15:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the only thing that I'm genuinely hoping will come out of this is a clear statement ("in writing") that the choice of era notation for a particular article is bound by consensus from the discussion for that article. I know this sounds obvious as a guideline, but I would point to the edit wars that have occured as a result of this controversy as evidence of the need for such a clear statement. So long as that is made absolutely clear, there will at least be a guideline for moving forward when such conflicts erupt again in the future, as they surely will. Hence, my request of the community (or rather, the segment that's paying attention to this) to support that statement as we have it here-- sentence #4. If you think it's just a restatement of existing policy, then support it, there's no reason not to and worse is not better. siafu 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What about B.W. and A.W. (Before Wikipedia and Anno Wikipediae)? ~~~~ 12:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A true compromise

How's this for a compromise... to get rid of the bickering once and for all, rather than using 'AD' and 'CE' all over the pedia, we should simply not use either of them. Simply refer to a year as 1980 and everyone will understand which year that is. This does not solve the issue of 'BC' or 'BCE' years but that doesn't come up all that often in the first place. Radiant_>|< 14:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Its already as you said: Normally you should use plain numbers for years [...] (in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Eras (current version). The problem already is (only?) for when that doesn't apply. See the current dating on Jesus birth: somewhere between 6 BC/BCE and 6 AD/CE. A mess... completely confusing for anyone not aware of this discussion. That's to say what? 99.9% of WP readers? - Nabla 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, you're telling me that we've gone through all these debates and votes, and it really only applies to four or five articles about events close to the year zero? Radiant_>|< 08:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Firstly - it still applies to BC/BCE. Secondly, there are more than five articles where one has to specify. Any time you have been talking about BC dates, and want to switch over to talking about AD dates, you have to use AD/CE. john k 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • We could take the geek approach and simply use negative numbers. Radiant_>|< 07:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Which would be just as confusing for most readers as BCE --ClemMcGann 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Style sheets already!

I am so tired of this. It will be well worth a developer's time to hack up stylesheet support for this. we can then have {{year|-5}}, and people will be able to choose if they want to see -5 CE, 6 BCE or 6 BC. Hell, they'll even be able to customize Hijra or Middle-earth calendars. This is only a question of representation for crying out loud, and like font, background colour and what not, it should be rendered client-side. The only exception will of course be discussion of calendars and Common Era itself, where the template will not be usable, because the notation will be part of the statement. dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

They should also implement style support for 12 vs. 24 hour clock and metric vs. imperial measurements while they're at it, although I haven't heard about any work on these areas yet, unfortunately. Kaldari 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

the nice thing will be that Wikipedia will become more machine-readable. {{year|-5}} and {{time|14:28}}

will be so much more parseable than numbers scattered over the text. dab (ᛏ) 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have already suggested (on TFD, funnily enough) that a new MAGICNUMBER attribute, YEAR#NNN, be created. Much like "ISBN 0091801788" generates ISBN 0091801788, it would auto-generate a link to that year's page AND change BCE/BC to the format specified in your preferences. That would be quicker and easier to type than a template. And it can't be hard to code in either. See what you think. Garrett^Talk 23:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a serious flaw in this proposal in that it may just move the argument over to what the default setting will be. I don't know the statistics but I think it probable that most people viewing Wiki (as opposed to editing) don't register. If something could be added so that the default setting is random for unregistered users then that might well solve things.Dejvid 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

?!? What the... (miscellany expletives in English and Latin go here) ...I hadn't thought of that. Well, I don't think true randomising is such a good idea, I mean, if you read a page that says BC all through and then follow a link and then come back to it and it says BCE you're gonna be considering professional help. :) BUT the randomising could be based on the last digit of the IP, so that, say, even numbers get BC/AD and odd get BCE/CE. If that's even possible. Hm, unless it reads "BC/BCE" for anon readers and only when you *stipulate* do you get one or the other. That's also possible. Certainly any of these are more involved than my solution was meant to be, but as you say that could spawn more arguments. Garrett^Talk 13:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE for anonymous readers seems to me to be the best solution and if that is possible I'd support this proposal. Would having three options like that make it harder to implement? Dejvid 15:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying -- I expect the default would just be the form used to by whoever typed it in. Isn't that the way it is with dates? I never chose a date preference. I get both versions. Maurreen (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

