Talk:Carrington Event/Archive 1

Effect more destructive than reported here?

The article says "Telegraph pylons threw sparks and telegraph paper spontaneously caught fire." I have also heard a claim that some telegraph operators were electrocuted by a surge of current in the line. Perhaps this was just a sensationalist fabrication, but if someone can find a reliable source it should be added to the article. 199.46.199.232 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Super-rewrite of 2009

I couldn't leave this article with less information in it than its parent article. I'm puzzled about the references. Every time I reference the same article, I expect the "references/" tag not to repeat it blindly. So, that needs cleanup. I'm also not clear on the timing of Carrington's observations. I hope my work inspires someone else to give it some attention.--Rfsmit (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Having just heard about this event, one thing I'd be interested in seeing is an expansion on why the storm arrived so quickly, ie more than just the previous storm 'cleared the way'. How'd that work? The slide deck referenced unfortunately doesn't seem to expand on that either.81.130.208.8 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Carrington Event

I was looking for the above on the incursion of plasma into our atmosphere and was redirected here. Please consider noting this: "Space Storm Alert: 90 seconds from catastrophe" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html%3Ffull%3Dtrue rumjal 08:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Specific wording

During my nostalgic trip through this article's history, I noticed a minor wording revision by User:RTG on 2009-12-18, which changed my "taking 18 hours", to "a journey of 18 hours". I undid this today because by no means is it normally a journey of 18 hours. Thanks to all the other editors who've improved the article since my first large contribution to Wikipedia.--Rfsmit (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How can a journey normally taking 3-4 days be reduced to 18 hours by an earlier CME having "cleared its way". What does that mean? How can a CME clear the way?JohnC (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page

I see vandalism under the "See Also" section. I am not familiar with this article nor wikipedia editing. I would not want to revert to another version of this article with vandalism hidden within it. Someone with ANY experience should revert this page. 149.32.192.33 (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links

"Reference" 4 returns a 404 error. "Space Storm Alert: 90 seconds from catastrophe" from the "Carrington event" entry above demands I pay them $99 for the privilige of reading. Not quite a proper dead link I know, but the same effect for me...

Basesurge (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaced one to make it easier as far as verifiability. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: Cite formatting

Update: I am pretty much finished with the preliminary cite formatting, made it more uniform throughout. Added a cite or two where there was uncited/unsourced/unreferenced information - and also removed one site that went to a deadlink where there was no archive link, and replaced it with a book cite. Next step: on to expanding the article with additional sourced material, and possibly reevaluating at that point the overall layout and structure of the page. This would of course eventually lead to an expansion of the lede/intro, after all that other stuff is done first. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources

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

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sunspots

The passage of the CME to Earth normally takes three to four days. How did an earlier CME clear the way, so that this one moved faster? Some explanation of the science should be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk • contribs)

Okay, good area for additional secondary source research. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an astronomer who specialized in spotted variable stars in grad school. (Now I'm an SF author. See my wiki entry for more info, including a link to my thesis.) Basically the earlier CME swept away the interplanetary medium along the path, thus creating something closer to vacuum for the later - and larger - CME to move through. No bow shocks, no friction (or lower friction, at least) thus it can move at VERY high speeds. Hope this helps. Steph-osborn (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The source already has the explanation. Added. Also it claims 17hrs not 18. Widefox (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We should have a section on the effects of a storm like this and how we would deal with it today.

Solar storms of this size are one of the biggest natural disaster possibilities for us to prepare for. It has been estimated that if a solar flare like this one occurred today, it would leave parts of the country without power for six months because there would be no way to build that many backup transformers that quickly. This is in addition to the massive problems we would have with Data Loss, etc. The need for disaster preparedness is far more interesting than most of the details included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.69.97 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit from the scientific american article, and linked from there to Geomagnetic storm where there are more details.★NealMcB★ (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

added category "Space hazards" Widefox (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This article in the news.

