This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Per WP:ERA: "No preference is given to either style" and "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."
The change from BC to BCE was made without presentation of a substantial reason for the change, nor a discussion in which a consensus for the change accepted by other editors. Therefore I support the recent restoration of the BC dates. Please present a "substantial reason for the change", and gain a consensus to make the change before restoring the BCE dates here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
For BCE format. The change from BC to BCE was made on 2009-09-22T08:06:34 by an ip-editor with the comment "Corrected dates with reference to modern scholarly account" and referring to "Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd. ed. s.v. "Gorgias" (Oxford, 1996)". Note that (i) ip-edits tend to be made in good faith, (ii) ip-editors cannot realistically be assumed to check all relevant rules and policies, (iii) nobody objected to the format change which is tantamount to consensus and (ii) it seems best to follow scholarly standards. Hpvpp (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The IPs comments refer to the numbers that he/she changed. Note that the guidelines don't give preference to any style for any reason, whether one reason claims to be more "scholarly" or not. You're point on it not being challenged is worthy of some consideration, but it doesn't override the others, nor does "ignorance of the rules" excuse those who are aware of them, as you're tying to do. There was in point of fact no "substantial" reason given for changing to BCE, and thus restoring the previous format is valid. Again, you're welcome to give a "substancial" reason, but "scholarly standards" aren't an acceptable reason - both formats are used by equal scholars. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As its been stable with no objections til now with the BCE/CE style, and has no connections to christianity, whats the big deal? It was stable with that version and should be reverted to that version with the CE usage. Heiro 11:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)