This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion, part oneEdit

After a BC/BCE Xerxes edit war, the consensus seems to be found, and it's unlike anything I expected. We had a short discussion about this with Ineedaname in the cabal IRC:

<Ineedaname> Uh-oh, looks like Herbsewell and Imperialles have got a competitor for having the stupidest edit war
<Ineedaname> http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Xerxes&action=history
<Sikon> lol
<Sikon> "about 2450 years prior to the release of Star Wars"
<Ineedaname> We should do that with all the OOU dates :D

Do you think this is a credible solution? - Sikon 15:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. Personally, I support the use of BCE/CE, for a number of reasons, but either format is better than this. RMF 01:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan either. I like BC and AD- they've been good enough for several hundred years- but that's just me. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 02:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hey! That wasn't a stupid edit war at all! :P But really, I see no reason why we shouldn't use BC/AD. --Imp 03:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• BCE/CE is supposed to represent the dating system that science uses, whereas BC/AD is based on religion. Which side would we want to back? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, I see. I've never heard of this BCE system before. Perhaps we should go with the most widely known dating system? --Imp 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• BC/AD. Unless you want to tell me that we can't use the name of "March" for our third month because it's too pro-Roman mythology. Clearly, it's a religious POV (sarcasm). BCE/CE might be something more than a joke if it wasn't the exact same dating system repackaged with a new name. However, it's just BC/AD with a BS politically correct name. BC/AD is the established dating system, and the religious connotations are almost irrelevant now. Besides, how is it any more POV than basing your dating system on any other date? Base it on Julius Caesar's death? Pro-Caesar. Base it on the fall of the Roman Empire? Pro-Roman/Pro-barbarian depending on your POV. Base it on the discovery of the wheel? Pro-wheel. You see where I'm going. Havac 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• BCE seems to be the standard in academic circles, so I'd prefer it. On the other hand, how many BCE/BC dates do we even refer to on this wiki? Practically every other date we use is AD/CE, and doesn't need an era qualifier. —Silly Dan _(talk) 07:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I think everyone knows which dating notation I am in support of. :D Adamwankenobi 07:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't... - Sikon 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • [1] Adamwankenobi 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• BC/AD. There is no reason to change what has been used for hundreds of years. - JMAS 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Per RMF and Silly Dan. A possible explanation to Havac's question, though I can't say for sure because I stand as a centrist, perhaps those who are strongly in favor of BCE/CE because of the religious connotations it holds — using the Roman Calendar isn't quite the same thing perhaps, because it does not blatantly have to do with religion, a touchy and controversial subject among society. Perhaps the BC/AD system does not hold much of the Christian connotation as it did in the past and many non-Christians use the system without acknowledging the reference to Christianity, it would be useless to deny that the system has had nothing to do with the belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth because etymology of BC (Before Christ)/AD (Anno Domini - In the year of our Lord) has its roots in the religion itself. Again, a possible explanation because perhaps those who are strong advocates of BCE/CE system wish their own beliefs concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which no doubt differs from most Christians' POV, respected. But Silly Dan has a good point. BCE/CE is steadily gaining usage among academics and has become the standard, so it is preferable because Wookieepedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia is encompassed within an academic area, whether or not the topic at hand is of low importance in comparison to real-world issues. On the other hand, Wookieepedia is an encyclopedia dealing with fictional material in an IU perspective, so I question if an era qualifier is strictly necessary. —Mirlen 04:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's a bit silly. I don't here anyone arguing using Norse-religion derived day names or Roman pagan derived month name is POV. QuentinGeorge 04:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite true. But those religions are not widely held to or believed and are simply dismissed as myths and outdated, ancient beliefs. Had Christianity been dismissed as a myth this would not be such a huge issue, but because the religion is considered as truth by quite a large population and is opposed by a group of significant minorities, the use of BC/AD is hotly contested. —Mirlen 04:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I support BC/AD since BCE/CE is the exact same dating system under a different name, but I would gladly support BCE/CE over how it reads currently. Now we're dating real-world events relative to the release of ANH? Could Wookieepedia get any nerdier and more out of touch with reality? Give me a f'ing break.--Valin Kenobi 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps Han said it best, "Hokey religions are still no match for a blaster by your side." :) -- Riffsyphon1024 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Sikon was joking. Anyway, how many articles is this honestly an issue for? Why are we even arguing about this? —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Personally, I prefer BCE/CE. It's religiously neutral as it does not make use of religious titles. It would also seem that the label Anno Domini is inaccurate, because Christ was most likely born some years before 1 AD.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Objection:Relevance. This CT thread has no effect on Wookieepedia as there aren't (or shouldn't be) any dates that need era dating. This is worse than the label on the iron that read "Do not iron clothes while wearing them." :-P I recommend it be deleted, for lack of relevance. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The Xerxes edit war shows that there are times when it's relevant for certain behind-the-scenes information. jSarek 09:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • BC/AD. Calling BC BCE is still biased towards Christianity. It still bases its central date on the birth of the central figure of Christianity. BCE is also little used outside of extreme left academic circles. Calling BC BCE is like calling Golden Retrievers dingoes to avoid canidocentricism. Lord Patrick 22:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Now we're dating real-world events relative to the release of ANH? Could Wookieepedia get any nerdier and more out of touch with reality?"- -Valin Kenobi

• That was both hilarious and true. It might have been hilarious because it was so true. In fact, isn't basing our dating system around the release of a movie as POV as around the birth of an historical figure of debated deity? At any rate, the theologian in me says BC/AD, and the academic in me says BCE/CE. If it comes to a formal vote though, I'd say BC/AD. Should we make this an official vote? It's kinda one big comment thread right now. 76.5.175.59 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Wildyoda 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, but you can't vote unless you're signed in. 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Here's a thought. Do Wookieepedia users even need to know when Xerxes ruled Persia? And if they do, why not let them click on the link to Wikipedia? I say we take out the year reference (which is indeed lame as is) and never worry about it again. Seems to me that in the extremely unlikely event that the issue comes up again, this may be the solution then too ...or: somebody find a Star Wars book that mentions it (something that refers to Joseph Campbell?) and we do what they did. Gonk 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

VotingEdit

BCEdit

1. Havac 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Bah, what have left wing acadhimmis ever done for anybody?Lord Patrick 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Best known, I suppose. .... 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Lord Patrick. Not to mention it's been around longer and is more widely known. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BCEEdit

1. It's the academic standard. jSarek 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Per JSarek.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
3. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policyEdit

1. As I recall, the Wikipedia policy on this is that both are generally acceptable. However, usage should be consistent throughout the article, articles entirely on specifically religious topics should only use AD/BC if they are articles on a Christian topic (irrelevant in our case, since we're talking about Star Wars), articles should follow the usage of the first version of the article to mention dates, and AD/CE can be omitted when all the dates are obviously in the AD/CE era (like in a biography of a 20th or 21st century actor, author, or filmmaker.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Ozzel 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
3. This is fine. Not like BC or BCE will be used much here anyway. -Fnlayson 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• We should probably omit AD/CE at all times, since 99.9% of the dates we cite are 20th or 21st century dates anyway. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What about the 0.1% that aren't? -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be the Xerxes article, and not much else. Articles with ancient dates would use BC/AD, BCE/CE, or whatever consensus decides. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.