The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (vote is eight to delete, seven to keep, please iron this dispute out at this project's talk page and WP:MOS). BD2412 T 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Romarin/WikiProject Common Era[edit]

User:Romarin is suggesting that users violate WP:MOS (specifically, WP:DATE#Eras) by changing BC/AD to BCE/CE in random articles. . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The MOS isn't inviolate gospel, and is subject to change; moreover the MOS isn't policy and I see no reason that advocacy for changes to the way we work on Wikipedia should not be allowed. I might suggest to the project founder that rather than going around changing the BC/AD to BCE/CE it may be better to propose a change to the MOS merely in such a manner as to avoid wars over which format should be used in articles. Personally I think the BCE/CE convention would be better for Wikipedia from a perspective of religious neutrality, along the spirit of NPOV. I would say the implication in the userbox listed on that page that participants will go around changing dates before the MOS is updated is unwise however, simply because such a change is bound to incite a degree of unrest against the MoS cognoscenti thus causing unwarranted dispute that could be avoided via simple discussion. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per NicholasTurnbull, the MoS is just a guideline, and is subject to change. User:Knowledge Seeker says that "this issue has been discussed extensively". I would like to see these discussions because I can't find them, and discussing this subject without taking into account previous ones wouldn't be the best way to go about this. I agree that the project in its present state needs to be modified (as per NicholasTurnbull), but it should be kept until we have discussed this, at least. After all, that's why it is on a temporary subpage and not on a permanent page. We shouldn't go around deleting draft WikiProjects, as this is not their definitive version. --IronChris 02:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - MoS doesn't trump NPOV. Useful project. Guettarda 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keep. Have you not seen Wikipedia:Eras, and the triple volumes of debate and argument it produced already? What if others start the WikiProject Anno Domini? This will only serve as a rallying point for those who have already expressed an obsessional point of view in this matter and do no good whatsoever. It is also in contravention of a recent ArbCom decision: editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. — squell 14:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been considerably toned down. I would still oppose this becoming a WikiProject, but the page is useful for future reference. — squell 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikiprojects should not be divisive. This is. Also note that I prefer BCE/CE myself. (But I don't swallow the argument that relabeling a dating system based on a religious figure really makes it any more NPOV). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although I personally consider BCE/CE the more civilized choice in a pluralistic world, there is no consensus at Wikipedia that it represents a NPOV. The only way we have to determine and enforce NPOV is consensus, therefore this plane will not fly. Please see Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal and Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting for the last major attempt to switch over to BCE/CE; see what you're up against. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per NicholasTurnbull and IronChris. I was not previously aware that this issue had been discussed at length before, and if I may speak up in defense of my proposed project, I would like to remind everyone that it is a proposed project, and that it is on a temporary page. It has not reached actual WikiProject status as of yet because of this very reason, that I was not sure exactly how to proceed, and that I was hoping for some feedback. Well, I definitely have gotten it: some constructive, and some just jumping the gun to attack it and delete it before it has even evolved beyond the status of an idea. Although I feel that using language and terminology biased toward a certain religious system in the context of a project that is supposed to be pan-cultural and pan-religious is just about as POV as you can get, I will take the time to reformulate my proposed project and come up with something that more people can agree on, if you would let me keep it on my userpage for now. I am also greatful for NicholasTurnbull's input that a better idea might be to propose a change to the MOS; I will consider taking this action as well. Please, just leave it for now. Thank you, Romarin 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Romarin, I don't mean to "attack" this proposal; I don't think of it that way at all. I just think it's redundant with Wikipedia:Eras - which is a proposal to reword the MoS. I don't see an advantage to diluting the discussion by having it in multiple places. All the arguments you'll need to answer are already hashed out there, in excruciating detail, and many of the people with an interest in this issue, whose input you'll want to consider, are already watching that page. Why reinvent the wheel by starting it up again somewhere else? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Response Thanks for the comment, GTBacchus. I wasn't necessarily referring to you when i mentioned attacks; your original comment was constructive. I realize that I am up against a lot here, what with this debate already existing. However, I had no idea that it already existed when I began working on the proposed project, although I did go looking for some kind of mention. The fact that it was not easy to find says something to me: maybe not enough is being done. And maybe a WikiProject is not the right avenue to take with this; that is why I started off by proposing a project and asking for advice, as I have already mentioned. I'm just asking now that I be allowed to better formulate my plan, with the help of those who are interested in contributing advice in a constructive manner. Romarin 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if the advice is simply that, if you're interested in promoting Common Era on Wikipedia, that it simply can't (and probably shouldn't) be done? Note that I'd withdraw my Delete vote if this page would make it clear that it's no longer pursuing an editing campaign over eras. squell 18:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I really dislike this page: it adds fuel to a peripheral dispute that distracts too many and wastes valuable editing time. It is, however, in userspace, and my personal policy is to extend curtesy there to all established users to the outermost fringe of the shadow of reasonableness. This barely fits. Xoloz 16:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just as we don't need WikiProject POV Pushing, we don't need WikiProject Perpetual Edit Warring. --Carnildo 18:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Darn! So much for my proposed WikiProject... Guettarda 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Warning! WP:BEANS! Stifle (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just an invitation to POV pushing and edit warring. Projects ought to be value-neutral not partisan. Would we allow a 'Wikiproject British-English Spelling dedicated to 'creating an environment where all US spelling could be eliminated'?--Doc ^ask? 