|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ISO 8601 article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|WikiProject Time||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|Text from ISO 8601 usage was copied or moved into ISO 8601 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:ISO 8601 usage.|
Some people have proposed using ISO 8601 for wikipedia dates. For more of this discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
BC dates are handled in ISO 8601 with a minus symbol. Beware that before AD 1 (0001) there is, BC 1 which is 0000, so BC 2 is -0001 and so on. I found a draft copy of the standrd at http://www.ray-connolly.fsnet.co.uk/ISO8601-2000_Draft-20001215_ISO-TC154-N362_Final.PDF (anon)
- The Long Now foundation suggests that years should be written with five digits (ie 02003 for the year 2003) in order to avoid the Year 10,000 problem.
This is pointless: all it does is push the problem forward a few years to 100,000, and situation already exists for dates in the past (-10,000 and earlier.) May as well accept that the year number can have a varying number of digits -( 18:57 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- RFC2550: Y10K and beyond — RFC document published as an April Fools joke in 1999; still it contains many potentially useful ideas.
Without seeing that I assumed they were serious! Brianjd
BCE and divs
The class should apply equally well to divs. As we are not presenting tabular data, it is advisable to use divs.
Either BC or BCE (and AD or CE) should be used, but not both. I favor CE, if only because it's not Latin, and not religious. (Ideally, time shouldn't be religious, but we are talking about the Gregorian calendar.) However, I don't really care, just as long as we're not using both. It was by carelessness that I added BCE instead of BC—I was focusing on clear prose, so I ignored a distracting debate. (Careless, as in without worry, not haphazardly.) —Daelin @ 2006–01–08 16:21Z
- Since this was written, WP:ERA has been adopted, which calls for deciding between BC and BCE by which was used in the first non-stub version of the article. As it happens the first version of this article uses BC, so I will correct the usage in the article accordingly. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)