Talk:Anno Domini

525 or 532?

In the History section, it mentions that "The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus" however, later on it says "The last year of the old table, Diocletian Anno Martyrium 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, Anno Domini 532." This seems confusing -- was he labeling the year now known as A.D. 525 as A.D. 532? Or was the first mention of the A.D. system only published after 532? If the latter, in what sense did Dionysius Exiguus devise it in 525? The section flips back and forth between 525 and 532, so it's really hard to figure out what the dates actually are. 2600:1702:24B0:AED0:D825:D002:59F3:161D (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Papal functionaries were aware that the last year in the Easter table in use in the early 500s had a last year that we would now call 531. They asked Dionysius Exiguus to prepare a new table that would continue where the table in use left off. That is, the new table should have 532 as its first year. Dionysius finished his task in 525. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Western" or "Modern" in short description

On 19 March 2025 CarterSchmelz61 (talk · contribs) changed the short description from "Western calendar era" to "Modern calendar era" without giving a reason in the edit summary, and marking the edit as minor. In this edit JMF (talk · contribs) reverted with the edit summary 'rv good faith but "Western" is more accurate. The non-Christian world (the majority. especially in Asia) don't use the Christian tag.'

I think the reason given by JMF is not a good reason. This article isn't primarily about the name (or "tag") of the era, it's about the era itself. It started in the west, so that's a reason to call it the western calendar era, because that's where it came from. But now it's used all over the world, by one name or another. I don't know just how dominant it is in eastern Asia. I doubt it's dominant in the Middle East. I'm also not sure about Africa. But if it really is the dominant era in everyday use all over the world, then "modern calendar era" is the better short description. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a simple "modern calendar era" would be the most NPOV solution. I over-reacted to the wp:minor edit tag. I will revert my reversion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC) revised 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@JMF, Jc3s5h, and CarterSchmelz61: Just seeing this discussion now. I think "Modern calendar era" is too broad and also dismissive of other calendar eras:

• What is modern? The Muslim (A.H.) era, for example, is still in active use today, and its epoch post-dates A.D. "B.P." is commonly used in archaeology and geology.
• There are even more "modern" eras which are no longer used, e.g., A.F..

Finally, an important purpose of short descriptions is to distinguish articles, and currently both Common Era and Anno Domini have the Short Description "Modern calendar era". They are undoubtedly both modern, and both common, but it would be nice if their SDs distinguished them somehow. --Macrakis (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone Macrakis changed it to "Christian era" "Years in the Christian Era", which seems ok to me. Over 1000 years old is scarcely "modern". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Spitzak:, you reverted Macrakis's edit as part of a block revert, but your edit summary doesn't suggest it was intentional. Collateral damage? (I support Macrakis's version as it is the most accurate description and has extensive RS support. "Modern calendar era" is weasel wording, tell it like it is.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

"Common Era" should really have a short description of "alternative name for AD".

I disagree with mentioning "Christian Era", there is a pretty concerted attempt to claim that CE stands for Christian Era and this is false, and this is part of it. When somebody purposely writes CE they are explicitly stating that they are using a non-religous term. Spitzak (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

but there can be no doubt that AD is the Christian Era. This SD me is clear and unambiguous (I don't like your edit to the SD of Common Era but let's discuss that at talk:Common Era.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

When I say that there can be no doubt, I am referring to the translation of the unabbreviated title Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ('the years of our Lord Jesus Christ'). To me, it is better to make a firm connection between "Christian Era" and "AD", to separate it clearly from "Common Era". We will always have disruptive editing to the Common Era article but the hidden intro that affirms that it is not about CE (disambiguation) seems to have moderated it well. I suggest that the proposed SD for Anni Domini will serve to increase and clarify the distinction rather than to muddle it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Spitzak and JMF: We all agree that "CE" means "Common Era". But this is the "Anno Domini" (AD) article, which as JMF says, is explicitly the "Year of Our Lord", that is, the year of the Christian Era -- which is precisely why many of us prefer CE! Do we agree that "Year in the Christian Era" or "Year of the Christian Era" are appropriate short descriptions for this article, Anno Domini? --Macrakis (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought "modern era" or even just something like "the most-used way to number years" would be more obvious to users. They may think "Christian era" is something different. Spitzak (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Your analysis would posit Anno Domini as a value-free alternative nomenclature fo Common Era. That is emphatically not the case. Your version is WP:WEASEL-wording. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

How about "Years of the Gregorian calendar" as an SD? It isn't technically complete (cf. Julian calendar), and it still leaves us without a way of distinguishing the SDs for AD and CE. --Macrakis (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No for exactly the reason you say, the term "AD" is used for Julian calendar years. Spitzak (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

In no way did I imply that. First the word "common era" is not even in my short description. And absolutely the intent is to say that "Anno Domini" is the most-common name used for this subject, and thus any other name is an "alternative".

