Wikipedia:Eras/Straw poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preliminary consideration of variations[edit]

The list of variations presented here is almost certainly incomplete, and we will allow for adding variations to the list as they arise.

  • This is not a vote. We are in an information gathering phase.
  • This is not for critique of the finer points of wording. We wish to gauge the relative support of the ideas presented in each variation. Therefore, proposed wordings have been commented out for this phase. You may still see proposed wordings that were here by editing this page and looking at the source.
  • This is not a place for posting arguments pro and contra each variation. Please keep discussion on the talk page for now. When we open polling, it will likely be signature only, at first, to help narrow down to a few good variations before debating the merits of those.

FEEL FREE TO ADD TO THIS LIST. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR OPINION WITH SIGNATURE ONLY AND DIRECT DISCUSSION TO THE TALK PAGE

Variation Z - the status quo[edit]

There should be no change to the policy. This option does not see the need for a special case for eras and this page will simply be a redirect to the Manual of Style page. Revert wars are subject to the three revert rule and page protection, as for other disputes.

Weak or strong support
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can't even understand what the current wording means, and I know from experience that I am not alone in that, jguk 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Chooserr
  6. —Locke Cole 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Elliskev 14:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jcforge 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Something needs to be done. Sseballos 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variations A - Favour the change[edit]

The concept of favouring the change is that the switch from one method to another should go ahead and discussion should take place afterwards.

Variation A1[edit]

The policy should simply state that it is a controversial change.


Weak or strong support
  1. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elliskev 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - weak.[reply]
  3.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. siafu 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Redundant. Editors should always be judicious. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sseballos 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation A2[edit]

The policy should state that the change should be performed and then any opposition discussed on the talk page – the change should not be reverted.


Weak or strong support
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Durova 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elliskev 14:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. siafu 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variation A3[edit]

The policy should state that the change should be discussed on the talk page after the article has been reverted to its previous form.


Weak or strong support
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elliskev 14:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variations B - Favour discussion[edit]

The concept of favouring discussion is that the change should not be done unless there is enough support to do so from the talk page.

Variation B1[edit]

The policy should reflect that the change may be controversial and should not be done without prior discussion. The proposal to change the article should be made on the talk page in a hope to gain consensus. If there is a clear consensus to change it (or no opposition to changing it), it can be done.


Weak or strong support
  1. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. siafu 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dejvid 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) As long as there is a clear presumption in favor of the status quo to avoid roving edit wariors. That is to say there should be a veto from anyone who has made significant edits priviously.[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Doesn't work in practice. It allows a small number of editors to go from article to article raising the same point time and time again, which is just disruptive, jguk 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per User:jguk Durova 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variation B2[edit]

The policy should recommend discussion but not mandate it.


Weak or strong support
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Probably the most practical of several non-ideal alternatives. Durova 02:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DES (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elliskev 14:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seems ok - no policy creep :) flammifertalk 17:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support. I now think this is the most workable proposal. Dejvid 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Neonumbers 08:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fail to see the point. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Sseballos 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variations C - Favour the original author[edit]

The policy should reflect that the change should not be done except to return it to the one used by the original registered author of that article.

Variation C1[edit]

The policy should favour the original author in all cases.


Weak or strong support
  1. Okay, I know this isn't a vote, but an information gathering thing so I support this version, as a wikipedia author and as a wikipedia reader. Chooserr 05:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dwain 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. In direct contravention to Wikipedia:Ownership. Also, we should be writing for our audience, rather than being any one editor's private project, jguk 18:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Invites exploitation in the form of spammed substubs. Durova 02:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. siafu 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very, very strongly. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Still fail to see the point. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. AD is POV. robsteadmanRobsteadman 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ... and favorize those who rush to create stubs with their preferred notation system? Evil! flammifertalk 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Dejvid 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) BTW What if the origional author wants a change?[reply]
  15. Sseballos 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation C2[edit]

The policy should favour the original author by default, but allow for consensus to overrule authorship in individual cases.


