![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be merged somehow with the entry Aelius. Also, on the analogy of other Roman gens entries, perhaps it should be renamed Aelius_(gens), with the parentheses (cf. e.g. Claudius_(gens)). Frippo ( talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My sugesstion on date format, particularly on pre-Christian issues:
That is my intention. Sukarnobhumibol ( talk) 22:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Even wikipedia admits: "CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style. ". Sukarnobhumibol ( talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be a Christianphobic suggestion. The birth of Jesus Christ was absolutely not offensive. Strange concept, should we be saying no one outside England should speak English? Or feet and inches are offensive against metric nations? Etc. Middle More Rider ( talk) 11:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This discussion concerns the formatting of dates in this article. Until today they were uniformly designated as B.C. and A.D., terms which have been in common use for centuries, are still the academic standard, and are found in most of the source material. This is how all of the other articles about Roman gentes have been formatted. Today a user decided to change them to BCE and CE, without discussion or consensus. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states:
And also
This article is one of a substantial series of articles on the topic, treated with a uniform system of formatting. There is no substantial reason for the change; it reflects only the personal preference of one editor. There was no discussion and is no consensus. If there were to be a change, it would need to affect scores of other pages in this series, which is neither necessary nor desirable. Please do not reformat these articles based on your own personal preferences. P Aculeius ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to emphasize this: "CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style." As I said again: If something is new, you cannot (always) expect it will be well-known overnight. It takes some time. Sukarnobhumibol ( talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know the etymology? I got into an argument with my friend who thinks it's from an old Canaanite language meaning rising. Komitsuki ( talk) 15:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be merged somehow with the entry Aelius. Also, on the analogy of other Roman gens entries, perhaps it should be renamed Aelius_(gens), with the parentheses (cf. e.g. Claudius_(gens)). Frippo ( talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My sugesstion on date format, particularly on pre-Christian issues:
That is my intention. Sukarnobhumibol ( talk) 22:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Even wikipedia admits: "CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style. ". Sukarnobhumibol ( talk) 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be a Christianphobic suggestion. The birth of Jesus Christ was absolutely not offensive. Strange concept, should we be saying no one outside England should speak English? Or feet and inches are offensive against metric nations? Etc. Middle More Rider ( talk) 11:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This discussion concerns the formatting of dates in this article. Until today they were uniformly designated as B.C. and A.D., terms which have been in common use for centuries, are still the academic standard, and are found in most of the source material. This is how all of the other articles about Roman gentes have been formatted. Today a user decided to change them to BCE and CE, without discussion or consensus. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states:
And also
This article is one of a substantial series of articles on the topic, treated with a uniform system of formatting. There is no substantial reason for the change; it reflects only the personal preference of one editor. There was no discussion and is no consensus. If there were to be a change, it would need to affect scores of other pages in this series, which is neither necessary nor desirable. Please do not reformat these articles based on your own personal preferences. P Aculeius ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to emphasize this: "CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style." As I said again: If something is new, you cannot (always) expect it will be well-known overnight. It takes some time. Sukarnobhumibol ( talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know the etymology? I got into an argument with my friend who thinks it's from an old Canaanite language meaning rising. Komitsuki ( talk) 15:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)