NOBODY writes "CE" to mean "Christian Era". A person writing "CE" does so explicitly to be "woke" (and in this case the insult "woke" is really being used correctly to indicate virtue signaling). People who are scared of being accused of "woke" would never write "CE", therefore those initials never mean "Christian Era". I am not sure of the motives of Macrakis but I suspect he is anti-woke and wants to pretend the writers are not "woke", or he is trying to erase the ability of writers to use those initials as a "woke" signal. Spitzak (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I am confused by your comment. This is a discussion about the Short Descriptions of the AD and CE pages, not a discussion of why people prefer one term or the other.

• We all agree (as I said above) that CE = Common Era, never Christian Era.
• We also all agree that CE is a synonym for AD, and that they are both based on the Christian era as calculated by Dionysius Exiguus (hence the rather rare name Dionysian Era).
• We also all agree that the Gregorian calendar is used world-wide these days, even if other calendars/eras are also used, mostly in special contexts (A.H., A.M., ...). The Julian calendar is still used in some Orthodox settings, but they use AD as well.

I don't know why you're attributing the use of CE to wokeness or virtue signaling; CE is very widely used in historical writing these days. Anyway, what does that have to do with the short description?

And kindly stick to the discussion at hand rather than speculating about my motivations. --Macrakis (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I responded to the wrong person. The comment I am complaining about is "Your analysis would posit Anno Domini as a value-free alternative nomenclature fo Common Era" by JMF. I do not see how that would happen if my short description does not have the word "Common Era" in it.

I disagree with putting "Christian Era" into the short description for a few reasons:

1. The number of people who know it is a name for the modern era is far smaller than the number that know that "AD" is the name for the modern era, making the short description rather silly and useless. I personally have never heard the term "Christian Era" used anywhere outside of Wikipedia except by people guessing what "CE" stands for ("Christ era" is more common, too).

2. There seems to be an attempt to popularize the name "Christian Era" in Wikipedia. As far as I can tell this is an attempt to "de-woke" the CE abbreviation. Spitzak (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No-one ever suggested putting "Common Era" in the SD, that is a straw man argument. My point is that we must not pretend that Anno Domini is anything other than a Christian designation. It is sectarian, not neutral and emphatically not value-free.

You say that "AD" is the name the modern era: no – it is the name used by Christians for the modern era. Just as validly, "AH" is the name used by Muslims for the modern era. "AM" is the name used by Jews for the modern era. Why? because, irrespective of the recency of their epochs, these calendar eras are all still in current use and their claim is just as valid as the Christian one.

• The SD for Anno Mundi reads "Calendar era based on the biblical account of creation"
• The SD for Anno Hegirae (Hijri era) reads "Era in the Islamic calendar"

What makes the Christian designation so special that its overt religious meaning can be taken as a given? I don't see much evidence of "an attempt to popularise the name "Christian Era" in Wikipedia. But if it bothers you that much, then I would be happy to emulate the SD for Anno Hegirae, so let's have Era of the Christian calendar (or "modern Christian calendar" if you prefer). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

To match your example, "Calendar era based on the birth of Jesus" would probably be acceptable. I think it can be reasonably argued that more people know what Jesus is than know what AD stands for. I still do not like having any term with the initials CE in the short description because that implies that AD is the "alternative" to CE, when in fact it is the other way around. Spitzak (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

"Calendar era based on the birth of Jesus" works for me. @Macrakis, if you concur, we have a consensus so please make that change and all tip-toe quietly away. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand Spitzak's reasoning. If the SD for AD/Anno Domini is "Year of the Christian era", someone might say, oh, Christian era, isn't that the definition of CE because it has the same initials? That seems awfully farfetched.

