Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-6517-20190220103322 - Revision history

imported>Jasca Ducato at 10:34, 20 February 2019

2019-02-20T10:34:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 20 February 2019
Line 4:		Line 4:
	</div>		</div>

	This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?"		This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?" The perceived requirement for additional context is subjective.

	One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.		One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.

	Short of requiring ''all'' dates to have "CE" on them (which is something I strongly considered proposing), I believe this is the best way forward.		Short of requiring ''all'' dates to have "CE" on them (which is something I strongly considered proposing), I believe this is the best way forward.

imported>Jasca Ducato: Created page with "
Sol Pacificus wrote: (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..."

2019-02-20T10:33:22Z

Created page with "<div class="quote"> Sol Pacificus wrote: (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..."

Páàjì titun

<div class="quote">
Sol Pacificus wrote:
(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.
</div>

This is largely a part of the reason why I've made the suggestions that I have; ''you'' and I might know that these regimes are 1st millennium CE, but we cannot assume that everybody else does, and the fact that we are increasingly dealing with BCE dates (see ''Odyssey'') will, in my eyes, only serve to add further confusion. I can easily see people wondering "Does this mean 631–661 CE or BCE?"

One the point of dates crossing over into the 2nd millennium, I disagree that the additional context will add confusion to the matter. In fact, I fail to see how it could possibly make anything more confusing. A definitive cut off point avoids any disagreements over whether the additional context of "CE" is required or not.

Short of requiring ''all'' dates to have "CE" on them (which is something I strongly considered proposing), I believe this is the best way forward.

Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-6517-20190219121823/@comment-6517-20190220103322 - Revision history

imported>Jasca Ducato at 10:34, 20 February 2019

imported>Jasca Ducato: Created page with " Sol Pacificus wrote: (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..."

imported>Jasca Ducato: Created page with "
Sol Pacificus wrote: (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..."