1) Wikipedia has established a Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras). The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article."
Fred
On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Jon wrote:
ArbCom, unfortunately, but at least now with good intentions, is making another mistake on the BCE/CE arbitration. It appears to be about to declare that the MoS (or at least an extract of it) is policy. My understanding is this is not the case, and that the MoS is just a non-binding guideline.
This understanding comes from a recent discussion, initiated by SlimVirgin, who argued that the MoS had never followed the correct procedure to become policy. I argued that it had - as it was followed generally by WPians and had been effectively accepted as such by the community. However, SlimVirgin, supported by others, argued that it would need a consensus vote. I didn't persevere in countering this argument for too long, and the designation of the MoS as "policy" was removed.
It seems the ArbCom is about to reverse the effects of that discussion and declare a basic guideline as policy. As there is nothing in the general wording of the MoS to separate out the bits on BCE/CE notation from the rest, it leaves open the possibility that users not complying with the MoS (and most don't from time to time at least in some respects) are leaving themselves open to complaints.
Kind regards
Jguk
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l