Talk:Before Christ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] BC vs AD
Any specific reason you removed the redirect from Before Christ? Now we have a stub there, which says significantly less than the second paragraph from Anno Domini, to which it was redirecting? dewet|™ 19:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Both BC and AD should have it's own article. Currently, BC is a stub, but it has potential to expand, which is all that is required to have a stub article. In addition, BC has a link to AD in it. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Not necessarily. Both terms refer to the same date measurement scheme, and therefore could be succinctly covered under one article. What makes BC so radically different that it needs its own article? The point I was raising is that the AD article has a lot of history and discussion about the scheme itself, not specifically AD, which applies equally to BC — BC is essentially AD "in reverse" / reckoned backwards. dewet|™ 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger Discussion
- I fully agree with dewet here. Not to sound harsh on SirIsaacBrock, but I fail to see how having two articles on the same topic (with copious amounts of information from both Anno Domini and Common Era duplicated) improves the present situation. To make things worse, the "Common Era" section is controversial at best; it claims CE is 'expected to replace AD', for example. There's no reason to try and fix that here since there's Common Era which goes into considerable more detail. I've put up a merge notice. squell 10:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- For what it's worth, I strongly suggest/support merging back to Anno Domini. dewet|™ 11:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - They are not the same topic their relationship is opposite. I notice the Anno Domini article has a section on Common Era, have you voiced your concerns on that articles Discussion page? If not, your opinion reflects bias. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 12:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've been involved in both articles, especially the Common Era section, with an interest in keeping those two topics seperate. Please explain why you think these topics are exact opposites of eachother. squell 12:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
NO MERGER - Before Christ (BC) is the opposite or antipode of Anno Domini (AD) each deserve their own separate article. This merger request is as unacceptable as requesting a merger between the North Pole and South Pole articles. The Before Christ article has the potential to expand and that is all that is required. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give a concrete example if some information which would definately belong in Before Christ but not in Anno Domini? Your analogy is rather weak; AD/CE and BC/BCE are all relative to the same epoch (the supposed birth of christ). That is the prime topic of Anno Domini. Having two articles on this is more similar to centimetre and kilometre. squell 11:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- You have yet to answer my questions in the previous section. I've asked you both here and on your talk page, but you seem intent to just blunder on without discussion. Just tell me why we need to split it off (and nothing about "potential to expand"; if you have additional info, add it to Anno Domini (since, by definition, it should apply equally to both), and lets make that a better article. Simply duplicating information is not a reason for existence. dewet|™ 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the redirect was more appropriate and easier to use for readers. I see no reason to split a separate article here, nothing is added. Castellanet 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
MERGE: There are not 2 articles on the Earth's Magnetic field - one for each pole. North Pole & South Pole have separate articles only because they are 2 different geographic areas (having some of water, land & ice) - not because they are 2 parts of the same concept. Separate articles just encourages POV forking & makes updating more difficult --JimWae 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like only one person spoke against merge proposal - yet someone (else?) has removed the notice & says the request is dead - Is that legit? --JimWae 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree that the templates have been removed prematurely. I'll be reverting the changes. I do think that we're nearing the point where consensus has seemingly been reached for a merging back; SirIsaacBrock has not explained himself at all, and everyone else commenting here seems to be of one mind. dewet|™ 06:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Anno Domini:
- No need to merge these articles. The concepts merit separate discussion. Metamagician3000 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that is not a reasoning, it is a statement of fact. What both myself and squell have been trying to get out of SirIsaacBrock (and now you too, per implication) is some reasoned debate. Even as the article stands now, it introduced nothing new to the issue and could therefore be easily and sensibly replaced with a redirect. What I would suggest is that we make BC a more prominent section in the AD article. dewet|™ 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That's why I asked him on User talk:Metamagician3000#Eras; I had a hunch he was primary against merging the AD and CE article, which seems to be the case. I doubt we're going to see any other opposers.. — squell 12:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- NO CONCENSUS Merger tag removed
Revert back to article Not reckless... - should not be merged SirIsaacBrock 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Consensus does not require unanimity. I see only one supporteer for keeping a separate article - and the only reason given being something vague (and non-parallel) about north pole & south pole --JimWae 01:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The proper state of this article at present is a redirect - the discussion was opened long enough and no other dissenting voices were offered. If SirIsaacBrock wants to split it off he should not be reckless and solicit opinions. You can e.g., submit it to RFC or AfD (as this has become a sort of Delete discussion anyway). squell 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In order to avoid a lengthy revert war, I've listed this article on AfD. — squell 18:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