I know that some Christians dislike the term Common Era, because they think it minimizes the importance of Jesus Christ. At the same time, some criticize the word "Common" in CE because "tries to secularize and naturalize a framework that is profoundly religious and artificial" or because it normalizes "a very provincial, originally Catholic model of timekeeping" as a "“common” standard throughout the world". Of course, it is de facto a "common" standard, whether they like it or not.

I think all three criticisms of CE would translate into being very clear that A.D. is the "Christian era" even if CE is not. But maybe "Calendar era based on the birth of Jesus Christ" is a good compromise. --Macrakis (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I have taken that as assent, so we have a unanimous consensus. I have updated the SD accordingly. End of debate. Phew. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

As it may be of interest to readers of this discussion, be advised that I have initiated a related debate at talk:Common Era#Short description. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus on moving to BC and AD. (non-admin closure) veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 23:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Anno Domini → Anno Domini and Before Christ – Per WP:AND. Basically when there are two or more closely related articles that are covered by a single article, it should use a title covering all cases when possible. But where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and". In this article, both terms are in bold and are discussed in this single article. Prothe1st (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:common name. Anno Domini is extensively used – behind AD certainly but not hugely so. Before Christ is rarely seen, a long way behind BC. We have many cases where an article has the simple common name in the title and the subsidiary term is highlighted in the lead. Needless completionism. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning opposed per WP:CONCISE and a degree of semi-redundancy. As JMF noted, it gives an impression of overly pedantic completionism. The capitalization of "before" also seems questionable, and if listing both, one might ordinarily put B.C. before A.D. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support alternate move to BC and AD. I'm gonna guess that the abbreviations are the common names here, as very few people write out "Anno Domini" in the modern day, much less learn Latin. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning opposed per BarrelProof and JMF. I think ZXCVBNM is correct that the abbreviations BC and AD are far more popular than the spelled-out versions, and WP:ACROTITLE seems to support using the abbreviations in the title. Even so, my impression is that Wikipedia usually uses the spelled out version, not the abbreviation, in article titles. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses acronyms if that is the common name, per MOS:ACROTITLE. Some examples are NASA (not National Aeronautics and Space Administration), ATM (not automated teller machine), HIV/AIDS (not human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), FIFA (not Fédération Internationale de Football Association), and COVID-19 (not Coronavirus disease 2019). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, the issue is not that we're using an abbreviation, but that we're using an artificial conjunction of abbreviations. Remsense 🌈 论 13:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Move to BC and AD per zxcvbnm. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the proposed title is not clear at a glance, with its combination of Latin and English in title case. I also oppose "BC and AD" as a prelude to dumbing down. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose or move to "BC and AD". The proposed title isn't likely to be used as a search term, and it's unlikely that anyone is confused by the absence of "Before Christ" in the current title. I disagree with the argument that "very few people learn Latin", because this is a fairly well-known Latin phrase; most English speakers who know it haven't studied Latin. That said, "BC and AD" is a logical formulation and might be more likely as a search target. However, since readers searching for those should arrive here anyway, it's not vital that we determine which is the more likely formulation, or that the article be moved. P Aculeius (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support BC and AD per zxcvbnm ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, initially by echoing P Aculeius.

First, I don't think the OP's logic engages with what kinds of articles WP:AND is written to address and why we want to treat that class differently: Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases. Merely Promotion (league sports) is clearly an incomplete scope, because delegation is not obviously or necessarily defined purely complementarity (conversely?) to promotion. By contrast, it is quite clear that discussion of the future end of an epoch entails wholly symmetric discussion of the past end – the post-epoch era cannot actually conceptually exist without the pre-epoch era. That's why era systems often comfortably go by the established "positive" era only – the era users typically are active during.