A summary of this article was read out during a discussion on the dangers of electromagnetic pulses on the BBC Radio 4 today program on 22-February 2012. JRPG (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

yes. fixed it up a bit. Widefox (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sept. 01, 2012: Garrison Keillor's The Writer's Almanac radio-short on NPR mentioned this event, and the line about people in the northeastern Unites States being able to read their newspaper by the aurora's light was presented with very similar language as it is described in our article. I don't know if he was taking this directly from the article, or the article's source, since no attribution was given. Ditch ∝ 16:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

After checking it appears he may have been drawing directly from our article, since the line is (correctly) paraphrased in-own-words from a quote from the source. It is possible, however, that Keillor's paraphrasing may have simply been coincidentally close to our own since its a relatively straight-forward bit of trivia. Anyway, here's the transcript of the show: Writer's Almanac transcript for Sept. 01, 2012 Ditch ∝ 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing antecedant

Under Carrington Super Flare, a previous flare is referenced but never mentioned: "This second CME moved so quickly because the first one had cleared the way of the ambient solar wind plasma." I'm aware that there was indeed a first flare, but this article doesn't discuss it except to refer to it as I mentioned. I think the first flare should be at least mentioned, or references to it removed completely. Failing anyone else doing it, I will briefly mention the first flare.Leveretth (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename Solar cycle 10 to Solar storm of 1859

Should the page Solar cycle 10 be renamed to this page? This page and Solar cycle 10 are the same event. Robert.Harker (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Widespread problems?

The article makes mentione of "widespread problems." What are these? The article should detail what these problems might be, and provide citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.2.199 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the widespread problems would be to the electrical grid in many countries. Over currents could cause serious equipment failures to power stations making repairs last for weeks.

As this would occur world wide, parts for repair and replacement would be in short supply or non existent, especially to older equipment in third world countries.

Thankfully in many countries, the electrical grid has been slowly improved since 1895. Since the mid nineteen nineties many changes have been made to protect equipment such as sophisticated high speed relays that detect dangerous current levels then open parts of the electrical grid protecting high dollar utilities.

Because of the grid improvements that are an ongoing project, a large hi speed CME would me more of a short term (days, not weeks or months)inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.10.200 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Crochet?

The article states: "a simultaneous crochet observed in the Kew Observatory magnetometer record", and the word "crochet" links to the Sudden ionospheric disturbance article. However, the word "crochet" never shows up in the Sudden ionospheric disturbance article, begging the question, what is meant by "crochet"? 192.249.47.204 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

In this context, the word "crochet" is related to the French word for "hook". It refers to a magnetic perturbation that (on a magnetogram time series) looks like a sharp change away from a normal quiet-time baseline, followed by a gradual return to the baseline. This type of magnetic variation is caused by a sudden change in the conductivity of the ionosphere during a solar-flare. This conductivity change results in enhance ionospheric currents and, then, in a magnetic perturbation. Crochet is an older term used by geophysicists until rather recently, and it is not used very often now. Just a piece of trivia that I happen to know. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Invalid referrence

Nothing of this text: "Aurorae were visible at sea level at the latitudes of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea and Dakar, Senegal; in theory, at least, observers in the equatorial regions, particularly at higher elevations, may have been able to see the aurora borealis and aurora australis simultaneously. A story about this (the location usually given as the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro and/or well up into the Andes) which has circulated for years probably refers to either this or the January 25-26, 1938 aurora.[9] The latter storm by most measures was not as strong as that of the Carrington event in 1859, but the colour, shape, and persistent intensity of the 1938 aurorae (blood red over Europe and North America as well as the Southern Hemisphere) have led to the 1938 event being as well known or better known than that in 1859.[9]" appear on the referred webpage.Reing (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, I fixed this problem. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Issues with Section on "Similar events"

Please note that I have a conflict of interest with this section and am requesting that an independent reviewer consider what I have written below and my suggested edits.

