Anno Domini is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2004.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 editJMF (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 🍄🟫—talk02:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 🍄🟫—talk02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anno reparatae salutis humanae and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 27#Anno reparatae salutis humanae until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)