That leads to the more compelling argument by zxcvbnm (easy to type this handle, thank you!), but the result remains synthetic, less concise, and (again) seemingly pointless, as variously touched upon above. Essentially coining our own derivative label for the era system as such means it's a label our readers aren't likely to be thinking of or putting in the search bar as such either – and when they do, that's what redirects are for. There's no conceptual problem, and no pragmatic problem as far as I see. Remsense 🌈 论 13:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Needs more thorough consensus on whether to not move at all or move to "BC and AD" Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure why not. Would support a move to "BC and AD" as it wouldn't make sense to put a term that uses "before" after another term, as I did in the original move request. Also since the abbreviations are the most commonly and naturally used term, it would make more sense to use them in the article. Prothe1st (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Time has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• Move to BC and AD per Zxcvbnm as a concise alternative that addresses concerns raised by the nom. Both concepts should be named in the article to correctly identify its scope and content (WP:AND is satisfied). The abbreviations BC and AD are widely used and frequently discussed as a set. "BC and AD" is likely the WP:COMMONNAME for this concept. Even if the common name threshold is not clearly met, using the initialisms, especially as a set, improves recognizability and naturalness for a wide group of readers compared to the spelled-out Latin alone or in combination with the "before Christ". Thus "BC and AD" satisfies the considerations at WP:ACROTITLE and MOS:ACROTITLE and aligns better with the article title WP:CRITERIA than the current title and the original proposal. Ngram indicates "BC and AD" occurs more commonly than "AD and BC" for about the last 50 years, indicating this is the appropriate order per WP:AND, which calls for defaulting to alphabetical order unless usage dictates otherwise. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC) EDIT to clarify the point I was making with the Ngram. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• BC and AD per common names of the dating format. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Support alternative move over redirect BC and AD as per (least) WP:SURPRISE. fgnievinski (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose both original proposed and alternates this seems to be a good example of an exception to simply using commonname. Just because something is often referenced as something commonly, does not necessarily make that the correct title of an article. The topic being disucssed is infact Anno_Domini, and not just its shortened version. It is the reason why you'll find the majority of words found at List of Latin abbreviations are under their latin full spelling, instead of their abbreviation. We title Exempli gratia not Eg, Pro tempore instead of the vastly more common Protem, or In re versus the common Re (found in many email subject lines). TiggerJay (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (clarified bolded !vote to ensure it is understood that it is an objection to both TiggerJay (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC))

  @Tiggerjay the original proposal was to move the article to Anno Domini and Before Christ, which would seem to be acceptable by your arguments, no? fgnievinski (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps but to be clear: that question is now moot (US sense). There is a clear consensus that rejects that proposal. Accordingly, this RtM should be closed as rejected. If someone wants to initiate another RtM with a different proposal, let them create it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  A change of the suggested title does not require a different RM. It is not at all uncommon for an RM discussion to settle on a title that is not exactly what was proposed at the opening of the RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  So how can you determine who opposed (or supported) what? Restating the question in another RtM makes it unambiguous. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is not at all uncommon. Many different titles are often suggested during a discussion, and it is the responsibility of the person who closes the discussion to assess whether there is sufficient consensus to move an article and where to move it. Requiring a different RM every time the discussion identifies that a proposal is sub-optimal would be even more confusing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Fgnievinski - well stated, yes, I had the improper close presumption of "consensus" still in mind. However, even with that said, I oppose both the proposed alternate, as well as the proposed nom. I think there is already enough said about why the original nom is not a good idea. I will make a small edit above to clarify that. TiggerJay (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Tiggerjay thanks for the clarification. do you want to add any reason for rejecting the original proposal? it's a long form, as you argued for. fgnievinski (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Since you asked, I primarily agree with JMF, BarrelProof, and Remsense. I would add that Anno Domini and Before Christ not only represent two different languages, but also two different period of time where they were popularly used - by a span of over 1600 years. Per the article we would be better suited to be consistent with either latin anno [...] ante incarnationem Dominicam or ante Christum. Additionally, I would contend that "Anno Domini" is the event, and the other is a "relative word" derived from that event. If we wanted a policy reference, I would probably be based around ngrams and the reality that "Before Christ" in reference to this event is rarely ever used, but Anno Domini is broadly used - they are not even in the same realm of usage, and that doesn't even begin to factor in the reality that "Before Christ" is likely used in many other context beyond reference to the date. TiggerJay (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to BC and AD per nom and Myceteae's thoughts. ⇌ Synpath 14:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I already !voted above, but will add to my opposition to the alternative proposal here. No other article in Category:Calendar eras uses an abbreviation or acronym for the title, including Common Era. Moreover, the exact expression "BC and AD" is well behind the current title in the ngram cited above. What this move will accomplish is to increase slightly the separation between the oft seen acronym AD and its meaning. Srnec (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose both the proposal and a move to BC and AD. Anno Domini is the base encyclopedic concept. Before Christ is a derivation, while AD and BC are abbreviations. Cf. other Category:Calendar eras. —  AjaxSmack  02:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose both the original proposal and the alternative one per AjaxSmack. Graham11 (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Early close discussion