Contrary to what the section "Similar events" suggests, the issue of whether nitrate spikes in ice cores can be used to archive past solar events is an ongoing controversy that is far from resolved. The statement "More recent work by the ice core community shows that nitrate spikes are not a result of solar energetic particle events..." is incomplete, out of date, and factually incorrect. I include three newer citations (on which I am coauthor) below. Also, the sentence starting with "These similar but much more extreme cosmic ray events..." has issues. The word "These" does not specifically refer back to anything that precedes it and should be dropped. My suggestion is to either drop most of the Similar Events section (at least everything preceding "These similar events..."), or to modify it to say the following:

Ice cores containing thin nitrate-rich layers have been analyzed to reconstruct a history of past solar storms predating reliable observations. Data from Greenland ice cores, gathered by space scientist Kenneth G. McCracken[13] and others, show evidence that events of this magnitude—as measured by high-energy proton radiation, not geomagnetic effect—occur approximately once per 500 years, with events at least one-fifth as large occurring several times per century.[14] Some recent work by the ice core community has suggested that nitrate spikes are not a result of solar energetic particle events, so use of this technique has been questioned. However, a new, complete, atmospheric ionization model study has shown that the most energetic, hard-spectrum event yet measured, the 23 February 1956 solar proton event, can quantitatively account for an associated nitrate spike in a Greenland ice core.[15] The use of nitrate profiles in ice cores together with Beryllium-10 and carbon-14 levels, considered to be reliable indicators by the ice core community[16], may allow a more complete characterization of the spectra of large solar events in the past. Similar, but much more extreme cosmic ray events, may originate outside the solar system and even outside the galaxy. Less severe storms have occurred in 1921 and 1960, when widespread radio disruption was reported. The March 1989 geomagnetic storm knocked out power across large sections of Quebec. On July 23, 2012 a "Carrington-class" Solar Superstorm (Solar flare, Coronal mass ejection, Solar EMP) was observed; its trajectory missed Earth in orbit. Information about these observations was first shared publicly by NASA on April 28, 2014.[3][17]

A new reference [15] is proposed to be inserted, which shifts old references [15] and [16] to [16] and [17]. The proposed reference 15 is:

Atmospheric ionization by high-fluence, hard-spectrum solar proton events and their probable appearance in the ice core archive, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (Part D), 121, Adrian L. Melott, Brian C. Thomas, Claude M. Laird, Ben Neuenswander, and Dimitra Atri, doi:10.1002/2015JD024064, 2016.

Two more-recent, additional publications that have bearing on this issue are:

Reply to comment by E. W. Wolff et al. on "Low time resolution analysis of polar ice cores cannot detect impulsive nitrate events", Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (Part A), 121, D. F. Smart, M. A. Shea, A. L. Melott, and C. M. Laird, doi:10.1002/2015JA021913, 2016.

Low time resolution analysis of polar ice cores cannot detect impulsive nitrate events, D.F. Smart, M.A. Shea, A. L. Melott, and C. M. Laird, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (Part A,) 119, doi:10.1002/2014JA020378, 2014.

If you have questions or need further elaboration, I am happy to help. Thanks for you consideration.

Claude m laird (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the section describing ice cores and what seems to be a non-observation of a nitrate signal related to Carrington. I agree, the subject is controversial. Your paper (which you want cited) is bit tangential to this issue. Your paper is about simulations of events that might produce nitrates that might end up being recorded in ice. I think empirical records are more relevant to this article, which is about something that actually occurred: the Carrington event. Already cited is the paper by Wolff which is a direct analysis of cores taken from both Greenland and Antarctica -- only one of those cores (from Greenland) shows something that might be the Carrington event. So, right off the bat, there is no empirical consistency. Furthermore, the one signal that might be Carrington also carries other signatures indicating that it is a burn event. For now, a lack of convincing empirical evidence is the main problem here. I don't want to get into a protracted discussion with you (one of the authors on the Melott paper), but I don't believe that your paper needs to be cited for this article on the 1859 event. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Set fire to train tracks?

Just watched a youtube video on the official "NASA Langley Research Center" channel where there is a casual mention that the Carrington Event (tho they get the date wrong) set fire to some train tracks in USA, due to the conductive nature of the rails combined with the tar & wood in the sleepers. Not sure how accurate this is. Wikpedia's spam filter rejects Youtube links, so the talk is titled "NASA Talk - Path to Mars and Asteroid Mission: The First Step" the relevant section being 7min40sec Roidroid (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar storm of 1859. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?full=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

deaths?