Weak or strong support
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Consistent with the national spelling variants policy that also favors the original author by default. This is my strongest support vote, although I would modify the wording to include respectful acknowledgement of the subject matter. Set the bar lower when the dating convention is out of sync with the subject (A.D. for Saudi Arabia, C.E. for a bishop's biography). Durova 01:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Abe Dashiell 14:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. PeterR 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Weak or strong oppose
  1. Again, this is in direct contravention of Wikipedia:Ownership. Also, what if the original author's preference has been changed a year ago - should we really his choice still as a default? jguk 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dwain 22:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This principle would make Wikipedia unable to recover from errors. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not even practical.--Colle||Talk-- 06:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Better than the previous, but still impractical. flammifertalk 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dejvid 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sseballos 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variations D - Favour BC/AD[edit]

Variation D1[edit]

The policy should favour BC/AD notation in all cases.

Weak or strong support
  1. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not only the most common standard, but the most common by a ratio of 50 to 1. In many areas of the world (and pretty much amongst the general public outside of the US) the only standard. Also, with every other issue WP usually prefers the most common form, jguk 18:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eightball 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dwain 22:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That's what 95% of the world does. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I LIKE BC/AD -__- Homestarmy 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is the normal dating system. Chooserr 07:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and BC/AD is the standard English-language notation for dates Cynical 15:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BC/AD are standard and uncontroversial, and BCE/CE are silly. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BC/AD are the status quo, therefore the most NPOV, and widey used and recognized. A very small minority is trying to use Wikipedia to promote a very secular POV - namely BCE/CE. HarwoodRH 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. all of the above, + not actually seen any evidence that AD & BC piss a significant amount of people off --Dak 03:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jcforge 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC) little to no opposition in how many years? why are we seeing it now? bce/ce is simply PC revisionists want a day in the sun and make a fuss over nothing that has previously been objected to on such a scale[reply]
  14. Strong support. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I support this. Jix2 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (C/SSG)G2sai(talk) 01:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kjkolb 08:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Clawed 09:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Inherent POV problems in articles about Islam, Judaism, and possibly other subjects. Durova 01:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CDThieme 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DES (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. siafu 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongly oppose. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Colle||Talk-- 06:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Dejvid 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose. The Bearded One (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variation D2[edit]

The policy should favour BC/AD notation as a default, but allow for consensus to overrule in individual cases.

Weak or strong support
  1. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. squell 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support, as compromise of th eabove. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ^agree Jcforge 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Kjkolb 08:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. How do you define consensus? Is it two editors versus one? What's special about the individual cases? In all, this sounds like an option that will lead to more edit wars, jguk 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. See Islam/Judaism objection above. Durova 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. impratcial --Colle||Talk-- 06:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Sseballos 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variations E - Favour BCE/CE[edit]

Variation E1[edit]

The policy should favour BCE/CE notation in all cases.

Weak or strong support
  1. Why is this even an issue? Kjkolb 08:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clawed 09:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Guettarda 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Colle||Talk-- 06:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. mordicai. 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dejvid 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I fail to see how people can be offended by a date notation. Orpheus 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Since BC is largely incompatible with religions beside Christianity, BCE should be used because it "agrees" with all religions, including Christianity. However, to create consistency among all articles, a bot could be created to search through the articles replacing "BC" with "BCE" or, perhaps, "BCE." If someone uses BC due to their ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, they will not even be warned; it will just be changed when the bot gets to it. Then again, is it really important enough to create a bot for? But I suppose thats the fundamental question of this poll, isn't it. Britney-Boy 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is a 50 to 1 preference worldwide for BC/AD notation. Why go with what 2% prefer (it seems William Simpson is in the 2%, but surely he can accept he's in a small minority here)? In England, for example, BCE notation was not even taught in the National Curriculum until 2002! Additionally, wherever BCE notation has been introduced to the general public (at least outside the US) it has caused disruption, arguments, and much offence. WP needs to be open to all, and not risk alienating large parts of its potential audience, jguk 18:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shall we say that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to a church door in 1517, CE? Durova 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dwain 22:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Absolutely not. Systemic bias - term is needlessly PC, and really obscure outside america. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Homestarmy 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Confusing to use the BCE/CE system, and what happens if one of the common authors who carry wikipedia accidently slip up and use the proper system - should they have edit warnings saying "alright now, even though you were taught BC/AD all through school and it is the most commonly recognized dating system, if you use it again on Wikipedia you will be blocked" Chooserr 08:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BCE/CE is anti-Christian and offensive in addition to promoting an extremely secular POV. Why even consider using it if it will confuse and bother people who are simply trying to use Wikipedia to gain information about a subject? HarwoodRH 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. strong Jcforge 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I see no inherent value of adopting BCE/CE nomenclature. The number of advocates for it are tiny but loud.[reply]
  15. Strong oppose Sseballos 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I oppose this. Jix2 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation E2[edit]

