Talk:2000

Years Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I think that you should add the United States under the Sub-category for all of the years, so its easy to get to national events if you live in the United States, like me.--67.168.180.94 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the text of '405 the movie' from being the first short film to being 'a' short film as i would argue the 1998 short Troops better qualifies as the first major short on the net. See Kronschnabl & Rawlings 2004:18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.26.136 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! the year 2000 Academy Awards results were, of course, the year 2001 winners, the Academy Awards pages should be reformatted soon for more clarity. --Neeklamy

Oughtn't this page to be in decade 1990's? Fi 19:14 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC) The sports section is somewhat biased towards the USA! markb

So add something that isn't. RickK | Talk 01:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ack. Can we please delete that ugly calendar, or at least move it to the bottom of the page? RickK | Talk 01:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed it. It was ugly and no other year pages seem to have it, so I don't see why 2000 should be the odd one out. -- Popsracer 05:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed bullet in "see also" box as per discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years --(talk to)BozMo 16:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've tentatively added a navbox template to replace the rather unattractive navigational elements at the top of the page. Dicussion at WikiProject Years. -- Seth Ilys 23:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 2000 wasn't a leap year... Ashibaka ✎ 22:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely was (as all years divisible by 400 are)—Trevor Caira 16:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can't find this page on 'Pages needing attention'. Does the notice still apply? Btljs

I couldn't find it there either, because that page doesn't have specific requests. Maybe it did once. I tidied a bit anyway. Robin Patterson 05:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"May 1 - Mark Prevey, Man (b. 1960)"

is this for real? or has some guy just added it in? a quick google search returned nothing... never heard of someone being famous for being a 'man' either :P

Well spotted! I removed it. Worldtraveller 08:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies

I'm sure there were a lot of crazy prophecies BEFORE 2000 on this page. We should leave them in, under a seperate, "prophecies that didnt come true, so there" category. It'd be a good lesson to everyone. Just take a look at the 2012 page.

That's the problem with Wikipedia. Even though there have been many, many, predictions about past years, they usually get cut out after the year is through. I don't know why- it really is interesting, what people thought would happen, and it is encyclopedic.bob bobato (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaries between centuries

Curious about the use of the expression popular culture. I believe there are official contexts which define 2000 as the first year of a new century. Laurel Bush 15:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

It's the first year of a new century (as is any year), namely the years 2000-2099, but it isn't the beginning of the 21st Century in the Gregorian Calendar, which is 2001-2100. AndrewWTaylor 13:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the 21st century must start on 2001 rather than 2000 is a bit pedantic. Helicoptor 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more pedantic than saying that the 21st century must start in 2001 instead of 2005. These words we use have meanings, and regardless of how sexy it is when the 9s all roll over to 0s, that's not what defines the beginning of a new century.

I just was passing through and saw this sillyness

January 1 - Millennium celebrations take place throughout the world, even though, provided you do not count 0 as a year, the new millennium did not technically begin until January 1, 2001. Y2K causes widespread computer failures and malfunctions that many in the news media had predicted. casting the world into a non electronic dark age.

January 1 - The United stated launches nuclear missiles at china and Russia without the use of computers, they accidently hit England

Rkrgoat 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out...I've reverted WWIII and trimmed the bloat in that January 1 entry. -- Jim Douglas 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

an entry on January 1st seems to say that the electronics sector was AFRIAD for Y2K to happen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munkee madness (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

sorry bout that, i forgot to sign it Munkee madness 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there, thats better

"The Year 2000"

Seems odd to me, but a lot of people say "the year 2000" but not, e.g., "the year 1999" or "the year 2005". If anyone has some info on why this is that may improve the article. 77.209.23.112 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) whoops, normally it signs me in automatically, didn't that time. EdX20 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any reliable sources on this? If not, it's probably original research.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exceptional leap year

Since century years that aren't leap years like 1900 and 1800 are labeled as exceptional common years, since they are divisble by 4 but not leap years, should century years that are leap years like 1600 and 2000 be labeled as exceptional leap years since most years divisble by 100 arent leap years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.248.49 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y2K and Computers

As a comment to a recent edit, Moncrief wrote "MOST computers 'thought' it was 1900?? Huh? The problems were fixed by changing to four digits. And computers can't think anyway. WTF?????" Agreed. Computers can't think.

I began my computer programming career in 1971 on a DEC PDP-8 having a whopping 8K of memory. (Not 8 gig, not 8 meg, that's 8K. Not even RAM, that was magnetic core memory. No hard drive, not even floppies, it used magnetic tape and punched-hole paper tape. Took a half hour to compile a decent-sized program.) The year 2000 was a distant dream. Two digits were plenty to record the year in a date/timestamp.

Fast-forward to the year 2001, when I visited my old home town and happened to bump into someone who "inherited" my software after I had left. She commented in a mildly critical tone, "You know, that software you wrote wasn't Y2K compliant." I said, "You mean that old software I wrote more than a quarter of a century ago is still being used today?"

Yes, my software wasn't Y2K compliant. Foolish me for assuming that it would either be scrapped, replaced or at least overhauled in 25+ years.

The DEC PDP-8? That got replaced by a PDP-11, then a Vax, then a who knows what. As for DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), it got bought by Compaq, which got bought by HP.

But my old Fortran code was still chugging along, even if it wasn't Y2K compliant. -- Art Smart (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 start of the New Millenium and 3rd century

I just wanted to say that 2000 isn't apart of the 20th century, it's also apart of the wrong millenium. It is apart of the 21st century and third millenium. That is why 2000 is know as the "Millenial year" or just the "millenials".~~Cakechild~~