I've heard there were deaths from some shocks, any basis?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not according to C. Muller (2014).[1] Praemonitus (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading sentence in lede about widespread disruption in a modern society

This sentence is confusing and potentially misleading:

"A solar storm of this magnitude occurring today would cause widespread disruptions and damage to a modern and technology-dependent society."

It should be more specific. Reader will think it could disrupt the internet, your mobile phone connections, destroy your laptop, etc - especially since there is widespread confusion between the effects of a NEMP and a solar storm.

The main effects are

• Glitching satellites. Just memory glitches and they keep rebooting until the storm is over when they are back to normal. It's mainly the effects on GPS that the studies focus on
• Effects on the electricity grid.

There are also other minor effects such as radiation effects on high flying jets in polar regions and on astronauts in the ISS.

The glitching satellites are multibillion dollar losses but not catastrophic. Widespread expensive but mainly minor inconvenience rather than significant disruption. Especially the idea of "damage to ... society" which suggests something rather more significant than your GPS glitching for a few hours during the storm.

The electricity grid issues did seem more catastrophic originally. The power supply for large parts of the US cut off for months. However more recent studies suggest the grid is far more hardy than originally thought. Only older steup up transformers and the ones nearing the end of their life would be affected. There aren't many of these, and they are multiply redundant too. It's downgraded now to short term power cuts of a few hours in some areas and repairs that would take months - but immediately back on line, within hours - that's just long term repairs to the damaged equipment.

Quoting from the conclusion of the NERC executive summary:

“The most likely worst‐case system impacts from a severe GMD event and corresponding GIC flow is voltage instability caused by a significant loss of reactive power support11 simultaneous to a dramatic increase in reactive power demand. Loss of reactive power support can be caused by the unavailability of shunt compensation devices (e.g., shunt capacitor banks, SVCs) due to harmonic distortions generated by transformer half‐cycle saturation. Noteworthy is that the lack of sufficient reactive power support, and unexpected relay operation removing shunt compensation devices was a primary contributor to the 1989 Hydro‐Québec GMD‐induced blackout. ”

“NERC recognizes that other studies have indicated a severe GMD event would result in the failure of a large number of EHV transformers. The work of the GMD Task Force documented in this report does not support this result for reasons detailed in Chapter 5 (Power Transformers), and Chapter 8 (Power System Analysis). Instead, voltage instability is the far more likely result of a severe GMD storm, although older transformers of a certain design and transformers near the end of operational life could experience damage, which is also detailed in Chapter 5 (Power Transformers).”

There is also skepticism about whether the 1959 event was as powerful as suggested. See Comment on “The extreme magnetic storm of 1–2 September 1859” by B. T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzalez, G. S. Lakhina, and S. Alex

Robert Walker (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"There is also skepticism about whether the 1959 event was as powerful as suggested."

I'm sure you meant 1859 -- you may wish to go ahead and correct that. Captain Quirk (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Duration of the event

There is no description of how long the event lasted is there? Minors observed the light in the morning, but when did it end?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2020

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: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

September 1859 geomagnetic storm → Carrington Event – As stated below, this is commonly known as the Carrington Event, rarely as the September 1859 geomagnetic storm Dudley Miles (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITERIA, the name of this article should be Carrington Event. There are a massive number of Ghits (110,000) for "Carrington Event"; and far fewer the "September 1859 geomagnetic storm". This ratio is also true for scientific papers. Praemonitus (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2020 (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.