The policy should favour BCE/CE notation as a default, but allow for consensus to overrule in individual cases.

Weak or strong support
  1. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Donar Reiskoffer 09:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dejvid 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per above, we should not go for a standard preferred by only 2% of English readers when there's an alternative preferred by 98%. We should write in the language of our audience, jguk 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dwain 22:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JohnFlaherty 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Absolutely not. Systemic bias - term is needlessly PC, and really obscure outside america. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Homestarmy 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jcforge 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC) extremely strong, no valid reason to cater to a minuscule minority of objectors[reply]
  15. Sseballos 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation F - A categorical solution[edit]

The policy should designate categories of articles in which to use BCE/CE notation, and categories of articles in which to use BC/AD notation.

Weak or strong support
  1. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very weak support. It's a heavy handed proposal for something that deserves considerate mention in the guidelines and probably can't be categorized. Durova 01:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Abe Dashiell 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak but maybe best solution JohnFlaherty 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose the general principle - but it's largely the articles on Judaism and Buddhism that use BCE/CE notation at present, with the overwhelming majority of other articles using BC/AD notation. By way of a compromise we could carve out those articles as permitting BCE/CE (most of them are pretty incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't already understand what Buddhism or Judaism is anyway), jguk 18:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. impractical --Colle||Talk-- 06:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (impractical. What if the article is in several categories, or in no mentioned category?) flammifertalk 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dejvid 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) This would be far more POV than a blanket rule as it would 'frame' individual articles.[reply]
  13. Jcforge 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC) just as confusing, just drop CE/BCE[reply]
  14. Sseballos 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I agree with Jcforge[reply]

Variation G - Change of venue[edit]

This is not a style-related policy, but a behaviour-related one, as should be proposed to WP:NPOV or some other area of policy, not to the MoS.

Weak or strong support
  1. Weak support. There appears to be a minority of editors who attempt to eliminate the CE/BCE system for religious reasons. This could become appropriate if revert wars turn into a serious administrative problem. Durova 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obviously, since this is an NPOV issue, not an MoS issue - Guettarda 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Colle||Talk-- 06:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dejvid 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Clearly we are dealing with a conflikt of POVs[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Neonumbers 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. William Allen Simpson 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's not a NPOV issue. It is a behaviour-related issue in that we should encourage editors to write clearly in language our readers will understand. This is a major issue elsewhere (many of our science-related and computer-related articles are incomprehensible to those who don't already have a detailed knowledge of the subject area). Accessibility is an important issue, but probably has to be dealt with via the MoS for now, jguk 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. squell 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No. Sseballos 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation H[edit]

The policy should favour BVE/VE notation in all cases.

Weak or strong support
  1. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Durova 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) strong[reply]
  3. siafu 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What the hell is that? Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Homestarmy 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Chooserr 08:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. What? flammifertalk
  12. Jcforge 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC) even more ridiculous than CE/BCE[reply]
  13. Sseballos 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Definitely not.[reply]

Variation I[edit]

The policy should favour AEV/EV notation in all cases.

Weak or strong support
  1. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  23:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. siafu 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. flammifertalk 17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sseballos 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation P[edit]

Polls are evil.

