User talk:78.146.132.102

Hi there. Your edit at Cicero was just fine; if you come across further inconsistencies of this kind in Wikipedia articles, do please just go ahead and make the necessary changes for the sake of WP:ERA consistency. Many articles - this one included - carry a hidden note informing editors of the era system used in the article. Anyway, I'm probably speaking to someone who has edited here many times before but a welcome message can do no harm.

Welcome!

Hello, 78.146.132.102, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Haploidavey (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for the advice, 2 of my friends and I are classicists in training and have been going through all the articles on Wikipedia relating to our degree. BC/AD and BCE/CE seems to be the major conflict for the classics articles, but we're aiming to have uniformity in articles and remove any errors that we find. Hope to hear more feedback on the work. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How pleasant to see such even-handedness. One further friendly word of advice; please do make sure you read and digest WP:ERA; if in doubt, the first instance of a particular era system tends to set precedence. As far as I can tell from a glance at its history, Apollo used BC/AD, way back in 2006. Not a biggie, as far as I'm concerned, and not an invariable rule but still a legitimate basis for challenge, and worth keeping in mind during your laudable efforts to establish consistency. Regards to all. Haploidavey (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So should I change the BCE/CE in Apollo to BC/AD based on the article's history? 78.146.132.102 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. Note the last statement at WP:ERA: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." If the first use in the article's history is BC, and if a different era system was introduced without discussion and consensus, then yes, I'd play safe and change it. But you need to check; don't just take my word for it. Once you've checked, you can add a hidden note (see Cicero's article, for example) to help dissuade passing era-warriors (they are legion), and provide a reference point for speedy reversions of persistent era-kamikases. Such times we live in. Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checked the discussion page for Apollo and there is no mention of changing the era system from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Reckon that means that the BCE/CE army did it without a discussion first being done. The other dates in discussion page are all BC/ADs. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then be bold! Haploidavey (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * =) 78.146.132.102 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a problem, a now defunct user put BCE in early versions of mythology articles so this could mean that any reverts to BC/AD could be challenged because of this user.
 * Yes, they could; but nothing's hard, fast or sacred. In this case you might place a note on the relevant article talk-pages. State your purpose there and argue your case, if you have one - you've every right to have one. Await responses. If after a week or so no-one seems bothered either way, just go ahead and change at your discretion. Haploidavey (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Just saw your edit summary at Juno (mythology). If "AC" occurs as part of a book title, leave it. If it's in the main body of text, change it. We can cite non-English sources, but we should offer their content in plain English. After all, we're an English-language wikipedia. Haploidavey (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't forget to sign your posts! Robots will get you! Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just googled the Italian item in question and found that it is part of the title. Thanks for the reminder (*slaps head*) 78.146.132.102 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your editing patterns are disturbing. Consistency within articles is fine but if you're going to point out "violations" of era-policy on article talk pages, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Your attempts to impose a single era system on wikipedia articles can be construed as tendentious, and a "violation" of era-policy; I strongly advise that you desist from this. On a slightly more personal note, I'm frankly surprised that a coterie of classics students should see fit to limit their contributions to this single, extremely narrow issue. So many history and classics articles on Wikipedia want for good, substantive editing. Haploidavey (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, classics students could be of great help in improving the substance of articles, if such students can tear themselves away from such trivial and cosmetic issues as BC/E. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood, will do so. If you need any help then just give us a shout and we'll be running to your aid. Also, sorry if we are being a bit single minded, the date notation thing is just a thorn, but we can deal with other things. Thanks 84.13.120.86 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)