Recent revert

Evolauxia has reverted "was the largest geomagnetic storm of the last 500 years" to "one of the largest geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground-based magnetometers)" on the ground that "it's the largest by some measures but not all". The source says "the biggest solar storm on record", which is obviously different to either version. We do need a source for saying it is not the largest by some measures, not a wording which conflicts with the source cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the comment by Dudley Miles and what I think is the edit in question: [2], I note that we must bear in mind that the "Carrington event" wss actually a couple of things that were related, but not the same. There was the solar flare, which was related to a coronal mass ejection of plasma from the Sun. We might call all of that a "solar storm". And, there was the geomagnetic storm at Earth that was driven by the coronal mass ejection when it arrived at Earth. Attic Salt (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That is useful clarification, but the point remains that the text has been changed so that it no longer reflects the source, Scientific American at [3]. This says that "The solar superstorm of 1859 was the fiercest ever recorded." and "Ice cores suggest that such a blast of solar particles happens only once every 500 years". It does not say "one of the largest geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground-based magnetometers)". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I added an appropriate citation. Attic Salt (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Partially ungrammatical

In what way? --TedColes (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to this revert, then it's because of the following.

1. The "even" in "It [...] caused sparking and even fires in multiple telegraph stations" acts as an intensive to stress "fires" as being extreme compared to "sparking". This should be avoided in my opinion as there is no evidence provided to suggest that fires at telegraph stations are any less common than sparking during a geomagnetic storm.
2. The two commas in "A very bright solar flare, associated with the geomagnetic storm, was observed" signify that the clause between them is not essential information. I'd argue that it is essential because the fact that the flare is associated with the storm is the only reason the flare is being discussed.
3. The comma in "Worldwide reports of the effects of the geomagnetic storm of 1859, were compiled" simply separates the subject from the verb.

However, I do agree with your removal of the semicolon in the Auroras section. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

1. From the sources I have read, fires were only reported from America, not from Europe. It is common knowledge that not all sparks lead to fire, so I have restored "even".
2. My edit was an attempt to re-structure a clumsy sentence. I have tried again.
3. I accept your point
4. I have restored the removal of the semicolon.

--TedColes (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is a logic contradiction -Some telegraph operators could continue to send and receive messages despite having disconnected their power supplies

It's either: "could NOT continue to send msgs despite having disconnected", or "could continue to send msgs having disconnected prior to the flare"

There is no contradiction. It is saying that the flare supplied the power. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You have not indicated any way in which the sentence is a "logic (sic) contradiction"--in fact it is not. OTOH, neither of your suggested sentences is factually correct (and the first one doesn't make sense) -- they disconnected after the event began, and were able to send messages before and after the disconnection, so "could continue" is correct.--Jibal (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Scorpion TV serie

This event mentioned in season 4, episode 14 77.19.44.87 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Trivia sections should be avoided. See WP:MISCELLANEA. Praemonitus (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Similar events

Under the Similar Events section is mentioned 1960 with no link to source or even additional information. Patrioticparadox (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Y Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed it. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Insert heading

This sentence: "Carbon-14 levels stored in 775 suggest an event about 20 times the normal variation of the sun's activity, and 10 or more times the size of the Carrington Event." is based on a non-scholarly (Knowable magazine) article which sites Miyazaki et al's original strength estimate of the 775-775 event. However, a more recent scholarly article exists which challenges the estimated size of a corresponding solar event. I would therefore suggest the exact size estimates from the article be deleted. Here is the relevant article: Usoskin, Ilya G., et al. "The AD775 cosmic event revisited: the Sun is to blame." Astronomy & Astrophysics 552 (2013): L3. 2601:194:400:DED0:C5F8:B93C:E46E:18C (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there an argument to switch from CE dating to BC here?

The article was originally written to use CE/BCE to identify years rather than AD/BC? Is there an argument to be made for switching? _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard rule is that the existing date format should not be changed unless there is a strong reason to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style. However, I do not think it is needed at all in most cases. I see it still leaves one BCE. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's why I argue for maintaining the established format, rather than the recent changes asserted. I'm not sure that just eliminating "CE" (leaving one "BCE", as you say) is a solution or an improvement. The signature of a large solar storm has been found for 774–775 and for 993–994. Carbon-14 levels stored in 775 suggest an event about 20 times the normal... I don't think it's very clear, at least on the first couple of scans, that the numbers refer to years. I recommend restoring the "CE" as originally provided. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)