@Jeffrey34555:, uh, are you confident in this one? I really think I do okay at accepting when there's consensus against my position, even when I clearly don't understand that consensus at all, but for one thing your counting logic was frankly fallacious (were editors opposing initially under the understanding that their entire participation would be considered forfeit if they didn't also weigh in on another proposal there's no reason to assume they agreed with?) Your characterization of opposition points as lacking any substance or base in policy aren't fair either—while you essentially deemed a single NGRAMS link—pure statistic without any further analysis!—as sufficient to overrule what to my eyes was clearly close to a 50/50 split. I didn't originally make the point that the results clearly overcount instances in the corpus that are not representing a name for an era system—because I thought it was obvious this was an instance where NGRAMS alone could be particularly misleading! Say, for instance, the provision of dates in running text like and a Late Archaic phase (ca. 800 BC and AD 200) . I suggest unclosing, because this seems like a clear case for closure review. Remsense 🌈 论 17:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the lack of Wikipedia policy/guideline citations is really not sufficient, because V doesn't apply to talk page discussions. What matters is the arguments' actual relation to policy and guidelines, not the number of project namespace links. If one wanted to know more about why we held a given position and how it specifically relates to policy, they could've asked. This is a consensus-building discussion, after all. Remsense 🌈 论 17:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Closing a requested move states "Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request." Since Jeffrey34555 (talk · contribs) proposed the move, the closure and move are invalid on their face, and must be reversed promptly. Failure to reverse promptly would be reason for administrative actions. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

(How did I not notice that?) Remsense 🌈 论 18:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wasn't the one who originally proposed the move request. That would be @Prothe1st.

Regardless, it seems that there is more discussion needed, so I will be reversing the move and to let another closer find consensus. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It appears Jeffrey34555 just relisted the discussion, and per WP:RMCI as relister (who is otherwise uninvolved) may close the discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: My Ngram – I have edited my original !vote to clarify that I only shared this as support for "BC and AD" as opposed to the alphabetical ordering "AD and BC" (which no one has proposed). The Ngram was not intended to show whether "BC and AD" is more common than "Anno Domini‍"—the latter term was not even included for comparison. This does not change my view overall as this was only a minor point anticipating a potential argument in favor of the other order from editors who already favor the abbreviations here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Hoping for more input for a stronger consensus Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error in the "Today" infobox

There is an error in the "Today" infobox. At 00:42 2 Feb 2026 UTC (which I confirmed by making a test edit in WP:Sandbox), the infobox was saying that in the Gregorian calendar it was Saturday 31 January 2026 (and it is still saying the same an hour later). ~2025-33904-40 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Plus, I went into "Hebrew calendar" which also has a "Today" infobox near the top, and that one is saying (as of about 5 minutes ago), that the Gregorian date "at UTC+00" is Friday 30 January 2026.  ~2025-33904-40 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Due to MediaWiki and browser caching, these variables frequently show when the page was cached rather than the current time" – https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words#Date_and_time .

The template used to have a 'purge' button: maybe it should be reinstated though I think it was removed because it is not foolproof and frustrated people – especially at local New Year's eve. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

After Death / After the Day

The text says many people think AD stands for "After Death". I certainly remember thinking it stood for "After the Day" and was well aware that Jesus died in the year 30 or so (I was raised Catholic). Is there really any claim that a significant number believe it stands for "after death", especially compared to other mistaken guesses? Spitzak (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The book by Ryan that is cited makes this claim. Although there's no way to cite it, years ago there were quite a few instances of editors editing the article to claim AD means "after death". I don't think anybody ever edited to claim it means "After the Day". Jc3s5h (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually it is not in the cited page of that reference Spitzak (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the citation to point to the version originally cited. Somebody changed the citation to point to a 2007 version by American Media Mini Mags, Inc. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)