imported>Sol Pacificus at 20:48, 19 February 2019

2019-02-19T20:48:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 19 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	To be honest, when I wrote the current MoS wording, I had intended more or less exactly what you are proposing now, only that I did not elaborate too deeply because I feared that it would convolute it for new users; I wanted to keep it simple. Saying so, my main issue with your proposal is that I think it is unnecessarily complicated.		To be honest, when I wrote the current MoS wording, I had intended more or less exactly what you are proposing now, only that I did not elaborate too deeply because I feared that it would convolute it for new users; I wanted to keep it simple. Saying so, my main issue with your proposal is that I think it is unnecessarily complicated and fails to be concise.

	To clarify, my meaning with the current wording is that dates must ''always'' be marked with BCE or CE with the ''sole exception'' being when the context makes it unnecessary to clarify CE. In such a case, it should be omitted.		To clarify, my meaning with the current wording is that dates must ''always'' be marked with BCE or CE with the ''sole exception'' being when the context makes it unnecessary to clarify CE. In such a case, it should be omitted.
Line 11:		Line 11:
	(2) It also unnecessarily produces the further complication you introduce following it, where an exception can be made when there's a crossover into the second millennium. I find that this just convolutes the policy needlessly and is sure to confuse new users.		(2) It also unnecessarily produces the further complication you introduce following it, where an exception can be made when there's a crossover into the second millennium. I find that this just convolutes the policy needlessly and is sure to confuse new users.

	In this light, if you guys think that that the current policy needs clarification, I believe that there are far simpler and more concise ways to reword it.		In this light, if you guys think that that the current policy needs clarification, I believe that there are far simpler and more concise ways to reword it.

	For example,"Years '''must always''' be marked with BCE or CE in accordance with the Common Era notation system. '''The sole exception to this rule''' is that CE should be omitted from a year if such clarification is '''unnecessary''' within the context of the writing. This clarification is always necessary when discussing subjects whose dating falls close to the BCE/CE crossover."		For example:
			"Years '''must always''' be marked with BCE or CE in accordance with the Common Era notation system. '''The sole exception to this rule''' is that CE should be omitted from a year if such clarification is '''unnecessary''' within the context of the writing. This clarification is always necessary when discussing subjects whose dating falls close to the BCE/CE crossover, i.e. during the first centuries BCE and CE."

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "To be honest, when I wrote the current MoS wording, I had intended more or less exactly what you are proposing now, only that I did not elaborate too deeply because I feared t..."

2019-02-19T20:47:15Z

Created page with "To be honest, when I wrote the current MoS wording, I had intended more or less exactly what you are proposing now, only that I did not elaborate too deeply because I feared t..."

Páàjì titun

To be honest, when I wrote the current MoS wording, I had intended more or less exactly what you are proposing now, only that I did not elaborate too deeply because I feared that it would convolute it for new users; I wanted to keep it simple. Saying so, my main issue with your proposal is that I think it is unnecessarily complicated.

To clarify, my meaning with the current wording is that dates must ''always'' be marked with BCE or CE with the ''sole exception'' being when the context makes it unnecessary to clarify CE. In such a case, it should be omitted.

Hence, your point is already covered by the current policy, however, I can understand if you guys think that it should be more explicit about it, so I will agree that that clarification should be added. (e.g. I probably should've wrote ''must'' instead of ''should''.)

It also covers your second point because in the example you provided, where there is a crossover from BCE to CE, the context of specifying CE ''is'' necessary.

Your third point therefore seems to address the possible ambiguity of when the context makes clarifying CE unnecessary or not aside from a BCE/CE crossover. I do, however, take issue with this point entirely though for namely two reasons.
(1) I don't understand the reasoning behind the first millennium CE all requiring the CE notation. This is far too extensive of a time and doesn't make much sense when discussing regimes that are well-known to be dated to the common era but lie within this timeframe such as the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), Gupta Empire (200s–590), and the Tang dynasty (618–907). These are regarded in Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Persian etc. historiography as highly advanced eras far removed from the classical and ancient eras which date around the turn of the first millennium. At the very least, it should be limited to at most the first century or first decade of the common era.
(2) It also unnecessarily produces the further complication you introduce following it, where an exception can be made when there's a crossover into the second millennium. I find that this just convolutes the policy needlessly and is sure to confuse new users.

In this light, if you guys think that that the current policy needs clarification, I believe that there are far simpler and more concise ways to reword it.

For example,"Years '''must always''' be marked with BCE or CE in accordance with the Common Era notation system. '''The sole exception to this rule''' is that CE should be omitted from a year if such clarification is '''unnecessary''' within the context of the writing. This clarification is always necessary when discussing subjects whose dating falls close to the BCE/CE crossover."

Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-18014300-20190219204715 - Revision history

imported>Sol Pacificus at 20:48, 19 February 2019

imported>Sol Pacificus: Created page with "To be honest, when I wrote the current MoS wording, I had intended more or less exactly what you are proposing now, only that I did not elaborate too deeply because I feared t..."