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your comparison between the usage of CE terminology vs BC/AD with English vs American spelling is on the right track, but I have to say that your conclusion is not quite logical. Just as articles dealing with English issues should use English spelling, and articles dealing with American issues should use American spelling (see MOS), articles dealing with Judeo-Christian subjects should use BC/AD, and articles dealing with secular subjects should use the secular notation. I don't understand how this would be POV pushing, to use non-biased, non-religious era terminology in non-religious articles. However, it is POV pushing to try to enforce Judeo-Christian terminology in articles pertaining to secular subjects, just because whoever wrote the article first used such language. Romarin 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Judeo-Christian terminology. In fact the heaviest opposition always seems to come from judaism, not secular groups. Try some articles on judaism/Israel. Anyway, the real problem Wikipedia has with AD/CE terminology is that people are edit-warring over it, not that both styles are used. squell 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find the suggestion that CE has anything to do with secularism WP:BALLS. It's a PC term. I'm as secular as they come and I would no more say "In 1066 CE" than I would say "personkind", "hirstory" or "Happy Holidays" around Christmas or Easter. (No opinion on the project.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok then, Christian terminology. See Before Christ and Anno Domini if you need a reminder. The rest of my point still stands. Romarin 01:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It should be noted that there are actually secular substitutes for the names of the Days of the Week (Mon–Sun.), but nobody is enforcing their sole use at Wikipedia. The Quakers invented religion-neutral terms due to the religious background of the days of the week but nobody here seems to care that the days of the week are "POV". I wouldn't agree that they are POV, I'd say they are just words. Leave them alone, and the same goes for AD/BC!. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Days of the week are inspired by Germanic, Roman or Norse mythology. These are all dead religions, there is therefore no way that using these words is biased towards a particular religion. It would be ridiculous to say "using the word Monday favours old Germanic mythology and therefore should be changed"; there is no religion left to favour! Using Christian terminology in non-Christian-related subjects is a different matter. Please note that the CE notation is NOT an anti-Christian move, and I don't understand the argument of some that "it is politically correct" and therefore not valid. If that means that it is designed to not offend anyone or any cultures, then yes, it is politically correct. I really don't see the problem. IronChris | (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This was not an easy decision for me to make. I would have liked for the project contributors to have some time to reformulate their project's mission prior to the nomination for deletion. I also feel it would have been helpful for the contributors to familiarize themselves with the appropriate sections of the Manual of Style prior to creating the project. Reasons for keeping this page include its being in userspace and that there has not been sufficient time to reformulate. However, it is difficult for me to see how the project could be acceptably rewritten since it deals with a point of view rather than a general topic. That the project page still calls for members to alter articles suggests that that such a reformulation will be difficult. I don't object to reopening discussion, but that should probably be done at Wikipedia:Eras; I don't believe this project will help. To summarize a lengthy comment: I believe this page should be deleted since despite being in userspace it is set up as a WikiProject, a "WikiProject Common Era" will probably not be able to avoid promoting a particular point of view, and no alternate function to the (unacceptable) systematic alterations has been proposed. Of course, I may reconsider my vote should any of these change. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - my experience has been that in academic circles C.E. is preferred and considered more correct and neutral. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia consensus is on this matter but the Wikiproject should be allowed to exist at least to advocate for common era usage, if not to all-out search and replace just yet. GT 07:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the wrongs or rights of the position, wikiprojects are not for advocasy. Individual wikipedians may argue for a position (and they have) and their shoudl be places to carry on the discussion (and there are), but to allow an advocasy group sets a very bad precedent. --Doc ^ask? 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I agree with Romarin's comment below that this should be made into a user-configurable option per their preference. GT 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this has been to ArbCom and they came down very strongly against the CE notation. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? In what case was this? AFAIK, the only arbcomm case to deal with this issue came down the opposite way, against changing CE -> AD. Guettarda 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I misremembered it. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to draw your attention to this proposal for specifying era terminology in user preferences, which I know a few of you have already commented on, but which doesn't seem to have gone anywhere in the last few months. I believe that it would solve most, if not all of these problems, as well as rendering my proposed project obsolete. Not only that, it would render all discussions/debates/fights/bloody edit wars regarding this topic obsolete. Perhaps the discussion of this proposal was moved elsewhere than the talk page of the above link, and continued; if this is the case I would appreciate knowing that location as I have not been able to find discussion on the subject more recent than December of 2005. If it did in fact die out, then I am calling for it to be revisited. When I first proposed my WikiProject, I honestly had no idea that I was opening such a can of worms. And seriously, these debates are just going to continue unless we come to a difinitive agreement; saying "leave it alone, we've been through this before and no concensus was reached" and the like does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. I believe that this proposal does, however. Romarin 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the problem is usage of BC, then it won't. The other problem — people edit-warring over petty issues — isn't specific to BC/BCE. The technical proposal in that page still leaves the "offending" suffixes in the WikiMarkup, by the way. See Wikipedia talk:Eras#technical solution for something a little bit better in this regard, but which has the drawback that it requires changes to all existing articles. squell 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Enough Date Wars already. Leave things alone. Septentrionalis 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well, exactly, if we leave things alone and nothing is done, there will be more wars until a definitive decision is taken. So, quite on the contrary, we have to do something. --IronChris | (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice to have a consensus guideline, but what we need to do is enforce WP:Civility on the Date Warriors. Septentrionalis 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Making a project to war over this in direct contravention to the MoS is unacceptable. I would strongly prefer if we used in all articles BCE and CE, but the places to argue for that are the MoS talk page and/or the Village Pump, not to make a project out of it. JoshuaZ 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.