Usor:CalRis25/Temp 2

Discussion: articles about numbers and years (and letters)

Situation: Right now we have several formats for articles about numbers: 1, I and unus. There isn't yet any coherent template for articles about numbers. Information about letters and numbers are sometimes mixed, e.g. I and D, at least if Roman numerals without any addendum are used.

Proposed solution: Seperate templates for:

• 1. Year-articles
  2. Number-articles
  3. Letter-articles

To be done:

• Agree on a naming system for these article types.
• Create the templates.
• Have them discussed (Taberna).
• Officially introduce these templates by creating Template-Pages and mention/recommend them in the Auxilium pro Editione-pages (perhaps also in important articles).

Proposed procedure:

• Use this page for definition of problem and task at hand.
• Use the talk-page (disputation) to discuss it.

---

Template (work in progress) 1: years

Saecula: saeculum 1 a.C.n. - saeculum 1 - saeculum 2 Anni: 5 a.C.n. 4 a.C.n. 3 a.C.n. 2 a.C.n. 1 a.C.n. - 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 (Annus 0 non est)

---

---

Here's the current "template" (ie what I've basically copied from other people's improvements and slightly improved and used in the last 24 hours for copy-and-paste) for years in the modern era:

millennium 1 | millennium 2 | millennium 3
saeculum 19 | saeculum 20 | saeculum 21
decennium 198 | decennium 199 | decennium 200 | decennium 201 | decennium 202
1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
MM

---

Annus 2000 = MM, duo milia

Category:saeculum 20

No apparent reason why it shouldn't be used on all years. Anyone got ideas for improvements first? (I'm thinking of adding a ref to Calendarium Gregorianum after the "annus" bit.) Note that I think years should be in the appropriate saeculum category, not a vast category called "anni".

Next problem, though, is checking that we have a consensus on how to translate "B.C." in dates but more particularly decennia and saecula and millennia. I notice one (Secundum millenium a.Chr.n.) needs a second "n" in it, so will need moving; but its version of BC is not the standard, so it ought to be fixed as part of the same move.

Comments, please - Robin Patterson 19:15 nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Later same day (NZ time) - found the "standards" - http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auxilium_pro_editione_%28anglice%29#Style_Guide. Much of it is from CalRis25; and it looked fine to me even before I saw who wrote it! So I've just amended my earlier notes. Anyone think anything in the standards needs changing? (Someone may want AVC instead of AUC, but I don't expect to be using either!) Robin Patterson 10:21 nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

Duces mundi

Vide etiam: 1 (numerus)