Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2/Proposed decision

Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range....

Just a brief comment on the above. This is broadly correct. However normal academic usage is that subjects with dates exclusively in the first century often do use date qualifiers (AD or CE) for the avoidance of doubt (perhaps tis is true of al dates in antiquity). (In WP an editor may have come from an article spanning eras to one that does not - and to be met with '47' without qualification may be confusing.) My reason for raising this is that User:jguk was involved in an edit war on precisely this issue: he removed AD/CE qualifiers from Josephus (an article which he had never previously edited). After further discussion, most others agreed that either AD or BC was needed on that occasion, despite the fact that the events were solely in the CE/AD era. If the text of this Arbcom decision stands, it would seem to vindicate User:jguk against the views of other editors in that article (both those who favoured AD and those who favoured CE). (See further the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Josephus - reponse to an RfC.) I think Arbcom may be in danger of being inadvertantly over specific, and I would suggest modifying the wording to:

Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, however, some exceptions may exit, particularly when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range....

That would make clear that spanning the eras may not be the only exception to the ‘plain numbers rule’ – whilst leaving the precise exceptions to be determined by subject expertise in particular articles. Doc ask? 00:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that 47 CE or AD 47 looks more like a date, and reads better, rather that just an unadorned 47. Sortan 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I note with approval Kelly Martin's new formulation regarding the manual of style. That wording answers all of my concerns - and allows consensus forming and discussion to continue, without people seeking to appeal to a hard-and-fast Arbcom 'ruling'. Thanks. Doc ask? 18:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)