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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l