This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
User:David Eppstein: again this I already stated this in Talk:Plimpton 322, you are not giving arguments in how I'm violating that policy, which specificly contradict your edit. You are not engaging in dialogue and keep acussing me of WP:BADFAITH. There is consensus already in that policy and you are not rising any legitimate concerns here. WP:CON Still no good reason has been given to keep a Christian term in non-Christian articles. Explain why are you keep reverting my edits when the policy that you are citing contradics your point. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone else who might be confused by this sudden and context-free interjection: RL has been going around changing BC to BCE because somehow he feels that one of the two is more or less Christian than the other and less or more appropriate for topics having nothing to do with Christianity. Someone else with similar beliefs is likely to go around changing it back for indistinguishable reasons. To avoid this sort of pointless change, we have MOS:ERA. MOS:ERA says: First, don't change between BC and BCE once an article already uses one of them. Second, if you're going to change, you should only do so for good reasons specific to the article's topic. And third, even if you do want to make such a change and have reasons for making it, you can't just do it right away; you have to start a discussion on the talk page, with "Era" in the title (as I have now helpfully added), give enough time for other participants to show up to the discussion, and wait for a consensus to form among all the consensus. That way, there's a discussion to point to when someone else named LR shows up to change it back, to explain why not. RL seems to be particularly resistant to this third point, but it's clearly stated in MOS:ERA. So, if we want to change BC to BCE here we need to have an Era discussion. For how well such discussions tend to go, you can go look at the one already in progress on Talk:Plimpton 322. Also, per WP:BURDEN, I'm not the one that needs to start providing arguments about why a change would be a good idea — that would be RL. My argument for why a change is a bad idea is that it's pointless: BC and BCE are equally Christian, BC is clearer, BCE just looks pretentious, and if we're going to avoid wasting everyone's time in changing things back and forth and back and forth, it works better to stop at fewer changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it said that I can do it right away? That's againts how consensus work WP:CON. The argument is in the policy that you are citing. It contradict you by stating that it should be related to the article, in any part says that it shouldn't be changed right away. It says that "unless there are reasons specific to its content" should be discussed first in the talk page. Is not related I already stated that. Your opinion contradicts what their article said. The article Common Era doesn't support what you are saying, what you are saying is your personal opinion as you said. Wikipedia is not based in opinions. So please explain how AD is related to this article as WP:ERA states. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does AD have to do with it? We're talking about BC and BCE, not AD. And no, it doesn't say you can change it right away. It says you must have a discussion first. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that you don't even reading the articles that I presented: Anno Domini. It doesn't say that that I can't either, you clearly are not reading the policy that you are accusing me of violating nor what I already said. So if you are not going to present any argument in how AD is related with this article I'm going to revert it. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you do then it will be your last edit to the English Wikipedia for a while. You've been warned repeatedly. EEng 07:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say when and in which conditions I will do it. There is no opposing arguments still so I still waiting. You are not an admin and you are threating me with a ban, that's not WP:CIVIL. If you have to put me under rigid standards, that standards should aply to all of us. If those who are in authority are not held under the same standars that all of us then the Wikipedia project is doomed. And you will prove those who criticise Wikipedia correct. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{re|Rupert loup|| don't do it. I know what MOSERA says and why you are making your argument. I will vote for BCE on this article if you start a discussion, but you can't editwar over it and MOSERA was always meant to get people to discuss first. But the wording has been changed recently and obviously a bit carelessly. Hopefully that will get fixed this weekend. Doug Wellertalk 07:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will wait. Thanks for the response. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: this brought out the worst in me. I'm sorry for all the troubles. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the worst in you then you're doing OK. Go forth and sin no more. EEng 01:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm going to retire from Wikipedia, I lost interest in the project. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERA doesn't say "Unless there are reasons specific to its content, seek consensus on the talk page first." It says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page first...." You need context-specific reasons and even when you do have context-specific reasons, you still need to seek consensus.
Curiously enough, changing the punctuation to give "Unless there are reasons specific to its content, seek consensus on the talk page first" would produce "Do not change the established era style in an article. Unless there are reasons specific to its content, seek consensus on the talk page first..." which would forbid any changes! 92.19.24.131 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that the case then the "unless there are reasons specific to its content" is redundant: The article stated that "Seek consensus on the talk page first, applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles." which states "unless there is some substantial reason for the change.". People here is trying to enforce the "first" part in the policy disregarding the other parts. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
