Talk:Anno Domini

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
December 4, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Time Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Material copied to another article

To resolve an obvious omission at Date of birth of Jesus, I have copied the text of Anno Domini#History to that article. So formally,

‹ The template below (Copied) is being considered for merging with merged-from. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Anno Domini was copied or moved into Date of birth of Jesus with this edit on 8 November 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anno reparatae salutis humanae" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

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)[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]

"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)[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]