We'd need a developer to do this properly, but I can't see why it shouldn't be done, in the same way that DD/MM/YY and MM/DD/YY dates are already done. I'm quite willing to volunteer to help sort out what needs doing, but as I don't know how to program, we'll still need a friendly developer to do it. Any suggestions of where to find one? jguk 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

An alternative approach to avoiding edit wars on era names

I've voted for this proposal but I have real doubts that it would help at all. The approach seems to fix certain pages as one notation over another but most of relevant pages will still have to be decided by consensus. First off consensus on this isn't really possible. Either one writes BC or one writes BCE it has to be one or the other. Even if we decide on BC/BCE thruout it is still a fixed solution with none of the give and take of consensus. Saying that consensus decides is really saying that there should be a presumption in favor of the status quo - it might be worth saying that explicitly.

Yesterday there was a little edit war over this. In was entirely over inconsistent pages but still generated much heat. I wish I could say that I was too sensible to get involved. I can't. Here are my thoughts on things that might help.

1. Have a rule like the 3 revert rule which says that no one can change the era naming on more than one page a day. A week would be better but that is probably unenforcable.
2. Consistent era naming is nice but we should recognize that clumsy moves to consistency can spark edit wars so the presumption in favor of the status quo should still apply even where this involves a mixture of BCE and BC.
3. Lets be a bit more prescriptive about what kind of agreement is needed before the naming of eras on a page is changed.

Though not exactly a newbee, I haven't been much involved in this side of Wiki so I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this.Dejvid 18:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The stupidest thing in this whole dispute is that readers' interests are completely ignored. We're meant to be an international encyclopaedia with as broad as possible a readership. You'd have thought it was obvious to use terminology that every English-reader understands and is familiar with, rather than terminology that has absolutely no currency amongst the general public in the overwhelming majority of the world. But hey - when did commonsense and the interests of the project as a whole have a place in this debate? :) jguk 19:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Both sides have good reasons for their positions. Both conventions are used in the outside world. It is unrealistic to expect us to agree to one convention or the other. Hence we have to decide how to handle a situation where people will disagree.Dejvid 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not true to say both conventions are used in the outside world. BCE/CE has absolutely no currency that I've seen amongst the British general public (I've never seen it used here in my 31 years). I also understand it has no currency in India either. As far as how to handle the situation, even in the places in the world where BCE/CE is used, apart from in Israel, which is primarily a Hebrew-speaking country, BC/AD is preferred by that population by a long, long way (ie 90%+). I'm surprised we're even arguing this - for any other word/construction, WP would always go for the common form, jguk 06:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

jguk, it is beyond me why you continue to pretend that BCE/CE has anything to do with Israel. Israel is a Hebrew and Arabic speaking country - they don't use BCE/CE or BC/AD, and this has been explained to you before. BCE/CE is an English convention used in English speaking countries. As for your other claims about it having no currency in Britain or India, here's a source combining both which uses it, the Hindustan Times UK edition: [1], and here's an example of it in the India Times: [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, I like your ideas. Maurreen (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Cease-fire on eras

I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The only lasting solution would be if we found a friendly developer who was willing to allow user preferences to be set so that those who want to see BCE/CE can, and those who don't select that option see BC/AD. It strikes me that it would be better to see what actually would need doing before approaching developers, and to that end I have started Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation. Hopefully we can all work together for a solution - and then all vote for it to be added in Bugzilla (or whatever) and genuine resolution at last, jguk 18:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, deus ex machina to solve all our problems. One correction to what you have said Jguk: Those who don't select the option (BCE/CE or BC/AD) will see what is there now. So in a way, it wouldn't really change anything. We have to work it out on an article by article basis, applying the policy framework currently in place. I really don't see anyway around that. Sunray 22:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

"...those who don't select that option see BC/AD"? Why, Jguk, would you assume that would be the default? Meanwhile, user preferences really only affect editors who've created Wikipedia accounts, not general readers, so I don't see what this would do for anyone. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've also suggested at the Village pump to remove or refine the style guide's call for consistency. I hope to see your comments there, either way. Thanks.

Wouldn't the programming function be along the lines =IF(user preference for bce selected, use bce, otherwise use bc)? Seems more straightforward that =IF(are user preferences set, another IF function, otherwise something else). On MPerel's other point, BC is by far and away the most common notation worldwide, with a 90%+ preference and 99%+ intelligibility, so it seems like the best default. Though this is getting ahead of ourselves. Maybe you could help complete Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation and then we can go see if we can find a friendly developer to program it in, jguk 11:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)