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

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.

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.

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.