  1. Radiant_>|< 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Colle||Talk-- 06:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are a lesser evil.

  1. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are not evil.

  1. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sseballos 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation Q - Chuck the whole thing[edit]

All dates should be expressed in terms of ab urbe condita or AUC. There's no question here about the right name and abbreviation.

Weak or strong support
  1. Carnildo 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This would solve the problem, by confusing everyone. Very weak support. DES (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. sounds reasonable. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. weak, but how are years before handled? --William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Durova 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. siafu 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neonumbers 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Colle||Talk-- 06:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too confusing. Sseballos 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation Qe - Use AUC (eclipse)[edit]

All dates should be expressed in terms of ab urbe condita or AUC, but since there were errors in the lists on which it was based, basing it on the the date of the solar eclipse at the founding of Rome.

Weak or strong support
  1. CDThieme 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. You've got to be kidding me! --Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. lol... Neonumbers 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No, it should be a lunar eclipse. Everybody knows the sun is unverifiable. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per Radiant --William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sseballos 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) It would just confuse everybody.[reply]

Variation R - 'Coinflip.'[edit]

All dates should be expressed using *one* system/method (either BCE/CE or BC/AD), to be chosen by a flip of a coin at a later date. Ideally, Jimbo does the honors.

Weak or strong support
  1. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Carnildo 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Glad someone thought of it. Neonumbers 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If by "coin flip" you mean "choose BCE" Colle||Talk-- 06:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. I oppose not just the coinflip, but the idea of limiting to one style across all of wikipedia. It would IMO be perverse to use "CE/BCE" on Jesus and related articles, and equally pervese to use "AD/BC" on, for example, Jew. DES (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. squell 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NPOV is non-negotiable Guettarda 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. strong --William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sseballos 22:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Definitely not[reply]

Variation X - BC before, CE after, plus religious specific[edit]

Rather late to the party, another proposal from the talk page, from the customs of the History Channel:

  • Years 1 BC and previous will be abbreviated with "BC" (which can be interpreted as either "Before Christianity" or "Before Christ").
  • Years from 1 and subsequent will be abbreviated with "CE" (which can be interpreted as either "Common Era" or "Christian Era").
  • Years in Christian religious articles only could continue to use AD.
Weak or strong support
  1. weak --William Allen Simpson 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, as the creator of this variation. -- Darwiner111 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Weak support -- BC could easily mean 'before common (era), and fixes a lot of stylistic complaints about BCE (ie, still contains 'ce', is longer etc). --Dak 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. NPOV is non-negotiable. Guettarda 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No Franken-wikiera-stein please. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Sseballos 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation Y - Use AYPS[edit]

All dates should be expressed in terms of Anno Yersina Pestis Spiritus or AYPS

Weak or strong support
  1. not really, but cute! --William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. squell 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Sseballos 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) No![reply]

Variation Z! - 'First choose how, then choose which.'[edit]

All dates should be expressed using *one* system/method, and assuming this option has general support, *then* that *one* system will be discussed and chosen. (in contrast to the myriad 'compromise' variants provided above)

Weak or strong support
  1. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 09:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Probably, but no need to propose like this. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Elliskev 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CDThieme 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Improv 14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GTBacchus(talk) 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. See my comments on "coinflip", below. DES (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. squell 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. William Allen Simpson 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dejvid 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sseballos 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation Y! -- synonimity[edit]

treat AD/BC and CE/BCE as synonims -- just let each individual editor chose which to use, and dont worry if an article keeps hopping from one to the other anymore than you'd worry if an article said 13:00 in one place, and 1pm in another.

changing ad/bc into ce/bce and visa-versa to be disallowed to prevent lame edit wars -- changes should be reverted on sight.

possible exeptions being, say, articles on jahovas witnesses (who, i believe, specifically use ce/bce) and christianity (ad/bc).

Weak or strong support
  1. Dejvid 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak or strong oppose
  1. Everybody would be confused. Strong no. Sseballos 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Eras/Straw_poll&oldid=1136099384"