Talk:Śukasaptati

A fact from Śukasaptati appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Shuka Saptati, written originally in Sanskrit, is a collection of seventy erotic tales narrated by a parrot to prevent its mistress from committing adultery while her husband is away from home?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/September.

Wikipedia

CE?[edit]

Interesting article, but I didn't know the meaning of "CE" in use with dates. It appears to mean "century", but on whose calendar? How about using AD to avoid confusion? I tried to edit, but found that it even says "12 century CE" in the article, which would mean "12 century century" - isn't that nonsense? Or do I misunderstand what CE means? Tempel 07:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CE in this context stands for "Common Era". The calender matches up exactly with the gregorian (current) system, with CE replacing AD and BCE replacing BC. It's fairly commonly used in academic literature, as well as when describing non-European history. Wikipedia treats the AD/CE issue in the same way that AmE/CwE is treated within articles — stick with whatever the original contributor used unless there's a very good reason to switch. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the MoS standardised on CE. I have nothing at all against AD and I often use it myself. But there is no reason to change it, I guess. — Ravikiran 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained, thanks. Did you notice that when you look up [[CE]] in wikipedia, it also lists "Century" as one meaning (first entry), though? Not your fault, but that's what misled me. Tempel 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book box[edit]

The infbox gives the mislaeding impression that the book was first published in 2000 - is there some way that the box could include the fact that it has been republished from old manuscripts? Also it lists the translator as the author, which is obviously not the case.--Peta 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked other ancient/medieval texts for guidance. Iliad and Odyssey and they do not carry an infobox at all. Nor does Romeo and Juliet. Perhaps we should just take off the infobox to avoid giving the impression that it is about a recently published book rather than an ancient text? The publication is mentioned in the history section. — Ravikiran 08:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed -- Lost^(talk) 08:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]