Talk:Before Present

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Before Present article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 4 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Before present. The result of the discussion was not moved.

CETERUM CENSEO

ceterum censeo ... that - the "present" ever meant and still means "today" and not 1950, - which latter, in case of radiocarbon dating, might be named "BL" in honour of Libby, otherwise "BFN" (Before Nineteen-Fifty), similar to "b2k" in icecore datigs, - consequently, those "intelligent" "scientists" would live today in the year 60 AP (after present)! In addition, and usually in the same papers, the time scales - if only for better comparability - must run chronologically from left to right, i.e. from the older to the more recent data (unfortunately, too many people seem to be completely incapable of using their plotting programs correctly). Further: Please note that neither ky nor kya are allowed SI-units of time. The only correct ones are "a" for year, or "ka" for thousand years. Please refer to "Unified code for Units of Measure at http://unitsofmeasure.org.HJJHolm (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to egocentrism

This article should link to the page egocentrism as the likely cause for the appearance of this time scale. Should we create a dedicated section on the causes, or put it near the beginning of the article? 2A01:CB08:5F:8700:329C:23FF:FEA2:DF4F (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a reliable source to do this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AD vs CE

Should the references to AD (Anno Domini, a religious designation) be changed to CE (Common Era, a more neutral one), or is this appropriate when talking about the Gregorian calendar, created by the Catholic Church? Scyg (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:ERA. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the chaos

Here is an excellent overview of the existing chaos and the inability of scientists, science journals and universities to agree on a uniform and unambiguous term (partly in German): https://www.sedgeochem.uni-bremen.de/kiloyears.html. Good luck! HJJHolm (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 51 millennia : BRD debate

Per WP:BEBOLD, Eli T Shvark added a list of 51 millennia but Nø reverted it as excessive. This debate is to seek consensus per wp:Bold, revert, discuss on whether its inclusion is merited as a revert war is pointless. @Eli T Shvark:, would you please set out your reasons for believing that it is appropriate to have this list? Then others can respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF Greetings! I included the BP, and AP list for both Millenia, and Centuries, as a contribution to this particular system. Even though it is EXTREMELY exhaustive, I decided to stop at a certain limit of 51. I felt the need that I must include this information, in order to humbly serve all those who sought this knowledge, and save them the effort, by going through all the hard work in order to guarantee satisfactory results for everyone, without having to go through any unnecessary conversion steps, as I already took them for them. This is also my life's work, as I have finally felt achieved in life for doing something like this. I also included the same additions to the Arabic version of the page, but only the AP centuries are missing, and will hopefully be added shortly. I sincerely apologise for any misunderstandings, or hurt feelings, and I look forward to serving you all whole heartedly. Thank you all. Eli T Shvark (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Indiscriminate, I don't think the list is very encyclopedic. It is very repetitive and not particularly informative. Vpab15 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vpab15 Understood. How about this, should I significantly decrease the number to 21 instead of 51 for both the Millennia, and Centuries? Both BP, and AP? Thank you so much tor sharing your precious response! I will be sure to reflect upon it for future projects. Eli T Shvark (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid my reaction was much the same as Nø's and Vpab15's: so what? What makes it at all significant. It reminds me of the person who demanded the Century leap year should include the fact that it always starts on a Thursday (or whatever it was). So what? Our mission is to inform people, not bury them in so much pettifogging detail that they discover nothing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF I understand. I sincerely apologise if I have failed in my duties, but I will use this as an opportunity to learn from my mistakes. I will hopefully compile a complete list, and perhaps place it on another website? Although, I need to get that figured out first. I will keep this article in your safe hands, and you may all discard my changes as you see fit. All of my changes were excessive in nature, and badly formatted, as I am still new to editing. Exhaustive yes, but I would be pettifogging people with superfluous information as you have kindly said. I sincerely apologise for any damage I might have caused, and look forward to bettering my skills, and everything else. Thank you all for your priceless guidance. I learned a lot today, and I am truely honoured to have met your presence! Eli T Shvark (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no need for such a list – it is badly formatted and does not add to the article. Maybe just add a couple of entries to the existing table for dates that are the starting point of other calendar systems — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of usage

WHo came up with this, when did it become adopted is missing from article. I only heard of this today. Hausa warrior (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed a bit in the "Radiocarbon dating" section but could probably be expanded and made more explicit, yeah. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]