On 9/8/06, Bill Clark wclarkxoom@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that AD/CE are only supposed to be displayed (according to the manual of style) if you're dealing with a span of time that crosses the BC-AD (or BCE-CE) boundary. In other words, this is proper:
[[July 4]], [[1776 BC]]–[[July 4]], [[1776|AD 1776]]
...and this is proper:
[[March 21]], [[1974]]–[[October 16]],[[1975]]
...but this is not:
[[March 21]], [[1974|AD 1974]]–[[October 16]],[[1975|AD 1975]]
...and this is not:
[[July 4]], [[1776 BC]]–[[July 4]], [[1776]]
I'd like to point out that this aspect of the style guide needs to be
applied intelligently, not slavishly. Especially in the lower years, like 5, just having a stand-alone number may lead to some confusion for a reader. Note the difference between:
"In 5 BCE, Julius went to Napoli, and in 4, he went to Roma." and "In 5 BCE, Julius went to Napoli, and in 4 CE, he went to Roma."
If you _know_ what the rule is, the first is clear; if you don't, you could draw the wrong conclusion. Of course, it's possible to rewrite to follow the MOS and avoid confusion, but just removing all AD/CE designations that aren't explicitly in a range is not the answer.
--Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]